At 11:24 AM 12/6/2004 -0800 Dave Land wrote: >I like Dan's parsing of JDG's statement, but I see where Nick's coming >from, too. At the risk of drawing unwarranted conclusions about his >motives, JDG may want to have both ways: he posts (I read: "endorses") >an article that presents evidence that the author believes bodes ill >for the Dems, but distances himself from the author's conclusions by >calling those conclusions "all too gloomy." > >John: do we read you right?
Who's "we" stranger? Dan is right. You are wrong. Unless of course one is only allowed to post thought-provoking articles that one agrees with on this List. In short, the future of the Democratic Party has been a topic for discussion on this List. I read this article, and thought that the author had some interesting points about the subject. I posted this article to the List for other people's enjoyment, and was careful to specify that I was not in agreement with everything the author had to say, and gave some indication of my disagreeements. If you're going to call me underhanded for that - for of all things expressing an opinion that is favorable to the Democrats - then I'm not sure that I want anything more to do with you, as at that point it will be clear that you are unable to take me at my word, which would make further discussion pointless. JDG _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
