on 9/7/2008 3:43 PM Jim Logajan said the following:
Rich Ahrens wrote:
on 9/7/2008 1:49 PM Jay Maynard said the following:
Bertie's one of the primary causes of the hangar getting burned to
the ground. For you to defend him as you do merely sullies your own
reputation.
First off, I'm not defending him. He's quite capable of doing so
himself if he chooses. Holding the same opinion as someone some of the
time (e.g., Maxie is an idiot) is not defending that person. Neither
is conversing with him. Or correcting factual errors about past
history. The fact that you cannot tell the difference places your
judgment in question.

Well shucks, you confused a false dichotomy with an unproven assumption in
another post, but I wouldn't hold that against you.

No, you falsely characterized it, as I've explained elsewhere. But I
won't hold it against you.

I'm with Jay Maynard on suspecting you are using a stealth defense of the
person posting as Bertie. Feel free to consider my judgment in question
too. I've always suspected my judgment to be **** poor too. ;-)

Couldn't say one way or the other in other contexts. But you're wrong
here. By your reasoning: Jimmy Carter condemns Israel's treatment of
Palestinians, as does OBL, therefore Carter is using a stealth defense
of OBL. That kind of spurious reasoning might fly in some circles (Jay
H's reactionary mind, for instance), but it's ****-poor judgment.

Excellent: your opinion on Jay Honeck's views is clear. Now if you can make
(or point to a past posting) of a clear opinion of Bertie's postings it
will be clear whether your posts are in fact a stealth defense of him or
merely an incidental byproduct of objective observations.

I have no obligation to do so. It is your assertion, Jay's, or both. The
burden of proof is on you.

However, no one is driving Jay away.

"However, no one is driving X away."
Where X = {Bob Gardner, Dudley Henriques, Jay Honeck, C. Gattman, ... }

In other words, a throw-away rhetorical line.

No. Jay M asserted that Jay H was "being ruthlessly driven away." I
simply contradicted him with an equally bald assertion.

So if someone posts an opinion on PoA that Jay Honeck disagrees with, then
are you claiming it will be squelched? Are you claiming Jay controls PoA?
I'm having a hard time relating the objective facts of the operation of PoA
with your pseudo-psychological analysis.

I'm saying it is inherent in the nature of that heavily moderated forum
to meet Jay's need to be coddled, as supported by their having at least
temporarily shut down the one area where anything is supposedly fair
game. And further supported by Jay's blathering in praise of that action.