You never offended me until you referenced Canolli and compounded it with DA. I specifically referenced Joel hitting two people, but you call me out for not jumping on Canolli then essentially just now say you didn't need to respond to DA, and thus presumably neither did I, because Joel had responded to him, but Joel had also already responded to Canolli, and I assume my fairly obvious reference to him supporting Joel explicitly would qualify as stating my negative view of his post. So yes, there, you screwed up and have offended me. This is further compunded because you repeat the claim that MOST of the points were on target, in spite of my having already said No, I've got no beef with your thread, and most posts were just fine, civil, and interesting enough for me to follow. Why are you still pounding that drum when I've already clarified that no such intent was there? Why should I not resent someone saying the equivalent of "I object to you calling oranges purple, they are not purple" right after I had said "Oranges are not purple, if you thought I mean that, I did not.".

As to the rest, the thing bugging me that worries me about losing my temper is that you utterly misinterpret my OP, which really had virtually nothing to do with the people in the thread, something Joel and Ray both seem to have gotten just fine. I think, reviewing some things, that the 'pink bucket' must have come in there. So you know, the pink bucket commentary is in a lot of other articles on this and something that is a personal irritation because a younger relative with whom I enjoy drinking coffee and discussing matters works at KFC and it came up long before this thread or incident. So if that's part of the 'scolding' you refer to, it was at best peripherally related. Actually the only comment even aimed at the majority of posters in the thread was the 'salt' one.

I also could, were it appropriate, write out a massive laundry list of things I've seen, on the national stage or in my own charitable and political volunteer work, that justify my comments, but I thought the thrust fairly self-evident. Let me re-summarize though, beyond the news update, the jab you yourself have already said was deserved at certain persons, and a disclaimer about my own alignment and view, everything I said amounts to "I hate that good causes get hijacked, and am bitter about it because there really is no alternative, except for people to judge causes on their merits and not their spokespeople, which will never happen as long as we all continue to be accomplices to it." Whatever else you see in there, isn't there. And I regret that it was apparently seen to be there, but I feel more strongly after your previous post that you went in and saw what you expected. So you know, I don't usually preface remarks I consider open and shut with 'rubbing salt in', this sort of self-description of a person about their own remarks typically doesn't indicate they are gloating or riding a high horse or scolding. I am fundamentally remarking on my opinion that this thread, by its very nature, good not avoid causing the very thing I am bitter about. And I standby that, because I simply can not see any reason Komen's actions should logically effect the funding of their cause. Yet I don't think many who were in this thread, no matter how civil, view it that way. I think that we collectively taint the process, every time we pay more attention to a commercial with a celeb endorsing something, or a heated political debate about it occurring. Yet this happening is, again, essentially inevitable, because we all do perk up our ears when a figure or group we like endorses as given cause, and because any cause which can get such endorsements and publicity would be fools and even negligent not to do so.



Reply or not, as you see fit, I am happy to let it go because I do not see myself as the clean unblemished figure here, but I resent that you seem to think you were, and even went so far as imply I was opposed to people's right to voice their opinion when I explicitly made it clear I was opposed to an assumption of a moral, not legal, right to speak out on some issues. It's not hard for me to see how you could read me wrong, but I don't like that you didn't extend me the benefit of the doubt and kept on even after I clarified myself.