host

Some of us here transparently post the sources that shape our opinions, and some of us apparently prefer to visit sites like the most recent one that politicophile posted; www.gop.com .

Your approach here seems very similar to politicophile's......you never responded to my quesions, here: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=1850316&postcount=45

The scenario on this forum plays out over and over, I lay out my opinion, complete with a majority of references from main stream sources, you counter with a contradictory opinion, and if it includes references, they are more often than not from obscure or biased sources. You dismiss most or all of my documentation, or you ignore it completely.

You posture in a similar way to politicophile, acting as if your opinion or point is obviously true or reliable, without showing the rest of us what influenced your thinking.Then you'll fail to respond, as in the example cited in my last link in this post, and you'll maintain a running commentary in the forum with jabs like, "host hasn't responded, google must be down, or barbs about your distaste for the amount of content in my posts.

You do everything to keep the focus of your criticism on the messenger, because you are unwilling or unable to engage in a series of posts where you
respond to the points in the message.

Aside from the effort that you put into your "Good things about Iraq" thread, you have not demonsrated a willingness to make your claim, back it up with reports from MSM or other non-partisan sources, and defend your points and references and rebut those posted by others.

That describes the exchanges that are supposed to take place at this forum.
politicophile has not shown a willingness to participate as I've described, and now he announces that he will step back for a while.

When you start a thread or make a point here, you should be prepared to back up your point with comments other than talking points, prejudices, or feelings. Exchanges need to progress similarly to what happens in a courtroom, a process that attempts findings of fact. That process requires research, and it is not usually helpful to look on rnc.com or dnc.com .

If you disagree with my outline of how our exchanges should be conducted on this forum, powerclown please offer points of disagreement, and your own outline of how we should structure our discussions here, and examples that show you operating within your guidelines, in your prior posts.

How do we end, for example, people posting opinions that there is a strong chance that the US will till find caches of Iraqi WMD, in Iraq or in other locations, using a different approach than I have used to discourage posts that still try to advance the idea, other than to respond to every post like that with links and excerpts from white house press secretary mCclellan's admissions too reporters that the expected weapons were not there to be found, and were not expected to be found?

Your "gueriilla op-ed" critical comment fails to mention the vast amount of news reports and reliable, referenced documentation that was posted for politicophile and others who agreed with him, to consider and respond to, but unfortunately, that did not happen. What took place here, as far as a fact finding proocess, was very one sided, as most other threads are. If that is the core reason motivating your comments, why not make the effort to challenge the documented points that others make with points of similar strength and transparency?

The argument that 'we will till find Iraqi WMD" finally went away because it was challenged with a set of unimpeachable points of fact, everytime it was raised. All future weak, tentative, and unsupported arguments will meet the same fate on these threads, no matter how obviously valid they may appear to be to you.