Saturday, March 09, 2013
What's In A Name?
An annoying, yet interesting, discussion unfolding at GMD about Vermont's pre-Union status as a republic...
March 9, 2013 | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference What's In A Name?:
The post that you linked to was about a book and the conversation did not revolve around you and your pet hoobyhorse. Why let facts get in the way of one of your memes? One thing I've discovered about secesher drones is that it's always all about them. As you say, you're "rather full of (yourself)."
Posted by: Thomas Rowley | Mar 10, 2013 7:24:33 PM
Uh...the post might have been about one thing, but the discussion in the thread was obviously something different, which is why I said "unfolding". But why let that fact get in the way of your hobbyhorse, which appears to be labeling anybody who disagrees with your interpretation of history as a drone.
Still haven't answered whether you think the US is a republic when the Constitution doesn't use the word, amongst other flaws in your reasoning.
Coulda been an interesting, enlightening and fun discussion, but you had to go call me and everybody else who disagrees with you on this point delusional and drinkers of kool aid.
Posted by: NTodd Pritsky | Mar 10, 2013 8:01:50 PM
Nice coloring job but, as I said, this will continue elsewhere and on my schedule, not yours. You have an agenda to advance the flawed notion that Vermont was a republic that was, in fact, independent. Your extrapolation vs. fact based reasoning is, frankly, embarrassing for you.
Thanks for making this a larger discussion. I look forward to making a political aspirant accountable for what they didn't do when they could have on a ost of issues.
Oh, and I don't feel it necessary to ever answer any question from a Vermont secessionist hanger on. You should know me better than.
The next time you'd like to stab one of your associates in the back, don't hesitate to drop me a line again, snitch.
Posted by: Thomas Rowley | Mar 10, 2013 11:58:36 PM
I don't have an agenda, I am not a secesh hanger on, and have no associates in the movement since was blackballed since just after the election because, you know, I was never secesh and called out Dennis Steele and others. But I like the vague threat about accountability for...whatever, and the stance that you're somehow in control and have the moral high ground!
It's rather amusing, and disappointing that you can't brook disagreement with your thesis and have to make assumptions about my motives.
Posted by: NTodd Pritsky | Mar 11, 2013 12:04:32 AM
You know, I was remarking to Ericka today that I credited arguing with Odum, reading your stuff, and interacting personally with the SVR folks, all together changed my view of what Naylor et al were about. So I admit to being rather shocked at your invective, unwillingness to even consider somebody could reach a different conclusion than you, and compulsion to lay some agenda at my feet.
And now after telling me not to be self-absorbed, you're ignoring the historical discussion and somehow going to make me accountable for some thing(s) I apparently didn't do? WTF is that about?
Oh, right, you won't answer my questions...
Posted by: NTodd Pritsky | Mar 11, 2013 12:21:36 AM