Dear Brett,
No I'm not "courageous" enough to post your comment (I call it being unfair, like life). Yes I am aware that I selectively dropped the bits from your original comment that got me the most teeved. Seeing as how it was an open letter to you and you knew what you wrote, I don't see the problem. Especially as I disallowed comments to that open letter.
It's lovely of you to accuse me of being unable to read when my phrasing of a statement included the words "twisting your metaphore".
It's lovely that you used an analogy that compared an internet disagreement to a specific super heroic war time action; In or out of context.
It's lovely of you to call me dear, personally, just as you referred to female, gender issues conscientious bloggers as 'My dear Wonder Women'.
It's lovely how you USED said analogy and the above phrase to try and twist the power politics of gender around and further detract from the original discussion.
It's lovely of you to AGAIN miss the point of my orignal posted entry response.
Sarcasm Note: Lovely is being used for other than its dictionary purpose.
Personal Note: I will c/p to you something I wrote to the person with whom I actually had a disagreement of thoughts. "I never promised you a rose garden. I never claimed to give you a clean or clear slate to convince me of anything."
Why you seem to think I'm going to look for entries, or follow up on supposed gender equality cred, by you, - I have no damn clue. Does my journal LOOK like Ragnell's? Answer is no. First off all hers is usually green and mine is pink.
General Note: I am not a fair person. I do NOT suffer fools gladly. I especially mock anonymous fools. (You could have put a name in the text, Brett). And three times is as much as I plan to ever engage in conversations that go nowhere. Ragnell will have a conversation with you patronizing asses. She has hope for you, along with a hefty appetite for troll du jour.
I have no time for your various, rubber stamped, society approved entitlements.
