Rexroad writes about The People’s Vanguard of Davis in his blog: Rexroad Blog
Rexroad writes: “The folks at The People’s Vanguard of Davis (although I disagree with them often) make some good points. They are an alternate media source that I look at most every day.”
In many ways, Rexroad and I are very much on opposite sides of the fence politically. There will be times during the course of his tenure, when he will hate me with a passion and curse the ground I walk on. Or at least I hope. But I think he brings up an issue that I think we both agree on wholeheartedly. The need for alternative media. The express need to be able to give people access to information that they cannot get at conventional sources.
I founded this blog several months ago because of the frustration that I felt stemming from the June Primary election in Davis and the disbanding of the Human Relations Commission. I founded it because I felt like we, the progressive left of Davis, did not have a voice. Between the Davis Enterprise as a guardian and gatekeeper of information and Bob Dunning who slammed the progressives every chance he got, I felt like there was no way to get the message out to the public.
The second part of this blog that I think is equally important is that it is interactive. If you disagree with Dunning or disagree with the Enterprise, you can write one letter to the editor that is limited to 350 words. If you disagree with me, you can log on and write to your heart’s content. You can question where I got the information. You can correct me when I am wrong. I can correct you when I am not. We have a place where we might not always agree, but we can have dialogue. And we may at the end of the day, understand each other a little better or at least agree to disagree.
When I started this blog, I never imagined it would become so popular and be as effective as it has. Hopefully we can continue to make an impact on Davis and hopefully that impact will be positive.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
Excuse this ad hoc comment but I’m incensed. Rifkin’s column about Pinochet’s legacy in the Enterprise today is an obsenity. Next , he’ll be writing that Hitler built the Autobahn, after all.
Excuse this ad hoc comment but I’m incensed. Rifkin’s column about Pinochet’s legacy in the Enterprise today is an obsenity. Next , he’ll be writing that Hitler built the Autobahn, after all.
Excuse this ad hoc comment but I’m incensed. Rifkin’s column about Pinochet’s legacy in the Enterprise today is an obsenity. Next , he’ll be writing that Hitler built the Autobahn, after all.
Excuse this ad hoc comment but I’m incensed. Rifkin’s column about Pinochet’s legacy in the Enterprise today is an obsenity. Next , he’ll be writing that Hitler built the Autobahn, after all.
Davisite,
Please tell me specifically what I’ve written that is “obscene” or even incorrect.
It’s interesting to me that you hurl “Hitler” at me. Now that is truly obscene, considering that I am a Jew and members of my family were killed by the Nazis. If you think Pinochet compares in any way to Hitler, you have no understanding of history or of the Holocaust.
So far, my email response (just 3 letters) has been positive, though it is early and email response is not necessarily indicative of wider feelings.
As an aside…. there is an interesting historical connection between Davis and Pinochet. Prior to the 1973 coup, there was some kind of an exchange between an agricultural college in Chile and UC Davis. After the coup, when Pinochet shut down some universities in an effort to rout out communists (who were concentrated at a few universities), a number of Chilean ag scholars moved to Davis. I recall in my second grade class, we had two Chileans who came at that time. It was only when I was in college that a childhood friend of mine pointed out that the arrival of the Chileans to Davis in 1973 was due to the Pinochet putsch. I’d never before given it any thought.
Davisite,
Please tell me specifically what I’ve written that is “obscene” or even incorrect.
It’s interesting to me that you hurl “Hitler” at me. Now that is truly obscene, considering that I am a Jew and members of my family were killed by the Nazis. If you think Pinochet compares in any way to Hitler, you have no understanding of history or of the Holocaust.
So far, my email response (just 3 letters) has been positive, though it is early and email response is not necessarily indicative of wider feelings.
As an aside…. there is an interesting historical connection between Davis and Pinochet. Prior to the 1973 coup, there was some kind of an exchange between an agricultural college in Chile and UC Davis. After the coup, when Pinochet shut down some universities in an effort to rout out communists (who were concentrated at a few universities), a number of Chilean ag scholars moved to Davis. I recall in my second grade class, we had two Chileans who came at that time. It was only when I was in college that a childhood friend of mine pointed out that the arrival of the Chileans to Davis in 1973 was due to the Pinochet putsch. I’d never before given it any thought.
Davisite,
Please tell me specifically what I’ve written that is “obscene” or even incorrect.
It’s interesting to me that you hurl “Hitler” at me. Now that is truly obscene, considering that I am a Jew and members of my family were killed by the Nazis. If you think Pinochet compares in any way to Hitler, you have no understanding of history or of the Holocaust.
So far, my email response (just 3 letters) has been positive, though it is early and email response is not necessarily indicative of wider feelings.
As an aside…. there is an interesting historical connection between Davis and Pinochet. Prior to the 1973 coup, there was some kind of an exchange between an agricultural college in Chile and UC Davis. After the coup, when Pinochet shut down some universities in an effort to rout out communists (who were concentrated at a few universities), a number of Chilean ag scholars moved to Davis. I recall in my second grade class, we had two Chileans who came at that time. It was only when I was in college that a childhood friend of mine pointed out that the arrival of the Chileans to Davis in 1973 was due to the Pinochet putsch. I’d never before given it any thought.
Davisite,
Please tell me specifically what I’ve written that is “obscene” or even incorrect.
It’s interesting to me that you hurl “Hitler” at me. Now that is truly obscene, considering that I am a Jew and members of my family were killed by the Nazis. If you think Pinochet compares in any way to Hitler, you have no understanding of history or of the Holocaust.
So far, my email response (just 3 letters) has been positive, though it is early and email response is not necessarily indicative of wider feelings.
As an aside…. there is an interesting historical connection between Davis and Pinochet. Prior to the 1973 coup, there was some kind of an exchange between an agricultural college in Chile and UC Davis. After the coup, when Pinochet shut down some universities in an effort to rout out communists (who were concentrated at a few universities), a number of Chilean ag scholars moved to Davis. I recall in my second grade class, we had two Chileans who came at that time. It was only when I was in college that a childhood friend of mine pointed out that the arrival of the Chileans to Davis in 1973 was due to the Pinochet putsch. I’d never before given it any thought.
I will explain.. The point was not that Hitler’s evil was equivolent to Pinochet’s but rather your praise because he “routed the communists” and only incidently crushed a democratically elected Socialist government , murdered and tortured. This is, to my mind, an obscenity and can lead one logically to being an apologist for Hitler because he did build the wonderful Autobahn system. Hyperbole, to be sure, but it all depends on how passionate you are about something.. For you,it’s “routing out” Communists and for others, it could be building great superhighways.
If my hyperbole -for- effect violates your sensibilities, how about apologizing for the crimes of another fascist dictator?…. Mussolini.. he did “make the trains run on time”..but perhaps, you’re not a passionate train buff.
I will explain.. The point was not that Hitler’s evil was equivolent to Pinochet’s but rather your praise because he “routed the communists” and only incidently crushed a democratically elected Socialist government , murdered and tortured. This is, to my mind, an obscenity and can lead one logically to being an apologist for Hitler because he did build the wonderful Autobahn system. Hyperbole, to be sure, but it all depends on how passionate you are about something.. For you,it’s “routing out” Communists and for others, it could be building great superhighways.
If my hyperbole -for- effect violates your sensibilities, how about apologizing for the crimes of another fascist dictator?…. Mussolini.. he did “make the trains run on time”..but perhaps, you’re not a passionate train buff.
I will explain.. The point was not that Hitler’s evil was equivolent to Pinochet’s but rather your praise because he “routed the communists” and only incidently crushed a democratically elected Socialist government , murdered and tortured. This is, to my mind, an obscenity and can lead one logically to being an apologist for Hitler because he did build the wonderful Autobahn system. Hyperbole, to be sure, but it all depends on how passionate you are about something.. For you,it’s “routing out” Communists and for others, it could be building great superhighways.
If my hyperbole -for- effect violates your sensibilities, how about apologizing for the crimes of another fascist dictator?…. Mussolini.. he did “make the trains run on time”..but perhaps, you’re not a passionate train buff.
I will explain.. The point was not that Hitler’s evil was equivolent to Pinochet’s but rather your praise because he “routed the communists” and only incidently crushed a democratically elected Socialist government , murdered and tortured. This is, to my mind, an obscenity and can lead one logically to being an apologist for Hitler because he did build the wonderful Autobahn system. Hyperbole, to be sure, but it all depends on how passionate you are about something.. For you,it’s “routing out” Communists and for others, it could be building great superhighways.
If my hyperbole -for- effect violates your sensibilities, how about apologizing for the crimes of another fascist dictator?…. Mussolini.. he did “make the trains run on time”..but perhaps, you’re not a passionate train buff.
“The point was not that Hitler’s evil was equivolent (sic) to Pinochet’s…
The former murdered 6 million Jews and 6 million non-Jewish civilians in the Holocaust, and launched WW2 in Europe which led to the death of 62 million more people, while the latter killed about 3,000 people in a dirty war against communists in his country. To say they are not “equivalent” is quite an understatement.
“… but rather your praise because he “routed the communists” …
Do you have any idea what quote marks mean, dude? I never wrote the phrase “routed the communists” anywhere in my column. For you to quote me as saying that exposes just how weak your misguided point is.
My only mention of the word “communism” — I never used the word “communists” — was to say that Pinochet “was convinced that Allende had to be toppled to save Chile from communism.” That is not praise. That is a fact regarding Pinochet’s state of mind.
It is not my fault that you cannot read. But don’t misquote me and then claim that what I wrote was “obscene.” Your slander, my friend, is what is obscene.
“… and only incidently crushed a democratically elected Socialist government…
I never praised that in any sense or in any respect.
I did point out that during the Allende years there was “chaos and misery.” If you don’t know that there was chaos and misery when Allende was president, which I gather you don’t, it’s because you’re an ignoramus.
“… murdered and tortured.”
Where do I excuse Pinochet for his brutality? I call it and him evil. Is evil a word you don’t understand? Am I having an argument with an imbecile?
“This is, to my mind…”
Your mind is not working. You need to change your prescriptions.
“… an obscenity…
No, your bogus analogy is what is obscene.
“… and can lead one logically….”
You not only don’t think logically, you don’t think.
“… to being an apologist for Hitler…”
What a load of hogwash.
“… because he did build the wonderful Autobahn system.”
In fact, it was Fritz Todt who built the Autobahn system. But you don’t know anything about history, so I am condemned to repeat it to you.
“Hyperbole, to be sure, but it all depends on how passionate you are about something.”
You give hyperbole a bad name.
“For you,it’s “routing out” Communists and for others, it could be building great superhighways.”
Too bad for you that I never mentioned “routing out” communists. Nor did I praise Pinochet for anything like that.
“If my hyperbole -for- effect violates your sensibilities, how about apologizing for the crimes of another fascist dictator?….”
You are too shallow to understand what is and is not a “fascist.” Nevertheless, it is a mischaracterization of Pinochet to call him “a fascist.” Beyond the fact that he was nowhere near as brutal to his countrymen as a Franco or a Mussolini, and unlike a Hitler or Mussolini, he did not build up a giant military machine or invade other countries, Pinochet was uncharismatic. He did not fill up stadiums with cheering throngs. He did not build up a popular political party of any sort.
It’s wrong, but Pinochet saw himself as being “apolitical.” Of course, he was political, and he was a right winger. But he was not an ideologue, like a Mussolini or a Hitler.
“… Mussolini.. he did ‘make the trains run on time’ … but perhaps, you’re not a passionate train buff.”
Pinochet did not make the trains or anything else in Chile “run on time.” That’s an important thing to understand about his policies. He was, just the opposite of Mussolini or other socialists, entirely laissez-faire. Pinochet was not a national-socialist. He was a national-capitalist.
He did not interfere in the economy of Chile. He did not build great freeways or great train systems. He followed the advice of his Chicago-trained advisors, setting up a new legal structure that encouraged private investment and enterprise, and stabilizing the Chilean peso. (When Pinochet took power, the currency was the escudo. In 1975, they introduced a new currency, the peso. The Chicago boys taught the necessity and wisdom of growing the money supply no faster than the average rate of GDP growth. It was these policies that Pinochet followed and which led to the dramatic decline in poverty in Chile.)
“The point was not that Hitler’s evil was equivolent (sic) to Pinochet’s…
The former murdered 6 million Jews and 6 million non-Jewish civilians in the Holocaust, and launched WW2 in Europe which led to the death of 62 million more people, while the latter killed about 3,000 people in a dirty war against communists in his country. To say they are not “equivalent” is quite an understatement.
“… but rather your praise because he “routed the communists” …
Do you have any idea what quote marks mean, dude? I never wrote the phrase “routed the communists” anywhere in my column. For you to quote me as saying that exposes just how weak your misguided point is.
My only mention of the word “communism” — I never used the word “communists” — was to say that Pinochet “was convinced that Allende had to be toppled to save Chile from communism.” That is not praise. That is a fact regarding Pinochet’s state of mind.
It is not my fault that you cannot read. But don’t misquote me and then claim that what I wrote was “obscene.” Your slander, my friend, is what is obscene.
“… and only incidently crushed a democratically elected Socialist government…
I never praised that in any sense or in any respect.
I did point out that during the Allende years there was “chaos and misery.” If you don’t know that there was chaos and misery when Allende was president, which I gather you don’t, it’s because you’re an ignoramus.
“… murdered and tortured.”
Where do I excuse Pinochet for his brutality? I call it and him evil. Is evil a word you don’t understand? Am I having an argument with an imbecile?
“This is, to my mind…”
Your mind is not working. You need to change your prescriptions.
“… an obscenity…
No, your bogus analogy is what is obscene.
“… and can lead one logically….”
You not only don’t think logically, you don’t think.
“… to being an apologist for Hitler…”
What a load of hogwash.
“… because he did build the wonderful Autobahn system.”
In fact, it was Fritz Todt who built the Autobahn system. But you don’t know anything about history, so I am condemned to repeat it to you.
“Hyperbole, to be sure, but it all depends on how passionate you are about something.”
You give hyperbole a bad name.
“For you,it’s “routing out” Communists and for others, it could be building great superhighways.”
Too bad for you that I never mentioned “routing out” communists. Nor did I praise Pinochet for anything like that.
“If my hyperbole -for- effect violates your sensibilities, how about apologizing for the crimes of another fascist dictator?….”
You are too shallow to understand what is and is not a “fascist.” Nevertheless, it is a mischaracterization of Pinochet to call him “a fascist.” Beyond the fact that he was nowhere near as brutal to his countrymen as a Franco or a Mussolini, and unlike a Hitler or Mussolini, he did not build up a giant military machine or invade other countries, Pinochet was uncharismatic. He did not fill up stadiums with cheering throngs. He did not build up a popular political party of any sort.
It’s wrong, but Pinochet saw himself as being “apolitical.” Of course, he was political, and he was a right winger. But he was not an ideologue, like a Mussolini or a Hitler.
“… Mussolini.. he did ‘make the trains run on time’ … but perhaps, you’re not a passionate train buff.”
Pinochet did not make the trains or anything else in Chile “run on time.” That’s an important thing to understand about his policies. He was, just the opposite of Mussolini or other socialists, entirely laissez-faire. Pinochet was not a national-socialist. He was a national-capitalist.
He did not interfere in the economy of Chile. He did not build great freeways or great train systems. He followed the advice of his Chicago-trained advisors, setting up a new legal structure that encouraged private investment and enterprise, and stabilizing the Chilean peso. (When Pinochet took power, the currency was the escudo. In 1975, they introduced a new currency, the peso. The Chicago boys taught the necessity and wisdom of growing the money supply no faster than the average rate of GDP growth. It was these policies that Pinochet followed and which led to the dramatic decline in poverty in Chile.)
“The point was not that Hitler’s evil was equivolent (sic) to Pinochet’s…
The former murdered 6 million Jews and 6 million non-Jewish civilians in the Holocaust, and launched WW2 in Europe which led to the death of 62 million more people, while the latter killed about 3,000 people in a dirty war against communists in his country. To say they are not “equivalent” is quite an understatement.
“… but rather your praise because he “routed the communists” …
Do you have any idea what quote marks mean, dude? I never wrote the phrase “routed the communists” anywhere in my column. For you to quote me as saying that exposes just how weak your misguided point is.
My only mention of the word “communism” — I never used the word “communists” — was to say that Pinochet “was convinced that Allende had to be toppled to save Chile from communism.” That is not praise. That is a fact regarding Pinochet’s state of mind.
It is not my fault that you cannot read. But don’t misquote me and then claim that what I wrote was “obscene.” Your slander, my friend, is what is obscene.
“… and only incidently crushed a democratically elected Socialist government…
I never praised that in any sense or in any respect.
I did point out that during the Allende years there was “chaos and misery.” If you don’t know that there was chaos and misery when Allende was president, which I gather you don’t, it’s because you’re an ignoramus.
“… murdered and tortured.”
Where do I excuse Pinochet for his brutality? I call it and him evil. Is evil a word you don’t understand? Am I having an argument with an imbecile?
“This is, to my mind…”
Your mind is not working. You need to change your prescriptions.
“… an obscenity…
No, your bogus analogy is what is obscene.
“… and can lead one logically….”
You not only don’t think logically, you don’t think.
“… to being an apologist for Hitler…”
What a load of hogwash.
“… because he did build the wonderful Autobahn system.”
In fact, it was Fritz Todt who built the Autobahn system. But you don’t know anything about history, so I am condemned to repeat it to you.
“Hyperbole, to be sure, but it all depends on how passionate you are about something.”
You give hyperbole a bad name.
“For you,it’s “routing out” Communists and for others, it could be building great superhighways.”
Too bad for you that I never mentioned “routing out” communists. Nor did I praise Pinochet for anything like that.
“If my hyperbole -for- effect violates your sensibilities, how about apologizing for the crimes of another fascist dictator?….”
You are too shallow to understand what is and is not a “fascist.” Nevertheless, it is a mischaracterization of Pinochet to call him “a fascist.” Beyond the fact that he was nowhere near as brutal to his countrymen as a Franco or a Mussolini, and unlike a Hitler or Mussolini, he did not build up a giant military machine or invade other countries, Pinochet was uncharismatic. He did not fill up stadiums with cheering throngs. He did not build up a popular political party of any sort.
It’s wrong, but Pinochet saw himself as being “apolitical.” Of course, he was political, and he was a right winger. But he was not an ideologue, like a Mussolini or a Hitler.
“… Mussolini.. he did ‘make the trains run on time’ … but perhaps, you’re not a passionate train buff.”
Pinochet did not make the trains or anything else in Chile “run on time.” That’s an important thing to understand about his policies. He was, just the opposite of Mussolini or other socialists, entirely laissez-faire. Pinochet was not a national-socialist. He was a national-capitalist.
He did not interfere in the economy of Chile. He did not build great freeways or great train systems. He followed the advice of his Chicago-trained advisors, setting up a new legal structure that encouraged private investment and enterprise, and stabilizing the Chilean peso. (When Pinochet took power, the currency was the escudo. In 1975, they introduced a new currency, the peso. The Chicago boys taught the necessity and wisdom of growing the money supply no faster than the average rate of GDP growth. It was these policies that Pinochet followed and which led to the dramatic decline in poverty in Chile.)
“The point was not that Hitler’s evil was equivolent (sic) to Pinochet’s…
The former murdered 6 million Jews and 6 million non-Jewish civilians in the Holocaust, and launched WW2 in Europe which led to the death of 62 million more people, while the latter killed about 3,000 people in a dirty war against communists in his country. To say they are not “equivalent” is quite an understatement.
“… but rather your praise because he “routed the communists” …
Do you have any idea what quote marks mean, dude? I never wrote the phrase “routed the communists” anywhere in my column. For you to quote me as saying that exposes just how weak your misguided point is.
My only mention of the word “communism” — I never used the word “communists” — was to say that Pinochet “was convinced that Allende had to be toppled to save Chile from communism.” That is not praise. That is a fact regarding Pinochet’s state of mind.
It is not my fault that you cannot read. But don’t misquote me and then claim that what I wrote was “obscene.” Your slander, my friend, is what is obscene.
“… and only incidently crushed a democratically elected Socialist government…
I never praised that in any sense or in any respect.
I did point out that during the Allende years there was “chaos and misery.” If you don’t know that there was chaos and misery when Allende was president, which I gather you don’t, it’s because you’re an ignoramus.
“… murdered and tortured.”
Where do I excuse Pinochet for his brutality? I call it and him evil. Is evil a word you don’t understand? Am I having an argument with an imbecile?
“This is, to my mind…”
Your mind is not working. You need to change your prescriptions.
“… an obscenity…
No, your bogus analogy is what is obscene.
“… and can lead one logically….”
You not only don’t think logically, you don’t think.
“… to being an apologist for Hitler…”
What a load of hogwash.
“… because he did build the wonderful Autobahn system.”
In fact, it was Fritz Todt who built the Autobahn system. But you don’t know anything about history, so I am condemned to repeat it to you.
“Hyperbole, to be sure, but it all depends on how passionate you are about something.”
You give hyperbole a bad name.
“For you,it’s “routing out” Communists and for others, it could be building great superhighways.”
Too bad for you that I never mentioned “routing out” communists. Nor did I praise Pinochet for anything like that.
“If my hyperbole -for- effect violates your sensibilities, how about apologizing for the crimes of another fascist dictator?….”
You are too shallow to understand what is and is not a “fascist.” Nevertheless, it is a mischaracterization of Pinochet to call him “a fascist.” Beyond the fact that he was nowhere near as brutal to his countrymen as a Franco or a Mussolini, and unlike a Hitler or Mussolini, he did not build up a giant military machine or invade other countries, Pinochet was uncharismatic. He did not fill up stadiums with cheering throngs. He did not build up a popular political party of any sort.
It’s wrong, but Pinochet saw himself as being “apolitical.” Of course, he was political, and he was a right winger. But he was not an ideologue, like a Mussolini or a Hitler.
“… Mussolini.. he did ‘make the trains run on time’ … but perhaps, you’re not a passionate train buff.”
Pinochet did not make the trains or anything else in Chile “run on time.” That’s an important thing to understand about his policies. He was, just the opposite of Mussolini or other socialists, entirely laissez-faire. Pinochet was not a national-socialist. He was a national-capitalist.
He did not interfere in the economy of Chile. He did not build great freeways or great train systems. He followed the advice of his Chicago-trained advisors, setting up a new legal structure that encouraged private investment and enterprise, and stabilizing the Chilean peso. (When Pinochet took power, the currency was the escudo. In 1975, they introduced a new currency, the peso. The Chicago boys taught the necessity and wisdom of growing the money supply no faster than the average rate of GDP growth. It was these policies that Pinochet followed and which led to the dramatic decline in poverty in Chile.)
The picking apart someone else’s post line by line is tiring to read and lazy. Bob Dunning does this also when he runs out of things to talk about. I can’t follow your line of thought and the only thing that stands out is that you think the other guy is a moron, which is a juvenile argument.
The picking apart someone else’s post line by line is tiring to read and lazy. Bob Dunning does this also when he runs out of things to talk about. I can’t follow your line of thought and the only thing that stands out is that you think the other guy is a moron, which is a juvenile argument.
The picking apart someone else’s post line by line is tiring to read and lazy. Bob Dunning does this also when he runs out of things to talk about. I can’t follow your line of thought and the only thing that stands out is that you think the other guy is a moron, which is a juvenile argument.
The picking apart someone else’s post line by line is tiring to read and lazy. Bob Dunning does this also when he runs out of things to talk about. I can’t follow your line of thought and the only thing that stands out is that you think the other guy is a moron, which is a juvenile argument.
Rich:
Anonymous raises a good point here. It is very difficult to follow your responses here because first you have to look back to the original post to see what they were actually saying and then you have to read through your post a few times to get what you are trying to say.
It would be much easier to read if you could simply respond overall in a couple of paragraphs. If there is a key point that you wish to respond to, you could highlight that point, but to read half a page of line responses is burdensome on the reader. Frankly I read your first couple of paragraphs and then stopped.
Rich:
Anonymous raises a good point here. It is very difficult to follow your responses here because first you have to look back to the original post to see what they were actually saying and then you have to read through your post a few times to get what you are trying to say.
It would be much easier to read if you could simply respond overall in a couple of paragraphs. If there is a key point that you wish to respond to, you could highlight that point, but to read half a page of line responses is burdensome on the reader. Frankly I read your first couple of paragraphs and then stopped.
Rich:
Anonymous raises a good point here. It is very difficult to follow your responses here because first you have to look back to the original post to see what they were actually saying and then you have to read through your post a few times to get what you are trying to say.
It would be much easier to read if you could simply respond overall in a couple of paragraphs. If there is a key point that you wish to respond to, you could highlight that point, but to read half a page of line responses is burdensome on the reader. Frankly I read your first couple of paragraphs and then stopped.
Rich:
Anonymous raises a good point here. It is very difficult to follow your responses here because first you have to look back to the original post to see what they were actually saying and then you have to read through your post a few times to get what you are trying to say.
It would be much easier to read if you could simply respond overall in a couple of paragraphs. If there is a key point that you wish to respond to, you could highlight that point, but to read half a page of line responses is burdensome on the reader. Frankly I read your first couple of paragraphs and then stopped.
There are some who “poison” your day. Sometimes, you grit your teeth and engage in dialogue with them, believing that dialogue is always valuable. For me, Rifkin is not one of these people. His obtuse reality and electronic yelling “soils” any dialogue. So… while I will continue to be a VERY frequent contributor to Peoples Vanguard of Davis, I will no longer read comments that begin with “rich rifkin said” ,mention his name or write about him or his ideas on this blog…
There are some who “poison” your day. Sometimes, you grit your teeth and engage in dialogue with them, believing that dialogue is always valuable. For me, Rifkin is not one of these people. His obtuse reality and electronic yelling “soils” any dialogue. So… while I will continue to be a VERY frequent contributor to Peoples Vanguard of Davis, I will no longer read comments that begin with “rich rifkin said” ,mention his name or write about him or his ideas on this blog…
There are some who “poison” your day. Sometimes, you grit your teeth and engage in dialogue with them, believing that dialogue is always valuable. For me, Rifkin is not one of these people. His obtuse reality and electronic yelling “soils” any dialogue. So… while I will continue to be a VERY frequent contributor to Peoples Vanguard of Davis, I will no longer read comments that begin with “rich rifkin said” ,mention his name or write about him or his ideas on this blog…
There are some who “poison” your day. Sometimes, you grit your teeth and engage in dialogue with them, believing that dialogue is always valuable. For me, Rifkin is not one of these people. His obtuse reality and electronic yelling “soils” any dialogue. So… while I will continue to be a VERY frequent contributor to Peoples Vanguard of Davis, I will no longer read comments that begin with “rich rifkin said” ,mention his name or write about him or his ideas on this blog…
“I will no longer read comments that begin with “rich rifkin said” ,mention his name or write about him or his ideas on this blog… “
Thank you.
“I will no longer read comments that begin with “rich rifkin said” ,mention his name or write about him or his ideas on this blog… “
Thank you.
“I will no longer read comments that begin with “rich rifkin said” ,mention his name or write about him or his ideas on this blog… “
Thank you.
“I will no longer read comments that begin with “rich rifkin said” ,mention his name or write about him or his ideas on this blog… “
Thank you.
…awww but it was just getting fun. You guys should just hurry up and have sex already!
…awww but it was just getting fun. You guys should just hurry up and have sex already!
…awww but it was just getting fun. You guys should just hurry up and have sex already!
…awww but it was just getting fun. You guys should just hurry up and have sex already!
Okay this is not heading in a good direction.
Okay this is not heading in a good direction.
Okay this is not heading in a good direction.
Okay this is not heading in a good direction.
I could be wrong but I think Anonymous, in cryptic, over-the-top style, has sensed that some comments in the above exchange do not spring from the subject matter at hand but rather are expressions of
something more hidden that is a bit out of control… I don’t think that his sex comment necessarily was offered literally.
I could be wrong but I think Anonymous, in cryptic, over-the-top style, has sensed that some comments in the above exchange do not spring from the subject matter at hand but rather are expressions of
something more hidden that is a bit out of control… I don’t think that his sex comment necessarily was offered literally.
I could be wrong but I think Anonymous, in cryptic, over-the-top style, has sensed that some comments in the above exchange do not spring from the subject matter at hand but rather are expressions of
something more hidden that is a bit out of control… I don’t think that his sex comment necessarily was offered literally.
I could be wrong but I think Anonymous, in cryptic, over-the-top style, has sensed that some comments in the above exchange do not spring from the subject matter at hand but rather are expressions of
something more hidden that is a bit out of control… I don’t think that his sex comment necessarily was offered literally.
I realize that, that was my way of saying stop before I have to get all authoritative or something.
I realize that, that was my way of saying stop before I have to get all authoritative or something.
I realize that, that was my way of saying stop before I have to get all authoritative or something.
I realize that, that was my way of saying stop before I have to get all authoritative or something.
Anonymous.. I had written a comment in this exchange speaking to the “rush” that one gets from raging, righteous indignation as being only second to sexual organism… I thought it was a bit much and so I did not hit “publish”.. and then you are drawn to the same symbolism… as we used to say… mindblowing.
Anonymous.. I had written a comment in this exchange speaking to the “rush” that one gets from raging, righteous indignation as being only second to sexual organism… I thought it was a bit much and so I did not hit “publish”.. and then you are drawn to the same symbolism… as we used to say… mindblowing.
Anonymous.. I had written a comment in this exchange speaking to the “rush” that one gets from raging, righteous indignation as being only second to sexual organism… I thought it was a bit much and so I did not hit “publish”.. and then you are drawn to the same symbolism… as we used to say… mindblowing.
Anonymous.. I had written a comment in this exchange speaking to the “rush” that one gets from raging, righteous indignation as being only second to sexual organism… I thought it was a bit much and so I did not hit “publish”.. and then you are drawn to the same symbolism… as we used to say… mindblowing.
oops… orgasm, not organism…. although I guess it could have been.. the sexual organism as well.
oops… orgasm, not organism…. although I guess it could have been.. the sexual organism as well.
oops… orgasm, not organism…. although I guess it could have been.. the sexual organism as well.
oops… orgasm, not organism…. although I guess it could have been.. the sexual organism as well.