>>I responded to Kevin and not you for a reason. Not going to argue this with you -- I said I was going to chill and I'm trying hard to to just that.
You referred me to your evidence for Moore's racism and I responded to it.
You can't take it as an insult that somebody disagrees with you and actually I think you'll find that many here will understand my responses perfectly. So rather than equating refusing to engage with being chill, why not respond reasonably yourself? Am I wrong? Why?
OK, I accept that the reference to HRC's donor Weinstein was a bit flip- but my intended point is that if you want to make Moore guilty by association, sauce for the goose etc.
"... They ne'er cared for us
yet: suffer us to famish, and their store-houses
crammed with grain; make edicts for usury, to
support usurers; repeal daily any wholesome act
established against the rich, and provide more
piercing statutes daily, to chain up and restrain
the poor. If the wars eat us not up, they will; and
there's all the love they bear us."
-- Shakespeare: Coriolanus, Act 1, scene 1
