>>I wrote was that I have no idea what LDS means. You replied something aobut "regional stupidity". It is all up above. And how exactly was that illuminating? You are classic Doug. Not only do you try to revise history, but try to revise the last couple of days, when it is in clear print for all to see.
>
>After making remarks about my regional ignorance. I was just pointing out that you had violated your own 'rules'. I'm not trying to revise history Chris.

Where did I make any remarks about your regional ignorance? Please cite exactly which words conveyed this?

>I also did not engage in gratuitous remarks about 'bigamy' either.

The bigamy remark was tongue-in-check.

>>You really should stop dropping acid.
>
>Here you go again. You brought up the LSD remarks, if not to me directly in another message. For what it's worth I stopped taking acid over 30 years ago Chris. <g>

Proof positive that effects are still lingering.

>>Try your best to stay on topic here Doug. You have posted that slavery was not the prime cause of the Civil War. Now you are drifting off to the abolition of slavery. If you can't defend your position, just say so.
>
>I think that the cessession issue was the primary issue - fueled by slavery and some good old fashioned Northeastern arrogance. I also wanted to point out to you that your understanding of the issues was not complete.

That is like saying the primary issue in WWI was an assassination.

>>I did not originally write the "regional stupidity" line. One of the great things about an online discussion is that your words are out there for all to see.
>
>No, you may not have said the actual words. Perhaps you don't have the courage and need to insinuate. Regardless you did insinuate 'regional stupidity' in your remarks. All I did was put real words on what you said.

Where did I even insinuate it?


>>So classic. Whenever I call you on something you obviously do not know, you duck and hide.
>
>No, if you are too lazy to go look up a simple word and want to assert I'm trying to duck the issue by asking you to be a responsible participant in the discussion I'm just not going to waste my time.
>
>You didn't 'call' me on anything Chris.

I have called you on stuff here countless times.

>>Of course it did Doug. Why would I ever doubt what you write?
>
>I'll take your apology in your other message as a retraction and apology for this remark.

Yes.

>>Well, with your rigorous committment to the truth, I am sure you have throughly investigated this.
>
><g>
>
>Enough to see past your cynicism I'd think.
>
>Hey.. George W. Bush is President!
>
>All Gore LOST.
>
>Or will you question that too? <g>

Pay attention: I am quite happy with W., and much prefer him over Al Gore. I posted this same sentiment earlier.