Well, what I use an avatar for and what everyone else uses them for seems to be 2 different things. I did it to be different actually. If I was going to vote for Hillary I would have said so in my post. I've never said I was going to vote for her. Everyone assumed I was.

I sure assumed you were, and I read a lot of your posts with a grain of salt because of that avatar. Now I'll be giving your posts the weight I gave them previous to you having that avatar now that I know that you don't find Hillary to be some sort of savior.

I didn't portray her as a savior. I made a counterpoint to accusations made against her.

The avatar had her looking like she was the best choice, like she was THE answer to America's problems.

It's pretty cut and dry. You misjudged how people would react, and now you know. Doing that kind of thing to get a reaction can cause reactions that may be undesirable. I can't count how many times I've made that mistake myself.

I didn't misjudge anything. I knew what reaction I would get. That wasn't a reason to be called names . Attack the comment, not the poster sort of thing.

I'm not going to be called names just because I post a comment someone doesn't like. Being an admin I would think you would see what I did. How many posts did my playing devils advocate generate?

Well, first off, an avatar is NOT a comment, it's an avatar. It's an image that represents YOU that gets seen in EVERY post you make. My avatar represents ME, or how I'm feeling at the moment. Usually others do the same. No prob. We have a difference in opinion on this subject, and that's fine.

I'm not defending the "Billary" comment--it was a putdown/insult and nothing's gonna change that.

I definitely understand the devil's advocate thing--I do it a lot, but I think where you and I differ are the ways that we think are beneficial to go about presenting that kind of argument.

Well, it would be a boring if we were all alike.

It was nothing more than a point, counterpoint that can be made for every topic that gets discussed on these forums. In this case it was evey member on the forum taking the position of being anti- Clinton, so I took the opposing position.

We have a different opinion on avatars. Mine aren't meant to represent anything. If I have an opinion on a topic I won't let an avatar speak for me.

Not sure I follow you on presenting an arguement. By presenting an opposing point of view it generated a lot of activity, which is exactly what it was meant to do. I think it was a success myself. Hell, we are still talking about it. That was one topic, being discussed in 3 different threads so I guess I can't see a down side to what method I used.

Well, I'm known for stirring up trouble so it's good to know I haven't lost my touch.

I've been doing the devils advocate thing since I started posting on political forums and it always gets the same response. I just haven't had much time to do it lately. I think I miss this.

Now that we've cleared that up ...........


I would like inquire into the "Billary" word being a personal attack/insult.

Is it really?

If Tumble was a true Clinton fan, why would it be an insult?

The term, of course, is the merging of Hillary and Bill - we on the right commonly use it in place of "Clintons". Not an insult - more of a jab at Hillary for her lack of real experience and the idea that she would be nowhere without Bill.

I really didn't mean it as an insult or an attack. There sure are worse things to be called than Billary.

Well, when name calling and putdowns start over an unpopular position on a topic it is my experience that it seldom stops at just one incident. The longer this topic was discussed the more names I would have been called and the more lables that would have been added to my counterpoint.

It didn't stop with Billary, it progressed to being called a surrogate for Hillary, just because I don't like Obama any more than anyone here likes Hillary.

I was being called names and being accused of something that was unfounded just because of my opinion, not because my comments were right or wrong, but because the comments were what someone didn't want to hear.

Calling me Billary was indeed an insult and a personal attack, neither of which I have to listen to or tolerate. It wasn't said in a joking manner. I took it just as it was meant.

Tumbleweed wrote:Well, when name calling and putdowns start over an unpopular position on a topic it is my experience that it seldom stops at just one incident. The longer this topic was discussed the more names I would have been called and the more lables that would have been added to my counterpoint.

It didn't stop with Billary, it progressed to being called a surrogate for Hillary, just because I don't like Obama any more than anyone here likes Hillary.

I was being called names and being accused of something that was unfounded just because of my opinion, not because my comments were right or wrong, but because the comments were what someone didn't want to hear.

Calling me Billary was indeed an insult and a personal attack, neither of which I have to listen to or tolerate. It wasn't said in a joking manner. I took it just as it was meant.

I'm not sure that a true Clinton fan would have taken offense to it.

eg:

RSR likes Obama
RSR is an Obama surrogate
RSR =RedStateObamaRebel

I wouldn't take those as insults. I would be proud of my support of his candidacy.

These, I would consider personal attacks:

RSR is an asshole
RSR is a dumbass
etc, etc.

We can dance around this bush untill the cows come home so I have nothing more to add than what I already stated.

If I'm not called anymore Clinton pet names her opponents like to label her supporters with there won't be any further problems.

So which of the two are electable?