Perhaps you should look up the definition of the word obtuse again. One definition is "lacking in quickness of perception". Hardly the same as stupid, now is it? The word was chosen intentionally for that reason.

I chose my words not to impress anyone, but to communicate exactly what I wish to communicate. (Depsite your condescending comments otherwise)

In context, when a person repeatedly refuses to acknowledge a point, one can draw one of two possible conclusions. Either the person is intentionally failing to see the point (being intentionally obtuse), or they are incapable of seeing the point. Why they are incapable is irrelevant. You chose to read "stupid" into that.

I do not need to resort to insults, thank you very much. I am very much opposed to doing so. If a person can't even acknowledge a point made, there is no reason to continue a discussion.

I will, however, acknowledge that the first sentence of that post "What is so difficult to understand?" was expression of frustration in not having my point acknowledged. But hardly a personal attack or insult.

I will admit that the original article was written in haste and I do see your point. (That comment being directed at Mason, who remains the only one here who remained civil long enoug to make a point.

Thank you for that. A civil acknowledgement of the point made was all that was expected.

"Where was I insulting or condescending? Where did I have any sort of attitude before y'all started in on me?"

OMG, your original artical oozes condescending and insulting from every pore. You "started in" on the original article, and then expected a rain of rose petals, I suppose?

"It was obvious, if you are/were a member of the AFA, that it was gonna make you angry. Don't read it."

And if you don't want the same in return, don't write it. Or don't allow comments. Or blacklist anyone you don't like commenting. Regardless, you started the whole critique of tone, and given the original tone YOU set it seems a bit hypocritical.

Either the person is intentionally failing to see the point (being intentionally obtuse), or they are incapable of seeing the point. Why they are incapable is irrelevant. You chose to read "stupid" into that.

Telling my what you meant by "incapable of seeing the point" would go a long way towards ending that little misunderstanding.

OMG, your original artical oozes condescending and insulting oozing from every pore. You "started in" on the original article, and then expected a rain of rose petals, I suppose?

Again: Where? I already know you think I was condescending and insulting first. Point out where.

Telling my what you meant by "incapable of seeing the point" would go a long way towards ending that little misunderstanding.

I think the meaning of someone being incapable of anything is quite obvious, don't you? It's really the reason(s) for being incapable that you inferred. You will note I did not say you were in fact incapable, only that I was forced to conclude that as one of two possibilities. A person can be incapable of understanding a point for any number of reasons ranging from a lack of intelligence, mental prejudice, personal background, lack of empathy, and any number of other possibilities. I saw no need to speculate on reasons as it was irrelevant.

The misunderstanding stemmed from your choice to make inferrences which, in this case, were mistaken.

"Point out where."

You want me to quote the whole article? Title and all? Can't you scroll up? The whole thing is an attack on the AFA as an organization:

"They're those bastions of human decency that keep hyperventilating and yelling and making everyone think that all conservatives think Spongebob is gay! We remember these folks now?"

and their beliefs in terms of this issue:

"Dear God!!! Not the Human Rights Campaign!!! They'll kill us all!!! If only they were giving money to Al Qaeda or Kim Jong Il or someone else unimportant!!! Not these Human Rights Campaign lunatics!!!"

...and everything else. There's no one line, the whole thing is a condescending attack. Surprise, you got condescending defense.

I didn't have a problem with your tone, though, you seemed to have a problem with getting it handed back to you. "I'd just like to point out how civil the conservatives among us are being in this debate."

Personally I think you handed us a third grade tone and got at least middle school back. If you want The Mclaughlin Group, maybe you ought to at least start out somewhere in the neighborhood.

the ford boycott was called off on june 7, 2005 Link

the following is a comment i posted to gordon's 'why im supporting the afa boycott' (i'm posting it here because it may help to add an additional layer of fog thus helping to impede determination of which side is the really awful hypocrite):

the ford boycott presents an unusual and somewhat amusing scenario. the organization ford is contributing to is an anti-defamation group. whether you agree with afa's stand or you don't, the afa and focus on the family engage in what a reasonable person would likely consider defamation.

so in essence, the afa's bitch with ford may as easily be it's funding anti-afa gays fight the anti-gay afa. there's a song title in there somewhere.

so in essence, the afa's bitch with ford may as easily be it's funding anti-afa gays fight the anti-gay afa. there's a song title in there somewhere.

Yeah, but who's on first?

The misunderstanding stemmed from your choice to make inferrences which, in this case, were mistaken.

They're obviously not irrelevant if they are what makes you appear petty and childish. If you just tell me what they are, this could all be let go.

...and everything else. There's no one line, the whole thing is a condescending attack. Surprise, you got condescending defense. I didn't have a problem with your tone, though, you seemed to have a problem with getting it handed back to you. "I'd just like to point out how civil the conservatives among us are being in this debate."Personally I think you handed us a third grade tone and got at least middle school back. If you want The Mclaughlin Group, maybe you ought to at least start out somewhere in the neighborhood.

I have a problem with being called names when I simply point out what I believe to be an organizations stupid actions. If you're making policy for the organization, then I suppose you have every right to personally attack me back. Otherwise, no.

If all one wants in way of discussion is a long string of 'attaboys,' that can be accomplished by liberal (pun intended) use of the blacklist feature.

Or constant bitching to administrators.

pfft. If you want to be a fragile little flower and call the above an attack, then you have to accept that your blog was at least as belligerant an attack on the ideals in question. I agree with the AFA's stance, so I'm just as hypocritical and stupid, I suppose.

No one called you names, as you yourself admitted when you first flinched. If you want civil, be civil. Like I said, I didn't care, but you seemed pained by not getting more civility than you offered. Kiss it and make it better? Sheesh. NOW you need to be called names.

If you want to be a fragile little flower and call the above an attack, then you have to accept that your blog was at least as belligerant an attack on the ideals in question.

Yes, ON THE IDEALS IN QUESTION. I didn't talk about you. Don't talk about me. If you wanna be defined by one ideal, I'm sorry. I would hope you think of more of yourself than that. If we're gonna talk fragile, lets look at who was offended without even being mentioned or addressed. Our petals bruise easily, don't they?

No one called you names, as you yourself admitted when you first flinched.

See why it's so difficult to be civil to you. You're unwiling to graciously accept someone's humility, instead choosing to use it to launch further attacks. How petty.

Kiss it and make it better? Sheesh. NOW you need to be called names.

Oh, so NOW I need to be called names. So you agree that I didn't need to be called names before. Sounds like someone flinched. Typical. Anyways, you wanna call me something, call me something. I don't need your little smokescreens or your insinuations. Don't toe the line like some indecisive buffoon. Either cross it or don't.