Advanced Search

Nov 7, 2016 at 11:35am
nohero said: paulsurovell said: nohero said: paulsurovell said:(1) I thought you said that this thread wasn't about me.(2) Do you know "how the 'interesting question' turned out?' "(3) Do you consider the "interesting question" to be an "anti-Hillary claim?" (1) Obviously, that's out of my control, since you posted a whole heap of "you" yesterday in this thread. Fortunately, the thread topic (misleading title and all) is moot, dead, gone to join the heavenly choir, and is an "ex-topic". So it can be about anything now, I suppose.(2) Not near the top of anything I think is important to speculate about, although that's where you and I differ.(3) Since its meant to cast Secretary Clinton in a negative light (something about letting Weiner get close to classified info, or something like that), the answer is obviously, "Yes". The person who writes the twitter feed that you quoted certainly thinks so (You didn't provide a cite or link, but it's easily found with "the Google"). It's uncharacteristic of you to leave out citation information like that, but having read tweets from that gentleman, a Mr. Michael Tracey, it might be because he's a real Hillary-hating, stereotype-of-a-Bernie-Bro piece of work. https://twitter.com/mtraceySomewhat of a misogynist as well. This morning he's continued with his obsessive dissing of Lena Dunham. Mr. Tracey's rantings wouldn't be out of place in a Trump twitter feed. He's obviously let his disappointment about the results of the Democratic Primary become hatred (that word definitely applies) of Ms. Clinton, and anyone he can insult who has associated with her.Why you thought his not-policy musings were worth reading, or worse yet sharing on MOL, is a mystery. So you admit that the question I asked had nothing to do with Comey's second letter. And you "attack the messenger" -- Michael Tracey -- to distract from the substance of what Tracey said.Just a petty attempt to cover up the fact that you realized that your attempt to label my post as "anti-Hillary" was a blunder. With a little McCarthyism of guilt-by-association. No, I admit to what I wrote. You can interpret or obsess however you want, but I don't have to agree with it. Thanks for adding the gratuitous insults. And I commented on the SUBSTANCE of what Mr. Tracey has written - so it is wrong to call that "attack the messenger". For people who don't want to risk clicking on the link to read his tweets, here's an example of what I was talking about. Apparently Lena Dunham wrote something encouraging people to vote for Ms. Clinton, and not vote for Jill Stein (don't get me started on Dr. Stein, but I digress). I assume Ms. Dunham wrote it in her characteristic style. Earlier this morning, Mr. Tracey had comments typical of him: "Not only is Lena Dunham obnoxious and self-important, she's just plain stupid" https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/795610614555181056 "Her post doesn't even make sense; I'm pretty sure she just wanted to tell a little story about her sex history and relate it to the election" https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/795612457460961284 That's an example of his "substance". You're writing about the substance of something that has nothing to do with what I quoted. You're just continuing to cover up and distract attention from your original blunder. And cotinuing to throw in a little more McCarthyite guilt-by-association.

Nov 7, 2016 at 4:07pm
nohero said: paulsurovell said: nohero said: paulsurovell said:So you admit that the question I asked had nothing to do with Comey's second letter. And you "attack the messenger" -- Michael Tracey -- to distract from the substance of what Tracey said.Just a petty attempt to cover up the fact that you realized that your attempt to label my post as "anti-Hillary" was a blunder. With a little McCarthyism of guilt-by-association. No, I admit to what I wrote. You can interpret or obsess however you want, but I don't have to agree with it. Thanks for adding the gratuitous insults. And I commented on the SUBSTANCE of what Mr. Tracey has written - so it is wrong to call that "attack the messenger". For people who don't want to risk clicking on the link to read his tweets, here's an example of what I was talking about. Apparently Lena Dunham wrote something encouraging people to vote for Ms. Clinton, and not vote for Jill Stein (don't get me started on Dr. Stein, but I digress). I assume Ms. Dunham wrote it in her characteristic style. Earlier this morning, Mr. Tracey had comments typical of him: "Not only is Lena Dunham obnoxious and self-important, she's just plain stupid" https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/795610614555181056 "Her post doesn't even make sense; I'm pretty sure she just wanted to tell a little story about her sex history and relate it to the election" https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/795612457460961284 That's an example of his "substance". You're writing about the substance of something that has nothing to do with what I quoted. You're just continuing to cover up and distract attention from your original blunder. And cotinuing to throw in a little more McCarthyite guilt-by-association. Three thoughts:1. You wrote that I should comment on the substance of what Mr. Tracey writes, and I did. Once again, thank you for the gratuitous insults. You're much too generous, I have more than enough, now.2. I can't believe you think his silly musing ("What are the odds that Weiner was surreptitiously monitoring/copying Huma's communications w/ HRC") is worth wasting time on. I don't understand why you'd spend any time contemplating his fantasy of an email ménage à trois among HRC, Huma, and "Carlos Danger". As my brother said to me this morning on the phone, "Not only do I not care about the emails, I wouldn't care if Hillary was sexting with Anthony Weiner, and her IT guy was a Russian spy working for China."3. "Lighten up, Francis." (1) This statement "You wrote that I should comment on the substance of what Mr. Tracey writes" is a blatant falsehood (I'm trying to be as diplomatic as possible here).( 2) You reintroduced Tracey's musing, so the time spent on this is your doing.(3) Look in the mirror.

Feb 22, 2017 at 11:42am
South_Mountaineer said:I reject that insult. I posted a fact. Deal with it. paulsurovell said: South_Mountaineer said:I'll write it again. Some people are so anti-Hillary, that they become pro-Trump, and by extension pro-Putin, by posting nonsense. Thank you for confirming Vanden Heuvel's point with this example of McCarthyism. Sometime ago, you indicated a lack of insight when you denied that you had any bias. This is another example of lack of your lack of insight. McCarthy called people "communists" or "pro-Soviet" because they supported peaceful relations with the Soviet Union, or New Deal safety net programs or racial integration efforts. Bernie was the victim of similar McCarthyite smears by Trump during the campaign, and possibly more recently. Similarly, when you say that someone is "pro-Putin" or "pro-Trump" you are falsely imputing affinity, endorsement or loyalty to Putin or Trump, none of which is true in the case at hand. In other words, when you say that someone is "pro-Putin" or "pro-Trump" because they challenge allegations against them, you are smearing that person in the same way McCarthy smeared people as being "communist" or "pro-Soviet."Edited at 11:50 am

Mar 14, 2017 at 8:16pm
drummerboy said:Paul,Can you please explain how this is in anyway "McCarthyism"?Also, you are simply refusing to listen to reason. The issue of Podesta's brother - a registered lobbyist, no secrecy involved, no denials - is not even the same thing as Trump's inner circle contacts with Russia, with their denials and secrecy and appearances of impropriety.If they did nothing wrong, why do they deny everything until proof eventually leaks out?But seriously, tell us how this is McCarthyism. To me, bandying this word about is just more intellectual dishonesty.You guys are completely embarrassing the left. Podesta didn't declare his brother's involvement with Russia, no problem. But Trump is expected to declare Russian involvement of everyone he's associated. Why the difference?Nation editor Katrina vanden Heuvel wrote an op-ed piece in WaPo on the McCarthyism of the anti-Russia proponents who insinuate that contacts (by Trump associates) with Russians are nefarious. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/neo-mccarthyite-furor-around-russia-is-counterproductive/2017/02/21/2e9857c2-f7a8-11e6-be05-1a3817ac21a5_story.html?utm_term=.a045967bafb3

May 4, 2017 at 2:28pm
South_Mountaineer said: paulsurovell said:Back to your McCarthyite ways. You just can't argue on the merits. Excuse me, but I did "argue on the merits".  I posted that Feinstein's actual statement should be used, since it doesn't mean, "Nothing to see here", and it doesn't mean that the investigation should stop.  You, on the other hand, went to the insult ("does not speak well for your position"), and your go-to insult of labeling a disagreement with you as "McCarthyite".  That's not substantive, and not "on the merits".  There's little difference between your approach, and that guy on the thread about the new building in Maplewood, who keeps accusing the Village Green news site of being dishonest. You're throwing a lot of dust to distract from Feinstein's clear, simple statement, which is the same statement that James Clapper made in January, that Mike Morrell made in March.  There is no evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia. And of course all three of these insiders either said explicitly or implied that they were speaking what they knew at the time they spoke.And when you accuse someone of helping Trump -- as you have done since the Democratic primary -- it's not an insult when it is pointed out that you are engaging in McCarthyism.Ironically, the bogus Russia story has hurt the Democrats (including Hillary as I pointed out at the time) not Trump, because it is a diversion from the pernicious agenda that Trump is promoting.

Jun 26, 2017 at 2:38pm
South_Mountaineer said: paulsurovell said: South_Mountaineer said:"Trump blames Obama for Russian attack he doesn’t believe happened"Since the OP is the most active apologist for Trump on the Russia issue, on this message board, it would be interesting to hear how this reconciles with the "never happened" line of argument. "Apologist for Trump" is your McCarthyite phrase du jour.  You just can't help yourself.With regard to your quote from Trump, I have never cited his views as factoring into my position on the evidence-free allegation of Russian hacking and will not do so in the future. And I'm sure the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity will not do so either.Do you take Trump's statement as confirmation of your position? Another misuse of the term "McCarthyism".  No, you're not a victim of "McCarthyism", and it's kind of an insult to the real victims to claim that mantle.  And "apologist" applies to anyone making excuses for Trump regarding all things Russia.  The real "modern day McCarthyism" is being practiced by Trump and his partisans, not inflicted upon them -https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...I take Trump's statement as part of his method - say outrageous things, hopefully confuse the facts, and his apologists don't care. When you try to discredit a dissenter by calling him/her "a Trump apologist" you are engaging in a McCarthyite smear by implying that the dissenter is motivated by support for Trump, rather than the merits of the dissent.In 2003 when I joined this board, I was called an apologist of Saddam Hussein because I dissented from the Administration Iraq story, supported by the CIA White Paper, that Saddam was developing weapons of mass destruction to attack the US.No different than what you are doing now.McCarthyism then, McCarthyism now.

Jun 26, 2017 at 2:56pm
dave23 said: paulsurovell said: When you try to discredit a dissenter by calling him/her "a Trump apologist" you are engaging in a McCarthyite smear by implying that the dissenter is motivated by support for Trump, rather than the merits of the dissent.In 2003 when I joined this board, I was called an apologist of Saddam Hussein because I dissented from the Administration Iraq story, supported by the CIA White Paper, that Saddam was developing weapons of mass destruction to attack the US.No different than what you are doing now.McCarthyism then, McCarthyism now. I was also one of a number of posters here questioning the cherry picking of intelligence data leading up to the war. It didn't feel like McCarthyism to me.Instead of crying McCarthyism, maybe you can provide a plausible explanation for the hacks, the attempted hacks of voting systems and the spearfishing attempts of local officials. (We've already dismissed the NSA theory.) If you were called an apologist of Saddam Hussein it was McCarthyism.Your question has been asked and answered, numerous times. Do a search on my comments.

Jun 26, 2017 at 4:03pm
South_Mountaineer said: paulsurovell said:When you try to discredit a dissenter by calling him/her "a Trump apologist" you are engaging in a McCarthyite smear by implying that the dissenter is motivated by support for Trump, rather than the merits of the dissent.In 2003 when I joined this board, I was called an apologist of Saddam Hussein because I dissented from the Administration Iraq story, supported by the CIA White Paper, that Saddam was developing weapons of mass destruction to attack the US.No different than what you are doing now.McCarthyism then, McCarthyism now. Again, misuse of the term.  I will add, poor analogy in trying to make it like Iraq invasion opposition.  Same criticism of your use of that insult against comments about your positions.  Since Hannity is also accusing those who criticize Trump of "McCarthyism", you might want to look for a new word to describe your perceived victimhood. So now you want to give Hannity control over what words are acceptable?

Aug 30, 2017 at 11:33pm
South_Mountaineer said: paulsurovell said:You think you're "opposing Trump" by embracing Russiagate.  But you're actually in bed with and supporting the worst elements of the neocon world and the military industrial complex who are pushing Russiagate to promote a new Cold War and the ensuing tens of billions of dollars of military contracts.In Russiagate, it's OK to say anything -- even if it's irrational -- as long as it's hostile to Russia or Putin.  And it's OK to paint anyone who dissents from Russiagate as a "Trump supporter" or "traitor."And the same people pushing Trump into a posture of hostililty and confrontation with Russia are saying that he's unstable, unpredictable and not qualified to hold the nuclear codes. That's a real load of nonsense.  Just because people don't want to let Putin do whatever he feels like doing, doesn't make them "neocons" or supporters of neocons. A non sequitur South_Mountaineer said:And in particular, the conclusion - While Russian interference in last year’s election was all about us, Moscow’s use of asymmetric tactics to undermine multilateral institutions and aid pro-Russia parties in so many other countries is not. The difference is that with some Americans across the political spectrum insisting that we should simply move on, we aren’t doing much to counter it. Doing so doesn’t mean creating an environment of “neo-McCarthyite hysteria,” escalating hostilities with Moscow or blundering toward a shooting war in Syria. It simply requires that we acknowledge the reality of the problem and work with our allies to address it in a sober and serious way. https://www.thenation.com/article/russias-attacks-on-democracy-arent-only-a-problem-for-america/ The entire quote is one strawman after another.For example, this excerpt completely -- and deliberately -- misrepresents the argument that Russiagate proponents engage in McCarthyism.  As the author knows, the argument is based on the smearing of Russiagate dissenters as Trump supporters, traitors, etc., by the proponents of Russiagate.

Sep 6, 2017 at 10:38am
South_Mountaineer said: paulsurovell said: South_Mountaineer said:And in particular, the conclusion - While Russian interference in last year’s election was all about us, Moscow’s use of asymmetric tactics to undermine multilateral institutions and aid pro-Russia parties in so many other countries is not. The difference is that with some Americans across the political spectrum insisting that we should simply move on, we aren’t doing much to counter it. Doing so doesn’t mean creating an environment of “neo-McCarthyite hysteria,” escalating hostilities with Moscow or blundering toward a shooting war in Syria. It simply requires that we acknowledge the reality of the problem and work with our allies to address it in a sober and serious way. https://www.thenation.com/article/russias-attacks-on-democracy-arent-only-a-problem-for-america/ The entire quote is one strawman after another.For example, this excerpt completely -- and deliberately -- misrepresents the argument that Russiagate proponents engage in McCarthyism.  As the author knows, the argument is based on the smearing of Russiagate dissenters as Trump supporters, traitors, etc., by the proponents of Russiagate. First and foremost, it's the conclusion of a long article which supports the conclusion.  In my prior post your words "pushing Russiagate to promote a new Cold War and the ensuing tens of billions of dollars of military contracts" are quoted, which means that it's not a "strawman" at all.   Oh, and if you're bothered by and think you're being "smeared" as supporting Trump, you should avoid adopting phony Trump-supporting claims, as in - paulsurovell said:https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well. And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock. That was a much-mocked NY Times story based on the book, "Clinton Cash".  If you actually weren't aware of the debunking of the "quid pro quo" claim, here's a summary:http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-uranium-russia-deal/ (a) Snopes does not challenge the NY Times article, which did not allege a quid pro quo but did note that the payments were not reported -- something that Snopes admits was enough to "sound alarm bells."(b) You conveniently omitted the fact -- cited by the Times article -- that Bill Clinton was paid $500,000 for a Moscow speech by a Russian bank promoting the uranium deal.(c) And of course you similarly omitted the reference to the Democratic-affiliated Podesta Group's representation of Russian Sberbank to lobby against US sanctions against Russia.All of the above are more than sufficient to answer Stoughton's query of whether there is a "what about" equivalent to the aborted Trump attempt to license his name on a building project in Moscow.

Jan 1, 2018 at 1:28pm
nohero said:And it is not "McCarthyism" to say that Trump supporters are in favor of any attempts to undermine the public's view of Mueller's integrity. But it is McCarthyism to imply that anyone challenging Mueller's integrity is a Trump supporter.And of course that is the kind of out-of-control McCarthyite Trump-smearing that you do -- either directly or by innuendo -- all the time.

Jan 5, 2018 at 1:36pm
nohero said: paulsurovell said: nohero said:Flynn lied, and his lies involved discussions with the Russian government.  The topics of the discussion have been in the news, but the TOPICS aren't the basis for the indictment, the LIES are.You're about a month late pushing this talking point.  Last month, RT and Sputnik published stories about this.  It's an attempt to deflect criticism of Trump by saying the media were ignoring "collusion" with Israel.  As you've taken pains to remind us, "collusion" is not a crime, and nobody is being indicted for "collusion".  So "Why isn't the MSM discussing the collusion with Israel" is a stupid question.RT News: "Exclusion of collusion: MSM ignores Trump officials’ collusion… with Israel"Sputnik News: "Analyst: Trump Team Colluded with Israel, Not Russia, in Flynn-Kislyak Talks"Interesting, but not surprising, that someone who purports to oppose Trump and to support Obama's legacy doesn't care about Trump's collusion with a foreign government to undermine one of Obama's most important foreign policy initiatives.And also interesting that he tries to link the notion of collusion with Israel to Russian media, ignoring the same point made by independent US media. Maybe that's because he can't control his McCarthyite instincts. So everything I wrote earlier is true.  It's not true to say that what I wrote shows that I don't care about Trump's foreign policy with respect to Israel, Palestine, and the rest of the Middle East.  I just prefer more honest and factual descriptions instead of the term "collusion with a foreign government" to describe the interactions between the Trump side and Israel.  The continued insults about "McCarthyism" are getting old.  I could respond with something more up-to-date, like - If you really want to talk about Trump "colluding" with Israel, the guys from "Stormfront" are all over that topic and can take your side."Clinton mega donor Jewish Haim Saban thanks Kushner for collusion on Israel's behalf""From The Intercept, Trump’s Transition Team Colluded With Israel. Why Isn’t That News?" Sadly, every time you allege an "insult" you go double down and confirm that it wasn't an insult but a truthful description of your compulsive McCarthyite smear tactics. And now you descend even further, using neo-Nazis to suggest anti-Semitism. Way down in the sewer.

Jan 5, 2018 at 2:07pm
nohero said: paulsurovell said:Sadly, every time you allege an "insult" you go double down and confirm that it wasn't an insult but a truthful description of your compulsive McCarthyite smear tactics. And now you descend even further, using neo-Nazis to suggest anti-Semitism. Way down in the sewer. As already discussed, disagreeing with you doesn't confirm your "McCarthysism" insult.  And last I checked, neo-Nazis ARE anti-Semitic.  You don't disagree on the merits. You associate views with Trump, Russia and now neo-Nazis. That's how you play and it's called McCarthyism.

Jan 6, 2018 at 2:55pm
LOST said: jamie said:Demanding Simpson to testify in public - should not be the justification for not releasing the transcript.  This is absurd. And now we are getting close to true McCarthyism. McCarthyism includes scenarios where citizens are required to testify in public about their political beliefs and associations. However, there is no such requirement or "demand" with regard to Fusion/GPS. Not even a demand of any kind. Of course there have been many witnesses required/demanded to testify in the various Russiagate investigations, but not about their political beliefs and associations. However, that line was blurred when the Senate Intel committee announced it was investigating Jill Stein in part because "she has very complimentary things to say about Julian Assange" That qualifies as McCarthyism. The reaction to Stein's investigation as shown previously, was reminiscent of public spin during McCarthyite investigations: (from Hillary Clinton's former director of rapid response)

Feb 1, 2018 at 12:08am
drummerboy said:btw, in supporting the release of this "memo", Paul has revoked his right to ever accuse anyone of McCarthyism again. There's nothing more McCarthyite than the treatment this memo has been given over the past week. And Paul has been a part of it. Your analogy is backwards. McCarthy claimed a "secret document" with names of communists in the State Department. He refused to release it, despite demands for its release by his opponents. This week, we've witnessed Republicans and advocates of transparency seeking to release the memo under House procedures, while Democrats and other Russiagate believers oppose its release, trying to keep it secret. So the correct analogy is that those opposed to releasing the memo are in step with McCarthy. Those supporting the memo's release are in step with McCarthy's opponents, who demanded that he release his "secret document."

Feb 1, 2018 at 9:36am
drummerboy said:wrongo bongo buddyboyThe only difference between McCarthy and Nunes is that the Nunes team realized that in this day and age they couldn't wave around an empty piece of paper. They had to put writing on it, regardless of how scurrilous it might be. Their use of the piece of paper is the same. It is a piece of fiction whose only purpose is to confuse the public with baseless attacks on Trump's "accusers". paulsurovell said: drummerboy said:btw, in supporting the release of this "memo", Paul has revoked his right to ever accuse anyone of McCarthyism again. There's nothing more McCarthyite than the treatment this memo has been given over the past week. And Paul has been a part of it. Your analogy is backwards. McCarthy claimed a "secret document" with names of communists in the State Department. He refused to release it, despite demands for its release by his opponents. This week, we've witnessed Republicans and advocates of transparency seeking to release the memo under House procedures, while Democrats and other Russiagate believers oppose its release, trying to keep it secret. So the correct analogy is that those opposed to releasing the memo are in step with McCarthy. Those supporting the memo's release are in step with McCarthy's opponents, who demanded that he release his "secret document." Do you support the release of the memo?

Feb 1, 2018 at 1:38pm
nohero said: paulsurovell said: drummerboy said:btw, in supporting the release of this "memo", Paul has revoked his right to ever accuse anyone of McCarthyism again. There's nothing more McCarthyite than the treatment this memo has been given over the past week. And Paul has been a part of it. Your analogy is backwards. McCarthy claimed a "secret document" with names of communists in the State Department. He refused to release it, despite demands for its release by his opponents. This week, we've witnessed Republicans and advocates of transparency seeking to release the memo under House procedures, while Democrats and other Russiagate believers oppose its release, trying to keep it secret. So the correct analogy is that those opposed to releasing the memo are in step with McCarthy. Those supporting the memo's release are in step with McCarthy's opponents, who demanded that he release his "secret document." You're misusing the term "McCarthyism" by claiming that opposing misleading accusations is "in step with McCarthy". That's a distortion of what I said. And you know it.

Feb 1, 2018 at 2:03pm
dave23 said: paulsurovell said:That's what I thought, you're against releasing the memo. So in your McCarthyism analogy, you'd be supporting McCarthy's refusal to release his "secret document" of communists in the State Department for the same reasons? Into the dumb McCarthyite category, wouldn't we put the Republican refusal to release the Dem memo? They voted to subject the release of the Dem memo to the same process their memo went through.

Oct 24, 2018 at 1:53pm
nohero said: Whether it was a lie has already been addressed.  Assuming for the sake of argument that it was not true, it still doesn't meet any definition of "McCarthyism".  It's an accusation you often fling, and this is an example of how you're using it without any basis, but just as an ugly label to pin on someone.  See introduction to this post on spotting a "tell" and what the "tell" signifies. Lying is not synonymous with McCarthyism, but it's part of it.  In this case, your purpose was to associate me with the Trump assault on Hillary over her missing emails (via my comment on Anthony Wiener) as part of your ongoing campaign to associate my criticism of Russiagate (which actually constituted my main criticism of Hillary two years ago) with Trump. You are immersed in McCarthyism and this was another example. nohero said: That's your weakest argument in favor of your smear yet.  The "additional activities" include documenting the atrocities of Assad and his allies.  They "play a key role" by rescuing people and documenting atrocities; you disagree with how others use those facts, but in a classic "McCarthyite" manner you use it as the basis for your insinuation that they are guilty of collaboration with terrorists.   The veracity of some of the stuff they "document" has been challenged by experts and journalists. That's a fact. And they perform a propaganda function for the regime-change warmongers and as Scott Ritter noted, they serve as a recruiting tool for the rebels, who are dominated by Al Qaeda. And that's a fact as well.  You subscribe to the myth that the White Helmets are simply a humanitarian group. That's only part of what they do, and as the Dutch government decided, there is no way to confirm what they are doing and where the money is going. nohero said:I assume the meaning of this last comment is that by noting your email obsession, I'm the one obsessed with something.  The "searching back two years" wasn't exactly difficult.  I remembered the stupid comment that I quoted, and MOL let me search where "paulsurovell" used the word "Weiner".  It showed up right near the top of the list.  Easy peasy lemon squeezy.Definitely easier than composing this post.  Bye 'til next time!  You didn't note an "email obsession" you invented one.

Nov 4, 2018 at 10:32am
nohero said: paulsurovell said:For the record, here is @nohero's latest eruption of McCarthyism, noted above, in context:  Thanks for the context.  People can see that these were sarcastic reactions to your response which was deliberately disrespectful.  So your stream of McCarthyite slurs over the last two years have been sarcastic?