Like Jakeroo, I really shouldn't get enmeshed with this thread, but sometimes I can't ignore it. Mike Bonner and John Mann have it right. What part of Weber's directive don't some of our members understand? Having said that, I'll now indict myself with the rest of the posters. Rabbit -- Hate the sin but love the sinner? Gunflint's observation is largely correct. It is offensive. It is tasteless. It is, indeed, an order of magnitude less than mature and thoughtless in the extreme. Jakeroo -- if we abide by Weber's dictum, he doesn't have the right on this forum. He does have the right to say anything he believes, however small-minded or tendentious, and Jack M., I and others have an equal right to disagree -- but we shouldn't have to do it here. Larry B. -- words a man writes do not have to have a face to be transparent. Did Jack M. or others of us "crawl out of the woodwork"? Poor choice of words -- or a good indication of the writer's mindset? Larry, I can't help but feel you didn't spend enough time on campus parsing language or logic, which is odd since your published work indicates a passing familiarity with the written word (and has my admiration). Let's see, as long as he didn't name a specific Democrat, the tag line doesn't really mean what it says. Does this mean that what a man writes or says may depend on what the definition of "is" is?
None of this is meant to be confrontational, but Weber's directive needs to be more closely observed.
Regards to all of you, Democrats and Republicans. In equal measure. Will
