« 13,000 Dead and 518,000 Disabled with Many More to Come | Main | Still titting along....(Updated) »

February 20, 2007

Tit is to tat...as....

So McQ over at Quando noticed my earlier post at PK, discussing my "anti-war" agenda whilst linking to his "efforts" at Quando. I'd be tinkled pink all over if only McQ had a clue about the point. From his post, its quite clear that he doesn't:

But, back to the post in question. What I found amusing is the blogger in question here had to strain mightily to infer my quoting the Politico characterization of MoveOn.org as an "anti-war" group is somehow untrue.

Reading is fundamental, McQ. I made no attempts whatsoever to say that MoveOn isn't an anti-war group. In fact, its my understanding that this is exactly what they are. While I'm sure you found the entire thing amusing--its not nearly as amusing as the fact that you either didn't read my post, or aren't capable of basic reading comprehension.

Since you clearly didn't get the point--let me dial you in: I'M ANTI WAR TOO...and I'd prefer to be that way. I'm consistently appalled at those who aren't. This is really not that tough of a concept.

I report, you decide.

McQ further opines:

With all due respect to Carla, her analysis moves to new heights of ludicrousness at this point. I mean I can infer a lot of things from what people say, but I actually try to keep such inferences within the bounds of reality. Is that too much to ask of a member of the "reality based" community?

Where in the world does one extract an inference from my report on a new advocacy group that I was instead writing something which was, "about the promotion of war as a glorious and laudable effort—while efforts at peace are to be held in the highest contempt."

That's simply absurd. It's also sad and pathetic. She has to strain that hard to make something out of nothing to push her agenda?

So not only does McQ not believe that readers make inferences from the labels that authors use to set the tone for their pieces, McQ believes we're all just too stupid to actually make the PROPER inferences, as well. He just couldn't possibly mean that "anti-war" is bad by slapping that label on MoveOn, even though its quite clearly what he meant.

He was just trotting out that label in an innocent attempt to delineate that liberals (unlike the good and righteous McQ), just don't want "success in Iraq":

I, otoh, understand that success in Iraq (and for that matter, in any war undertaken) is much more desirable than failure for any number of reasons, one of which has to do with future wars. That means I think making a concerted effort toward achieving success even if it costs us "more war" in the relative short term is the right choice now, because I realize that if we succeed in Iraq, it will probably prevent much "more war" in the future.

Ahh yes..."success in Iraq", that platitude of elusiveness which no one who uses it can actually quantify. It almost has the same charming ring as "anti-war", but doesn't quite have that same cachet. Silly me. I should have known that was next. I'm ever so appreciative of Paul--he's made it so much easier to prove my point.

And now, its quite possible that McQ has some lovely beachfront property in Nebraska he'd like to sell us.

Golly gee McQ, will you be back later with the word "treason" or are you saving that for something exceedingly special?

Posted by Carla at February 20, 2007 02:47 PM