by TacticaLogic » Fri Mar 13, 2009 12:20 am
Seminole, if you get a reply to your follow-up e-mail, please let us know. I will be truly surprised if you do...
To me, his avoidance of the issues you brought to light silently communicates his inability to debate you on the real issues of his error-ridden piece. In other words, when you turned on the kitchen light, the cockroach ran for cover. And a bright light it was... Your ability to properly, professionally, and eloquently communicate the problems with the article quickly let him know that he was not receiving correspondence from someone that is content to be concerned only with that which occurs within a 10 foot radius of their physical location (as are most of the people whose total knowledge of current events is spoon-fed to them through the leftist propaganda artists that have been graduating with a degree in journalism from our institutions of higher learning at an exponentionally increasing rate since the end of World War II.) If he had received correspondence from one of those types, his tone would have been completely different - his reply would have sounded like a kindergarten teacher explaining to little Johnny why he was right and why little Johnny needed to go along with the program. He recognized superior intellect and sought to hammer you back in line with an arrogant reply. The fact that you have taken his reply and pointed out his errors to him once more will either cause him to personally attack you, or cause him to not reply (for it is easier to say "not worth my time" than it is to admit defeat.)
I did get a kick out his shifting the blame for his misuse of the word "Assault Rifle" to the investigating agency... Typical liberal methodology - it's always someone else's fault.
Outstanding work, Seminole!
Mike
For training beyond the carry permit: