When you get to the point in an argument that you're both quoting sources that the other side is expressly not prepared to trust, maybe you've gotten as far as you're going to get? Maybe it's best to call it a day before things get too personal? Agree to disagree, and move on?
Ann, I'm sure Roger did not intend to imply that you were lying or deliberately quoting untrustworthy sources.
Roger, a blanket dismissal of anything that comes from as old and prestigious a source as the NYT is a little extreme, don't you think? They've had more than their share of recent troubles, and their viewpoint doesn't agree with yours, but that's no reason for the level of contempt you've been showing for the entire institution and anything that comes out of it.
And I apologize for my similar dismissal of Fox News. My primary exposure to it has been either people I agree with mocking and dismissing it or people I disagree with using it to uphold their views. I don't watch it myself, for various reasons, so I've let my judgment be colored by such secondary opinions.
And this thing with the WMDs? Here's the deal, as far as I know: There was a cache of weapons (and scattered weapons components) left over from the first Gulf War (when it looked like we might invade, but... maybe I shouldn't get into that). No evidence that there was any intention to use them, or even that they'd been touched in over a decade. (Including when we actually did invade.) Fox News made a big deal of it, no one else seemed to care.
You can argue that some people should have made a bigger deal of it (while making too big a deal of other things), you can argue that others made too big a deal of it (and maybe not enough of a deal of other things). But whichever side you want to argue for, the other side has already made up their minds about it. So, again... Maybe it's time to agree to disagree?
Is there anything productive to add, or have we said enough for now?
When in doubt, think about penguins. It probably won't help, but at least it'll be fun.
