GermanStar - 1/19/2005 10:31 PM
Botnst - 1/19/2005 8:08 PM
And it just grew as people tended to choose sides based more on sympathy for a personality or style than differences in opinion (IMO). For example, you, Kerry and Z are all far, far to the left of Kirk, but there was/is somethign about his style that attracted a following, evidenced here by the numerous posts sympathetic to him and complimentary of him. That's no small feat.
I don't believe you've quite gotten a hold of the fact that the over/under here is Iraq. Iraq is the dividing line between us and them, and it has been for a long time. Mikemover noted a few days ago that he was surprised to share my opinion on something. The fact is that Mike and I are on the same side a great deal of the time, but I'm one of "them" -- an anti-Iraq guy, hence his surprise. It's all about Iraq, Iraq, Iraq. I know it seems crazy to choose alliances and friends over a single issue -- I certainly don't, but that's exactly what seems to have happened here. It's really kind of small of us, don't you think?
You may be right, I sure don't know. I'm in the lala land of unfounded speculation here, and it's my toy. And just for coming-up with a good counter-argument, I'm going to banish you to being a datum.
Imagine a vast cloud of people, each of whom has a feeling of interest in Iraq varying from totally plus to totally negative. Now imagine that there are an array of inputs to that node-decision. Somebody weakly committed to his opion may be shifted to one side or the other by the least perturbation in thee last input while somebody with a strong opinion would be unmoved by anything short of a Biblical miracle. Now my contention is that the inputs that drive Kerry, Z, and jjl, are different from those that drive you or me or KV. The results of the decision node may appear to put some combination in cahoots when actually different inputs get them there.
This is why you believe you and MikeMover are closer than he thinks. You two have some different inputs that you don't recognize but he thinks are large, while you note similarities that you think are large and he does not. And so forth for all of us.
Now in my estimation of their fundamental political views, I think that Kerry and Z and jjl are so far left of Kerry that except for this one issue, Iraq, they see all of us as jam-packed into a tight circle of various forms of capitalists. Superficial differences only.
But on this one issue, Iraq, their views are very much in line with each other and yours with theirs. And each of you have voiced, at different times, strong opinions about Iraq. But of the four of you, only Kirk has a following of any consequence.
It's not because of Iraq, but I believe it's because of his message delivery, what I termed "style" earlier. His is a significantly different from the rest of you. Each of you agree and speak frequently to a forum about Iraq and are in accordance but only one attracts a following.
Finally, I am clearly not in accord with ya'll and a lot of other folks are not. I don't think anybody who has been on a forum and has a view opposing yours is going to hang around and tell me how greatly they appreciate my pontifications. (I'd send'em drugs for that, if I could). All of the peopel who are opposite you on Iraq are a rather faceless lot except for one pitcher who can only throw a screwball.
All of this leads me to believe that Kirk's differentiating characteristic from you data points out there is one of style. How can it be otherwise?