Reading Comprehension 101

Tucker Miller responds:

1st I wrote:

"He says that his tax dollars are funding events that he finds morally objectionable, and he is entitled to find it objectionable (in fact, I'll admit the whole scenario seems lewd & ridiculous). But to twist this into a "wasted tax money" issue is just too much!" Then I said: "This author is petty and prudish… I'm just saying that folks like MR should really do a better job of picking there battles."

And finally I said:

"...it's not the mere fact that MR has a problem with the film being shown at UNCA that is so ridiculous. It is the fact that he tries to turn his prudish argument into a "wasted tax money issue" that gets me upset. "

Then Steve says:

"... you have changed the basis of your "all I'm saying is..." rebuttal twice now. First you were irritated because you perceived MR to be declaring himself King of Morality and now you're irritated because he's not complaining about the war. You've nowhere to go now…."

Seriously, do you actually read the posts? Or do you just pick out what you find convenient? Where is it that I change my rebuttal? My thesis remains the same from beginning to end: If the author objects to the viewing of this film on moral grounds, then that is his right. But he obfuscates his own point by bringing in the tax money issue.

My use of the war as an example (which I can only assume MR supports) , does nothing but show that the author is not really concerned with morals or fiscal conservatism: he's just a self-righteous hypocrite.