Prophetic words first uttered in 1965 ringing true in the nightly news

1. 59

   bBereanposted 10 years ago

   Paul Harvey, April 3rd, 1965, "If I were the devil." 
   
   Consider society when Paul Harvey first aired this, and how much has transpired to fulfill it already.  Forewarned, yet still we stay true to the destructive course
   .
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bz714GAXXU4

   replyreport
   1. 71

      Quilligrapherposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Greeting to you, Mr. Berean.
      
      I have no idea what prompted the OP statement but not a word in it is true. For starters, the audio link is not a recording of a broadcast made in April, 1965. It is, however, an ideal example of Internet borne inaccuracy that should be fact checked before posting. 
      
      Secondly, it is not, nor was it ever, intended to be prophetic in any way. Actually, contrary to your mistaken claim, nothing has “transpired to fulfill” his words. The original essay, first published by Mr. Harvey in his newspaper column in 1964, did not reflect on the country’s future. His metaphors, mostly exaggerated, served as a commentary that he intended to be critical of US society as it existed in his time. Hence, his closing sentence reads, “In other words, if I were the devil, I'd just keep on doing what he is doing.” 
      
      Finally, for two decades, Mr. Harvey promoted the devil out of this theme by regularly dragging it out for his own profit. Over the years, he also added a significant amount of the latest trends to his devil’s list of phenomena which is quite evident when comparing the original to the last printed newspaper version that appeared in 1996. {1} {2}
      
      Mr. Harvey’s essay was an artful reflection of his times but it was never prophesy. Nor was it anything even close to what the OP statement tries to make it out to be today.
      
      Thanks for launching this discussion, Mr. Berean, and for resurrecting Mr. Harvey’s critical and masterful word picture of his time.   
      
      {1}Harvey, Paul. "If I Were the Devil I Would Pray, Our Father Who Art in Washington." Gadsden Times. 13 October 1964   (p. 4).
      {2} Harvey, Paul. "If I Were the Devil." Reading Eagle. 1 July 1996.

      replyreport
      1. 83

         GA Andersonposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         I hope you won't mind if I jump in. Because, as usual you noted research about Mr. Harvey's essay and its multiple reiterations are correct.
         
         Snopes did an interesting piece on the evolution of the print and internet versions of the piece, (which echos much of your commentary), both by Paul Harvey himself, and others supporting his social commentary perspective.
         
         But, even understanding these changes as being purpose driven to promote a perspective, are you disagreeing with that perspective? Do you believe that the apparent, (my perspective),  moral degradations, (Ok, degradations is a biased descriptor, I think it fits but if it would be more "safe" - think "changes"),  have not continued to occur - to a point that his commentary could be construed as a "prophesy"?
         
         From the simple... public nudity is damn near acceptable now, to the religious... religious folks are almost viewed as gullible morons now, to the political... government rules and sustains the people now - instead of serving them.
         
         So, does nitpicking the details invalidate the message?
         
         If the linked recording was not the actual April, 1965 broadcast, it is still Paul Harvey making his commentary - it is not a fake recording, so does the misapplication implying original credits negate the point?
         
         "... contrary to your mistaken claim, nothing has [i]“transpired to fulfill” his words...[/i]
         
         Are you kidding? Are you seriously declaring that none of what the essay "prophesied"  or commented on has transpired? Come on Quill, do you really want to proclaim that our society has not pursued any of the paths that Harvey spoke of since 1965?
         
         Is it just religious piousness to see a problem with our current acceptance of public displays that none but the most "enlightened" would view as near-nudity or just plain lewd?  Are you familiar with "Twerking?" Do you think twerking should be viewed as no more of a public angst than Elvis' "leg shaking?"
         
         And then you appear to see the "evolution" of the points of the essay, "Over the years, he also added a significant amount of the latest trends to his devil’s list of phenomena..." as proof of its invalidity. Are you arguing against updating a perspective as experience dictates - as a valid  negative? It would seem to me me to be wisdom itself to adjust a perspective as time proves the truth or falsity of it.
         
         In your  ending statement you are, as usual, correct. Mr. Harvey's essay was not a political prophesy, it was a social commentary of his times. The point that it was not the original essay is another valid point. But, I read the OP's intentions to be that his commentary could be viewed as a prophetic - because his words have essentially been proven true by the passage of time.
         
         Do you disagree with that?
         
         Do you disagree that religious belief has been demagogued(sp?) to the point that the current  Politically Correct perspective is  that believers are essentially delusional idiots? 
         
         Do you disagree that his "campaign of whispers" is a pretty accurate description of the pervasiveness, and effectiveness of the recent years PC agenda?
         
         Do you disagree that the evolution of public media now fits his "
         I'd threaten TV with dirtier movies, and vice-versa"  statement - comparable to the mores of 1965?
         
         etc. etc. etc.
         
         "Prophetic words first uttered in 1965 ringing true in the nightly news"
         
         That does not seem to be an outlandish misstatement to me. It appears to be a contention. So I am forced to ask; What is your point? That the OP was blatantly misleading in "presenting his link as the original essay?" Or that the points of the essay, and what I think would be the OP's commonly perceived point of discussion to be - was/are wrong?
         
         And you have no idea what prompted it? Given the context of his statement, and the essence of the linked essay - I can find no other explanation for your statement than  a disingenuous claim of perplexity. The OP did term the essay as prophetic, but he did not call it a prophesy - is that just semantics, or are you insisting one descriptor commands only one interpretation?
         
         
         GA

         replyreport
         1. 71

            Quilligrapherposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            Hey there, Gus. Come on in. The water is warm, the beer is cold, and there is a fair sky above.
            
            I see you have volunteered to be a proxy for the OP. As you can see, he is delighted to have you speak on his behalf. This relieves the OP from having to deal with other points of view.
            
            I thought that I was very clear in the first sentence of my post when I said “not a word in [the OP statement] is true.” If I was the sarcastic type, which I am not ( ), I would ask you what part of my sentence do you not understand. I did explain why the three sentences in the OP statement are untrue. Apparently, I failed. Allow me to try again.
            
            From the OP statement:
            “Prophetic words first uttered in 1965 ringing true in the nightly news
            
            To be prophetic, the words must state without prior knowledge what will happen in the future. As you have already acknowledged, Mr. Harvey was commenting on events he perceived were happening in society at the time he wrote the essay. In your own words, “In your ending statement you are, as usual, correct. Mr. Harvey's essay was not a political prophesy, it was a social commentary of his times.” Not only was it not a prophesy, it was not even prophetic in the accepted meaning of the word.
            
            Allow me to cite an example. When speaking about trends in today’s society, if I say regular church attendance in the US today is declining, would G A Anderson honestly say my words were “prophetic” if fifty years from today regular church attendance is still declining? I think he would not. He would likely say my words were a keen observation of my time but certainly not “prophetic.”
            
            From the OP statement:
            “Paul Harvey, April 3rd, 1965, "If I were the devil."
            
            An honest mistake that could have easily been avoided by fact checking.
            
            From the OP statement:
            “Consider society when Paul Harvey first aired this, and how much has transpired to fulfill it already.
            
            The operative word is “fulfill.” Mr. Harvey’s words were fulfilled before he spoke them. He was commenting on what he observed in society at that time. Therefore, nothing has “transpired” since to make his observations more or less fulfilled.
            
            Also from the OP statement:
            “Forewarned, yet still we stay true to the destructive course."
            
            The French writer Marcel Pagnol once said, “The reason people find it so hard to be happy is that they always see the past better than it was, the present worse than it is, and the future less resolved than it will be.”  It has also been reported recently that people with high levels of cynicism “may be more likely to develop dementia, according to a study published in the May 28, 2014, online issue of Neurology®, the medical journal of the American Academy of Neurology.” {1}
            
            I submit that it is extremely cynical to believe the entire country is on a “destructive course.” Not only was society not “forewarned” by the literary talents of Mr. Harvey but I do not see myself or society on a destructive course. What I see is a world undergoing continuous change both positive and negative. Changes that began long before Mr. Harvey’s essay and continued after it as well. Society was not on a destructive course in 1776; it was not on a destructive path in 1920 when women won the right to vote; and it certainly was not on a road to destruction in 1965 when congress pasted the Civil Rights Act. I will venture a guess that the number of examples indicating our society is NOT on a destructive course is far greater than the devil’s list created by Mr. Harvey to advance his own celebrity.
            
            I should stop here since the above represents the total gist of my reply to the OP statement. I believe I have adequately explained (again) why I thought the OP statement was untrue. Feel free to correct me, Gus, on behalf of the OP if you wish. However, I will pass on trying to justify someone else’s speculation about things I did not actually say.
            
            An example of speculation about things I did not say:
            “ Are you familiar with ‘Twerking?’ Do you think twerking should be viewed as no more of a public angst than Elvis' ‘leg shaking?’”
            
            Gus, I would like to respond with two unanswered questions of my own. Are you familiar with “freedom?” Do you think people should enjoy the freedom to act foolish as long as they do not encroach on the freedoms of others? Remember, Elvis was censored for his leg shaking. I think America has matured a great deal since then. By the way, no one is being forced to twerk unless they want to.
            
            Then the unfounded speculation takes an abrupt turn: “From the simple... public nudity is damn near acceptable now, to the religious... religious folks are almost viewed as gullible morons now, to the political... government rules and sustains the people now - instead of serving them.”
            
            Now I see the  role of “OP proxy” morphing into a hijacker looking to bring up issues that not even the OP intended to raise.
            
            I do not think it matters how others view religious folks particularly if they are true to their beliefs. Nor do I agree with the unqualified statement that government is no longer serving the people. Of course, that may be your spin and you are welcome to it.
            
            In addition, public nudity seems to be an issue with you yet no one, to my knowledge, is making you remove your clothes in public. Genesis tells us that Adam and Eve lived naked in the Garden of Eden and they felt no shame. In case you have not noticed, some people today are still ashamed of the body they claim their God gave to them. A body He said was in His own image and likeness. I think it is hypercritical to demonize people who are not ashamed of His gift.
            
            “So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.” Genesis 1:27
            “Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.” Genesis 2:25
            
            Munich, the third largest city in Germany, located in the heart of predominantly Catholic Bavaria, has designated areas within the city where people can get naked in public. {2} While some may see decadence, others may see freedom but none, I suspect, will see anything they have not already seen before.
            
            {1} https://www.aan.com/PressRoom/Home/PressRelease/1286
            {2} http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news … er-3414714

            replyreport
            1. 83

               GA Andersonposted 10 years agoin reply to this

               So you think I volunteered to be a proxy for the OP? As one who seems to value proper usage of terms, that seems a bit reckless to me.
               
               Of course I do understand your intended meaning by the use of "proxy," but strictly speaking, bBerean never asked or authorized me to speak or act for him. I thought my response was merely witnessing my perception that his OP was spot on, and your critique was a bit of semantics regarding the way he expressed his point.
               
               At least that is what your repeated criticism of his use of the word "prophetic" appears to convey to me. Like your use of "proxy" clearly projected the only accurate meaning you could have intended.
               
               I understand I am making an assumption, (which is always dangerous to do), but I must assume that you don't really think the OP asked me to speak for him. Or authorized me to carry his water for him.
               
               Coming back to "prophetic," and the point I perceived the OP to be making. Once again you are exactly right in the proper use and definition of the word, but commonly accepted usage might not require such adherence to proper definitions as you imply.
               
               For instance; Good ol' Merriam-Webster backs you up 100% on the definition part, but then continues on to offer this sentence as a common usage example :
               
               "...in retrospect, those lower-than-expected sales numbers were a prophetic indicator of the financial trouble the company would soon be in..."Merriam-Webster's Prophetic
               
               Hmm... sounds a lot like the OP's use of the word. The "sales numbers" were not claimed or intended, (apparently by this example), to be prophetic when stated. Yet it appears M-W thinks this example shows an appropriate use of the word.
               
               I would not dare make another assumption - that you think M-W is right in their definition but wrong in their example of usage - but your repeated insistence that the word "prophetic" can only mean one thing certainly causes me to wonder.
               
               Even if it is just a debatable case of semantics - my perception of the intended meaning vs. your declaration that its use invalidated the entire message - did you really not understand the point of the OP's message? Or is your point just that you disagree with it?
               
               I think his first sentence use of the word "prophetic" is a commonly acceptable use of the word -and apparently M-W does too. I suppose we will have to appeal to a higher authority to arbitrate this point.
               
               Let's parse his title - which is part of his statement -  which you state not a word of is true.
               
               “Prophetic words first uttered in 1965 ringing true in the nightly news
               
               So it may be possible that "prophetic words," in this context, is used properly. As to whether they are true is subjective - which means an opinion - not a fact.
               
               But you nailed him on "first uttered in 1965" - that was factually incorrect. Although all sources I could find did indicate April 1965 was the first on-air broadcast of the piece. Oh my! Utter as in first spoken, or first broadcast? Or was this version the first broadcast, or not?  But I have to repeat a question already asked - does that invalidate his point?
               
               "ringing true in the nightly news " - A completely subjective phrase. Of course you may disagree with it, but how can you call it untrue?
               
               Moving on...
               
               “Consider society when Paul Harvey first aired this, and how much has transpired to fulfill it already.
               
               As mentioned, there were multiple variations of "If I were the Devil," but they all ended basically the same. Here are a couple examples:
               
               1964"
               "If I were Satan I'd just keep doing what I'm doing and the whole world go to hell as sure as the Devil."
               
               1996
               "In other words, if I were the devil, I'd just keep right on doing what he's doing."
               
               Is it such a stretch to to get from ...just keep doing what I'm doing..." to "transpired to fulfill?"
               
               Could "fulfill" which you call the keyword be like prophetic? If someone's view of the world agrees with this topic - then wouldn't they consider the devil to have kept on doing what he was doing - thus bringing us to the present condition - thus seeing Harvey's "prophetic" commentary as being fulfilled?
               
               Once again this seems to be a semantic argument against a subjective contention rather than a statement of facts - it seems obvious you disagree with the OP's perspective, but nitpicking the use of words relative to an opinion is just... nitpicking, not disproving.
               
               I think the rest of your responses to the points I used to offer affirmation of the the OP's contention to be just opinions - as my points were, so I will let those dogs lie.
               
               Except... this one was to transparent, to go unmentioned
               
               
               Seems kind of lowbrow to me. As my young son would say...Really!"
               
               GA

               replyreport
               1. 83

                  GA Andersonposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  OMG! I did it again!
                  
                  "...this one was to transparent..." Too, Too - it is too not to! You would never guess I was a state Spelling Be champion.
                  
                  GA

                  replyreport
                  1. 88

                     wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                     Do you mean Spelling "Bee" champion?

                     replyreport
                     1. 83

                        GA Andersonposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                        No, I was in a special "to" group that only qualified for the "be" contests. Although my Aunt Bea did try to get me into the real "Bee."
                        
                        GA

                        replyreport
               2. 71

                  Quilligrapherposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  Gus,
                  I truly appreciate the time and effort that went into your rebuttal.
                  
                  With your permission, I will stand by the factual elements actually written in my first reply to the OP. I have not earned nor do I own interpretations and “implied” meanings imagined by others, never explicitly stated by me, or perceived to be real for the sake of argument.
                  
                  Thank you so much, my friend, for sharing.
                  

                  replyreport
                  1. 83

                     GA Andersonposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                     And to that, let us raise a toast to good company and my optimist's view that our glass is half full.
                     
                     GA

                     replyreport
                     1. 71

                        Quilligrapherposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                        Na zdrowie!
                        

                        replyreport
                  2. 0

                     HowardBThinameposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                     I'm not going to wade knee deep into this one - but I'll say that I don't think the OP was as off-base as you try to make him look.
                     
                     At its base level - "prophetic' is about "insight."  While use of the "devil" strikes an ominous chord - Harvey's rant was indeed "insightful," if you consider the loss of moral character to be a negative.
                     
                     What struck a bit deeper with me was the "trust in government" aspect that did seem to predict even more dependence on Big Brother.
                     
                     All in all - it was an interesting listen because it can be replayed today with perhaps more significance than it garnered when Harvey first said it.
                     
                     Prophetic?
                     
                     Sure - close enough at any rate.

                     replyreport
                     1. 57

                        retief2000posted 10 years agoin reply to this

                        +

                        replyreport
   2. 59

      bBereanposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      While subject to semantic attack against common vernacular, I contend the OP remains both concise and accurate, with the exception it appears, of the date.  Indeed, that is a trivial point, but not too trivial to avoid drawing a surprising amount of attention from at least one reader.  In retrospect, "nearly a half century ago" might have been a better qualifier.   To be honest, the exact date is hardly the point. 
      
      Regarding the rest of the responses, I personally would have written Quill's off as intentionally "missing the point", but since GA was willing to spend his time with such a spot on response, I was happy to acknowledge it.  IMO Quill proceeded to club his gasping horse in his next reply, yet GA again took the time to thoughtfully speak to it.    I have enjoyed the responses of both gentlemen, and thank you for your participation.   
      
      Allow me then to restate my point as plainly as possible.  Yes, Paul Harvey was engaging in social commentary of the time.  Passing years prove his words to be prophetic, and yes I stand by that common use of the word.  I view, and believe Paul intended, his words as a warning that left unaddressed or inadequately attended the issues he highlighted would continue to deteriorate society.   
      
      Although I never made a point of following Paul, I heard enough of him over the years to feel safe making the following speculations.  I believe Paul saw a trajectory he wished could be changed, and spoke out with that hope.  He not only did not intend his words as prophecy, he hoped they would not prove to be prophetic.  It pained him in the following years, to see the continued trend.  I suspect Paul would find the 5 years since his death, particularly troubling.  So I offer the reminder of his words, again as a renewed social commentary, and also hope the future finds the restatement not to be prophetic as well.

      replyreport
   3. 80

      junksellerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Prophetic isn't predicting the inevitable. Seeing and reporting a trend isn't any sort of grand wisdom. It is like predicting that your car won't be running in 30 years. Of course not, but that doesn't mean you won't have a different car (or hovercraft) by then. Change isn't the evil work of the devil unless you define it as such. In reality it is just change. The problem of Harvey and others is that they can only see with the predefined filter they have created for themselves. His essay was stupid then and stupid now. Dirty movies frighten children, not men. Give me a break. His essay is a child's lament over losing their security blanket.

      replyreport
2. 60

   Zelkiiroposted 10 years ago

   If his "If I were the devil" spiel doesn't include the sentence, "I would appear in a grandiose fashion--in a torrent of radiant light in the middle of Times Square where absolutely no one would be able to ignore me--and proclaim myself to be God, forcing the crotchety old bastard to make his own move," then nothing he says matters.
   
   Because that is the only possible logical course of action that a guy who wants to give God the proverbial finger would take.

   replyreport
   1. 57

      retief2000posted 10 years agoin reply to this

      And that is exactly why liberals simply do not understand the world. The devil or anything resembling him isn't interested in such a gross display of evil. He has grander ambitions. Subtlety is lost on liberals, hence their status as easy dupes.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Zelkiiroposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         Sounds like you're the one who doesn't understand. New Testament Lucifer, at his base, is an incredibly and insultingly simple character. What does he want? Glory. How much of it does he want? All of it--to the point where he longed to be above God and staged a rebellion to see that dream come to fruition. Once he was cast out of Heaven, his one-sided rivalry with God became an all-out war. How does Lucifer wage war with God? By stealing glory from God's people, whether by blessing or curse.
         
         Now let's go back to my scenario: Lucifer doing the logical thing and appearing in his radiant form in the middle of Times Square. This would accomplish at least one and a half of his goals; first off, being an otherworldly, radiant being who proclaims to be God, he will be successful in stealing a massive amount of God's glory, as most people on Earth would finally have proof that a supernatural entity called "God" exists and would prostrate themselves before him right away. The half-fulfilled goal would be surpassing God, as he would reveal his power in ways God never would (or could) and forever look at himself as the one who had the stones to make himself known--something God was always too skittish to do. He'd still lose in a fist-fight, but them's the breaks.
         
         So, in that scenario, Lucifer would finally get all the praise and glory he's ever wanted--mostly pilfered and extracted from the followers of his enemy, which would be the ultimate victory for him. And, in some small way, he could finally look and say, "I am finally superior to the tyrant," fulfilling the desire he's longed for for thousands of years.
         
         But in the end, fictional characters are fictional. I'd be more interested in a conversation about what Johan Liebert would do in the real world--at least there you're talking about something/someone that could feasibly exist.

         replyreport
         1. 57

            retief2000posted 10 years agoin reply to this

            Would that be the Gospel of John (Milton) ?

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Zelkiiroposted 10 years agoin reply to this

               You know what? This is a monumental day for you, because it's the first time you've ever had anything resembling a point!
               
               Why, yes, everything Christians know about Lucifer was fabricated by the early church and later romanticized by John Milton. Try to find him in the Bible, and all you'll get is the references in Job (which portrays Lucifer not as a villain, but as a sleazy prosecutor doing his job), maybe a reference in Revelation here and there (which would mean basing your entire worldview on the acid trips of a geriatric prisoner), and a lot of references from Paul (but that's like saying Reefer Madness is an authoritative guide on marijuana, or that National Treasure is an authoritative guide on archaeology). Aside from that, pretty much nothing!
               
               As The Spoony One once said, "So, congratulations, Final Fantasy XIII (Read: you)! You've finally given me something I can relate to! That is, that I can take this story and its characters (Read: you) almost as seriously as I can take the Shark Repellant Spray from the Adam West Batman movie (Read: something not serious at all)!"

               replyreport
3. 59

   bBereanposted 10 years ago

   Quilligrapher,
   it has been some time, but good to see you remain true to form.  Having read responses you've posted on other threads recently, I see all my previous observations still hold true.  http://hubpages.com/forum/post/2432631
   
   GA,
   you clearly understood the point of the OP, every word of which I stand by.  I thank you for your response, in consideration of which I see no need to elaborate.  You have covered it well, and I thank you for that.

   replyreport
4. 83

   GA Andersonposted 10 years ago

   Continuing on the topic... as impressive as listening to the video is, seeing it in print - 50 years after the fact, is even more thought provoking.
   
   courtesy of Snopes
   
   Considering he was speaking of his present time - 1964, who do you think he was talking about here:
   
   "I'd have a third of its real estate and four-fifths of its population, but I would not be happy until I had seized the ripest apple on the tree. [thee]
   
   (not the "thee" part, I know he means the USA there)
   
   Do you think - because they were considered "Godless" -  he was talking about the Communist nations of the time?
   
   
   GA

   replyreport
5. 59

   bBereanposted 10 years ago

   GA,  you are correct that pondering the text is powerful, (even without the refinements).  In retrospect, I should have included it with the OP.  Thank you.

   replyreport
6. 68

   wrenchBiscuitposted 10 years ago

   Paul Harvey was a very talented man. But in spite of his monumental talent, he was obviously a racist; either by accident or by design.His well written essay clearly reveals that the greater message that he delivers is an overall "Sympathy For The Devil". I can tell from posts I have seen here on Hubpages, that there are many who share his edited,censored,and sanitized view of American history.
   
   From my perspective as a student of American history,and  as a man of Indigenous heritage,the decline of America is more like the remission of a cancer; a cancer that not only destroyed the lives of millions of Indigenous and African people,but also the lives of millions of poor white Euro - Americans. Today, the United States continues to marginalize and destroy lives in a police state based on forced wage slavery; in conjunction with continued aggressive military actions throughout the world.The decline of such an evil system should be cause for celebration; a celebration among all races and nationalities. "If I were the devil" ...  I would get out of Dodge while there is still time!

   replyreport
   1. 83

      GA Andersonposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Based on my readings of your past forum responses, I am not surprised by your comment. I won't speak for the "many," but for myself... yes, I agree whole-heartedly with Mr. Harvey's essay.
      
      My disagreement with your perspective is so extreme that I have to wonder if you might know something I don't. So I hope you won't mind offering a few specifics to validate your generalizations.
      
      And to help keep the discussion on topic, and also to avoid either of us having to write a book, let's start with a foundational question and build from there.
      
      You stated rather emphatically that;
      
      "...he was obviously a racist; either by accident or by design.His well written essay clearly reveals that the greater message that he delivers is an overall "Sympathy For The Devil".
      
      
      
      Which of these statements illustrate that he is obviously a racist?
      
      Which of these statements demonstrate that he is "really" expressing sympathy for the devil?
      
      It would be most helpful if you would address those two questions first, before expounding on the rest of your contention that your knowledge as a student of history, and your opinion's validation by your heritage - which I find just as suspect as the statement being addressed above - so that we at least have an understanding of each other's perspective.
      
      Perhaps you recognize some "code words" that I don't.
      
      GA

      replyreport
7. 68

   wrenchBiscuitposted 10 years ago

   GA  Anderson,
   
   First of all,your comment " ... and your opinion's validation by your heritage - which I find just as suspect as the statement being addressed above", betrays your true intention here.Rather than seeking to engage in a useful debate, or discussion that could lead to a better understanding,you have from the outset taken a confrontational posture. In sharp contrast, anyone reading this thread will realize that I initially expressed my opinion without directly attacking the original poster, even though I disagree with his sentiment. And so, it is your own actions that have elevated me to a superior level.
   
   Perhaps many who comment in these forums see this as some kind of a game. Perhaps they take some kind of pleasure in confrontational rhetoric.However,such games do not interest me, since I have better things to do than argue with someone about why the sun isn't really "shining" when it shines. But your confrontational posture has painted you into a corner.So, if you consider this to be some kind of a game, I am sorry to say that you have already lost!
   
   Unless you are extremely psychic,or possess extraordinary superhuman powers, there is nothing in this post, or any of my forum posts for that matter,that can even prove I am a human being!
   I look at profile pictures with the understanding that the beautiful woman could very will be a hairy middle aged man who likes to push safety pins into light sockets. I read the words of someone claiming to be African, understanding that they could very well be a redneck from Louisiana; a father who is very upset because his teenage daughter has two Black boyfriends and a Chinese backup.
   
   But even in the real world, I would find it very difficult to distinguish between an Irishman and a Scot; Portugese or Spanish,etc.. I would simply have to take their word for it. But your goal  is obviously to attack my credibility, and so I have nothing else to offer you. I don't care  about returning your offensive remarks because such childish American right/left/middle wing behavior is beneath me. Had you been less confrontational, I would have gladly answered your question at length. But as it stands, I will  give you the short answer with a lump of coal, and you can spend the next 5 to ten years that you have left on this Earth, trying to figure it out. ( Don't worry, you won't be charged for the reading)
   
   
   Answer :" Omission"
   
   Now that I have given you your answer, you have only 4 possible choices:
   
   • You cannot respond. (Your best move)
   • You can post more derogatory comments (Your most likely move )
   • You can ask me to forgive you, not only for today's remarks,
   but for other derogatory remarks you made in another thread. ( very unlikely)
   • You can make an intelligent observation while adding that you did not mean to be offensive ( impossible, while also lacking in sincerity)

   replyreport
   1. 83

      GA Andersonposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      That was a lot of effort just to tell me to go to hell. Given the choices you offered - let me take a shot at #4
      
      But rather than an observation, I will offer an explanation.
      
      My response was intended to be politely challenging. My thoughts were just as expressed. I thought your take on the topic's OP was just a bunch of unsubstantiated  baloney. I thought your intent appeared to be to use the topic just as a springboard to launch into the rant that followed your "racist" and "sympathy for the devil" declarations.
      
      That impression was further strengthened by your unrelated, (to the OP), "student of history" and "heritage" proclamations that said "I am right, you just don't understand the real facts."
      
      As for the "superior level" it doesn't sound like you needed me to do that. Concerning the rest of your comment... I suppose a response really would not matter.
      
      The final explanation for my posture would be to question why the hell you would post a response like that without expecting it to be challenged. Of course my response was confrontational. Do you think your opinion is so mainstream that it would not be challenged?
      
      As for my remarks being offensive - they were not intended be, and other than the fact that they were challenging words - I don't think you can point to an overtly offensive statement. So if you were offended that is your problem
      
      The "code words" jab makes the point that unless that was your validation, I could see nothing to justify your racist categorization of Paul Harvey in the "If I were the devil" essay.
      
      It isn't a game here - it is a discussion. Why did you choose to participate if you don't have the courage to defend your charges of "racist" and "deceiver?"
      
      I won't offer you a list of choices. Just two suggestions; Get off your high horse and back up the rhetoric you post, or take your ball and find another game more suited to your style.
      
      Honestly, I would prefer that you continue to participate. I don't see how you could possible back up your accusations and foresee a lively discussion as you try.
      
      GA

      replyreport
8. 83

   GA Andersonposted 10 years ago

   Just a *bump* to revive the topic in the hopes that Wenchbisuit will reply.
   
   GA

   replyreport
   1. 59

      bBereanposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I share your interest and anticipation, GA.  wrenchBiscuit?

      replyreport