"Philip Sondericker" wrote in message
news:BC879450.CFBD3%
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...03%2F17%2Fwter
r317.xml

I wonder how many of those 29% were the ones who got bounced from
their
positions of power and privilege?

I wonder how many of those 29% have lost a loved one in the current
war?

How many of the 71% lost one BEFORE the war?

I think the point here is that perhaps we shouldn't dismiss someone's
opinion based on information that we simply don't have. Remember the
little
conversation we had about classifying opinions we disagree with as
"tantrums"?

Dismissing a difference of (well founded) opinion and dismissing a tantrum
are two VERY different things. Someone comes off as a whiney brat and one
really doesn't give a damn what they opinion is. Unsubstantiated claims,
logical fallacies are bad enough, but the tantrums come when someone starts
seeing they're LOSING..particularly a cherished belief (i.e., a security
blanket). You do know the difference, I'd imagine, so don't patronize, okay?


For example, there's been a bunch of stories about people in Iraq that lost
loved ones in the war and are still grateful to see Saddam ousted.

Another example would be to look up the story of the farmer whose family
members were killed in an accidental bombing my Lt. George McGovern during
the later days of WW2. They managed to talk some 30 -35 years later and the
conversation is amazing. Look it up!