regards
H R Clinton

But I was wrong.

Seriously, though, good essay and spot on as usual.

I saw it as a misunderstanding. The interpretation of the impact of one investigation cannot be carried over to another investigation. FWIW, your essay spurred a lot of interesting discussion which I have totally enjoyed reading. Whether or not I agree is less relevant than if it makes me think.

BTW, I am wrong all the time in real life and I am sure I am here from time to time.

that Kos promoted. People do not disagree in good faith. They must be demonized. You're not wrong; you must be evil.

Some here are trying to move past that, but others are still stuck in it.

A more left Daily Kos is nowhere, at least not for me.

You're post was fine.

I am amazed that anyone thinks the Obama DOJ woukd ever indict Hillary. Just like anyone thinks that the super delagates woukd switch to Bernie.

What part of a rigged system do they not understand?

I saw the exchange. I'd be interested in an essay by the person who called you wrong. But other than semantics, I don't see the big deal. Two issues regarding the same subject.

To me it's like I write an essay about a chicken and you come in saying I'm wrong because it's not about a sparrow. Both are birds, and you can eat them both, but a chicken will fill you up.

Then again, I could be completely wrong.

          As a professional scientist, if I am not wrong from time to time then I am not doing it right.

          I know, I know, that's not acceptable. I often interact with others that think that's a heretical thought.
          I have had students complain to the dean about me, based upon this very point. There are far too many scientists and nonscientists alike that think science is supposed to be an infallible process and that only "losers" make mistakes.

          I am rather intolerant of those that are intolerant of those of us that make mistakes.

for this post.

I have been wrong, or misunderstood, on this site.

I take stress seriously. I understand that this is not a safe site, as you put it. I understand too that we are engaged in discussions of difficult matters which we all take personally in one way or another.

Despite this, I have vowed to myself that I am not going to ruin someone's day to make a point, no matter how strongly I feel.

No one's mental health is worth me getting my way in a situation such as this, which is not germane to the immediate health, safety, or well-being of anyone.

If I am wrong about that, please close your browser and call 9-1-1.

Indeed, I am passionate about aspects of the human condition. I want to engage in real debate, well-founded, well-argued, about the details of what makes society function, how we think we understand the world around us, and how to change the cognitive reality with which we all struggle.

Yet when I detect more than a logical challenge in an argument, then I have to ask why someone is engaging in this way with me. Do they have a problem with which they are struggling, which surfaces in this forum as aggression?

No crime is committed is disagreeing with me, or insulting me - at least not if the server is in the United States! Therefore, I am free to take all matter of mitigating circumstances into account, and to err on the side of the well-being of another person.

Standing down in these cases in my view makes the most sense. Perhaps I shall make my point another way, on another occasion.

To react in this manner, namely, with deference to the emotional or psychological situation of another person, patterns behavior that is not expected.

I do not wish to suggest that this is a pattern of behavior I always follow. I do not wish too to suggest that everyone ought to do the same, every time.

One thing is certain: for me, a change in my attitude is an act of rebellion, a revolutionary act, against what I have observed and disliked.

Now where are the criticisms and attacks against a diary on ideology which I posted earlier this week? Was it so difficult to read?

Peace and love be with you, reader.

Corrected for ellipses of concentration. Again.

how often I have committed the sin of having taken something personal (can't recall I ever asked for an apology, but who knows, I forget my sins easily...) .

What can I say I take some shit diaries on TOP somehow personally in the sense that I get personally upset. Then I can lash back personally. I don't recall having asked someone to apologize. (I have been asked though and my apologies were never accepted) I apologize pretty often when I feel I posted something "over the top". But then, who takes those apologies seriously anyhow, when some person felt hurt or accused personally by what I did said or did wrong?

Am I in your books for that? Because I have had some bad days every so often. Sigh. I think I did bad to TomP.

It's a good meta subject to write about. Thanks.

PS: (I always wonder about apologies. There are those politicians feel necessary to make for the sins of their forefathers. Ok, I consider it a guesture, but do you really take them seriously? Should I apologize for the Nazis of my father's generation? I could, but would it have any meaning to you? Inhofe apologized for slavery when he spoke in Africa somewhere - the video of it I can't find anymore - and I found that almost an insulting hypocrisy. But YMMV.)

is that an error doesn't become a mistake until you refuse to correct it.

Some politicians never make errors.

precisely BECAUSE people can disagree without it becoming a flamewar.