Dispicable Mikey

Dispicable Mikey

(name withheld)


 

Dear (name withheld),
Mikey forwarded your comment (?) to me and I’m repling, not as Mikey’s spokesperson or as a representative of MRFF, but only as an MRFF supporter. 

Absent any comments other than the ‘Subject’ line of your e-mail, I draw the following conclusions:

 

A)  You are sorely in need of one of these:

B) You are a likely candidate for inclusion into Bonnie Weinstein’s next edition of:

and lastly a question:  Are you  related to this guy?

 

Marshalldoc.


 

That should be replying…there is no such word as repling… but that’s trivia.  On the other hand, what you put forth was  petty trivia.    And a great example of hypocrisy of course.
There should be substantive discussions (if the MRFF has a valid point) or else the kind of BS you sent.
 (name withheld)

Dear (name withheld),

Thanks for the spellcheck, I saw it too late to correct (re-reading after sending).

That said, your reply is a classic example of role-reversal, accusing me of insubstantial argument while you cloak yourself in  the mantle of ‘offended innocent’… not buyin’ it!

There should be substantive discussions (if the MRFF has a valid point) or else the kind of BS you sent.
 
After going to all the trouble of sending a 2-word, ‘subject’ only e-mail to Mikey (akin to spitting at someone as you drive by at 60 mph)…

Is that your concept of “substantive discussions”?

Not only are MRFF’s points valid, the American legal system has upheld them repeatedly through the decades because those ‘points’ whether made by Mikey & MRFF or others in the past are all based on our only primary founding document; the U.S. Constitution.

Now, if you want a ‘substantive discussion’ (which you might have had the courage & courtesy of addressing to Mikey in your initial e-mail) that can be had.  Before you reply though, kindly read this essay by a former USAF chaplain, M.S.I. Morton – “End Run” which addresses the ‘Tebow’ exhibitionist behavior at AFA football games and why it’s not just wrong but unconstitutional as well – I’m presuming that, due to the timing of your initial e-mail, that’s what’s bugging you.

If you have substantive remarks after reading it, or have substantive other issues, I’ll do my best to address them.

Oh, and kindly,

Marshalldoc.

 

 

Share this page:

Commenter Account Access

  • Register for a commenter account
    (Not required to post comments, but will save you time if you're a regular commenter)
  • Log in using your existing account
  • Click here to edit your profile and change your password
  • All comments are subject to our Terms of Use

No Comments

Start the ball rolling by posting a comment on this article!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*