On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 18:06:33 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
You haven't defined liberal, new liberal or pseudoliberal, despite
several requests, so how in the hell is anyone supposed to know
what the hell you're babbling about ?

... If you or anyone else wishes to form their own opinion(s) as to
what "liberal" means, do your research and then, feel free to point out
why you think I may not be a liberal under the definition as you have
found it to be.

You've already said your own highly idiosyncratic definition of
liberal has its origin in the writings of an 18th century Scotsman

I did? Wow...

and is wholly different than the modern interpretation of the word.

Er, no, it isn't. It's different the interpretation "new
socially-liberal socialists" in the US give it. Much of the rest of the
world understands the difference between classical _liberal_ and all
these silly-assed variants floating around aimlessly.

So you've already confessed that you are not a liberal under any
21st century definition other than your own.

Er, no.

Big whoop.

By my own definition I'm a Philosopher King. If you wish form your
own opinion as to what "Philosopher King" means, do your homework
and then feel free to point out why you think I may not be a
Philosopher King under your own definition.

I've done my homework and I'd like to point out that while you may be
the King of something, Philosophering ain't it, Gracie, under my
definition, Merriam-Webster's, or that of even Stinky McPhiness, the
drunk who'll define things any way you want for a short glass of Boone's
Farm, any flavor, and a cigarette butt with at least 2 drags left...

Sorry to burst your highness' bubble, there, er, can't,
R