The skewed perspective of Archy and Fishy do not make them sinners.  Indeed, their posts make for “entertaining” counterpoint.  I just wish they were more robust… substantive… like Hound, for example.  Hound’s perspective comes from a career in civil service which, in itself, is a culture.  To the most of us we find her arguments… ummm… well slanted, but interestingly parallel.  Hound does not arrive at the debate with the bed of her truck empty. 

If there is anything at all in the back of Fishy’s truck, he doesn’t know what it is anyway. 

I see Archy as all tweed jacket with leather elbow patches… a liberal ideologue.

For comparison, I am an “originalist” ideologue… an adamant advocate for compliance with the original Constitution and those amendments accepted by the states. Those who don’t know me personally, are quick (justifiably so) to label me conservative.  Those who know me as an author/artist/musician/scientist/and Christian aren’t so sure about me being all that conservative.

It is easy to detect that there are scholars on our forum who research their posits… whose positions are adjusted by well argued points by others.  That would suggest that, despite their appearance of conservatism, they maintain a right to be intellectually malleable.

It is always better to be tractable than intractable.  It is always better to be positive than cynical. And, it is okay to be a curmudgeon… if you are amusingly so.