2pid, you have to help me understand

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

You said today that you couldn't define "wingnut" and that therefore
the term is meaningless.

Yet you constantly refer to "nutters" when referring to liberals and
others who disagree with you during your frequent OT barrages.

Here I am, freely admitting that your command of English exceeds mine.
So could you spell out the difference in meaning between the two? I'm
confused. Here's your statement:

*************************
(Stephen)
> > > How do wingnuts and Birchers diverge?

(2pid)
> > Same way you and wingnuts converge.
> > Silly questions beget silly answers.

(Stephen)
> If you won't answer them, how is one to know?

(2pid)
I won't answer because I can't define a "wingnut".
Neither can you for that matter.
*************************

I hope you can understand my confusion...

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 28, 3:06 pm, ScottW > wrote:
> On Sep 28, 12:57 pm, Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
>
> > wrote:
> > You said today that you couldn't define "wingnut" and that therefore
> > the term is meaningless.
>
> > Yet you constantly refer to "nutters"
>
> Nutters are people whose opinion is not based on reality
> or facts, has nothing to do with left or right.

I think it does. Using that definition, ultra-right religious types
are nutters. Ultra-left are also nutters. Ultra-fanatic Muslims are
nutters, as are ultra-fanatic christians.

Sadly, the center remains pretty much unrepresented, at least since
Clinton left office.

> People claiming Schaivo should not have been killed
> based upon claims of possible recovery are nutters
> with regard to that topic AFAIAC.

Well, lookee there! We agree on something.

Now how about those nutters who are against joining every single
industrialized nation WRT health care? Crazy, huh?