Martin Hyde: Deliberately obtuse, or incapable of reading with comprehension?

In the Bush v. Gore thread, I said:

Whether you agree or disagree with this (and if you want to do either, please go back to the original thread, ok?), it’s a simple and straightforward post. And that’s the whole thing: nothing omitted, nothing excised.

Martin Hyde can’t read (first instance):

No, dummy. I only said twice, in different ways, in a three-sentence post, that that wasn’t what I was saying. You know, “Bush didn’t have his fingerprints on that” and “The election may have been stolen for them by others”? Sheesh.

I explained that to him, in that thread, in a manner appropriate to a non-Pit thread.

In response to my grammar lesson, he was back with this:

Well, of course it doesn’t. That’s because I didn’t say that.

I said the election was stolen for Team Bush by others. :smack:

So I said:

His response?

What, the failure to read or comprehend a three-sentence post of mine? I couldn’t agree more. I attribute many misdeeds to Bush 43, but not that one.

He continued:

Too easy. :slight_smile:

You called Bush v. Gore a steal, it doesn’t matter that you did it out of the side of your mouth by saying “to each their own.” I retain the right to point out how wrong something you say is even if you dissemble on it yourself.

Then you post something irrelevant afterward that also does nothing to prove anyone stole an election, and was thus irrelevant to the thread in question and had no place in it.

Deliberately obtuse, and proud of it.

There’s no need to choose! Be generous! :slight_smile:

Dude, I’ve only owned up to calling it a steal a half-dozen times or so now.

I’m truly impressed that you can find yet another way to deliberately misinterpret a few straightforward sentences. You’re a counterexample to us all. :slight_smile:

At the risk of getting all deja vu here, I guess there isn’t any point in asking you to back that up by the simple expedient of quoting this irrelevancy that had no place in the thread. :stuck_out_tongue:

Martin is usually a very clear and thoughtful poster. I often disagree with him, but rarely see him ignore facts or make an unclear statement.

However, in this case, I’d say RTF called it correctly, and Martin is being kind of jerk in that thread by ignoring the plain text of his [RTF’s] posts.

Unfortunately – which I say because I too find Martin to be an outstanding writer and rhetor – I agree.

RT has drawn a distinction between Bush stealing the election and others stealing it on his behalf. I disagree that either one happened, but it does no good to rebut the first claim when he’s making the second one.

RTF says: other persons stole the election for Bush; Bush himself was not at fault. That’s the claim to rebut.


The only thing I’d add is that I couched my statement that Bush v. Gore constituted stealing the election as opinion rather than claim. I could go on a bit about why I see it that way, but it’s you’ve got your opinion and I’ve got mine, rather than a claim that may or may not be true.

Sure – but that’s the essence of debate.

FIRST SPEAKER: Here’s my opinion, and these are the underlying facts supporting my opinion.

SECOND SPEAKER: Your first two facts are acknowledged, but don’t lead to the inference you urge; your third fact is not accurate, and here’s my cite proving same.

Now, in some cases you run into the “Well, it’s just my opinion which I have a right to have,” rather than any supporting argument, but that’s manifestly not the case here.

In fact, the issue is one that can be argued. Bush v. Gore was a contentious case that split along predictable liberal-conservative lines among the justices, and that alone gives rise to at least the suspicion that even one justice in the majority might have accepted some other reasoning if his preferred candidate would have benefited. I argue it was the correct decision; I don’t argue it was so obviously and blatantly correct that no reasonable judge could think otherwise – especially as to the timing issue. (The overall EP issue was 7-2; the remedy was 5-4). So there’s plenty of room for your argument.

IMO, the problem is that 1) the original claim that MH was responding to was that Bush stole the election, and 2) the phrase “didn’t have his fingerprints on …” is commonly used to mean “effected indirectly versus directly”. So I think MH understood it to have this meaning and that RTF - who was responding to MH - was trying to say that Bush indirectly caused the results, in support of the OP.

Dullest pitting ever.