Yes, I originally did write “as you have chosen **dubiously **to use the word *“repeatedly” *in your characterization of my words”. My point being that through 6 pages of this thread I have *repeatedly *tried to get Clothahump to see his mistakes by qualifying “some posts” and “some posters”, etc. both before and after the one post you chose to pick out, yet that one post is where you choose to characterize my momentary dropping of that language as “repeatedly”.
Given your previous insinuations, yes, I consider that dubious.
I can’t stop you from seeing what you want to see. I’ve explained why I chose to pare down my language and focus on the topic.
That’s your interpretation of my intent. I think I’ve made enough effort to explain my intent already. Again, can’t stop you from seeing what you want to see.
What he has and hasn’t acknowledged is something I’ve already pointed out upthread.
That’s what’s relevant to you? OK, you go and argue that if you want. But that ain’t the intent of this thread. See upthread.
“Sneaky.” OK. Call me Mr. Sneaky. For, like, trying to get in the door rather than just leave my foot stuck there for eternity.
Post 20? You mean your own post? As in “I described what I think you’re doing in my comment to you in Post 20.”
As in the post where you insinuated that I was doing this as a self-righteous act of feigned civility while inviting others to carry out the lynching on my behalf?
After I’d already stated:
Look, I know you don’t believe me, so what can I say?
As to the suggestion of self-righteousness, I will confess that I do sometimes ride a high horse with my head up my own arse. It makes it quite hard to stay in the saddle.
Except with fellow Trump supporters. Who, other then himself and a few others, don’t exist here. Why bother returning after that suspension? Is the desire to troll the vast majority of the board (i.e.: everyone, including other Republicans, who is not a Trump supporter) really that strong?
I don’t understand what you’re saying here. It would be consistent with what I’ve said if you “*repeatedly *tried to get Clothahump to see his mistakes by qualifying “some posts” and “some posters”, etc.” and only dropped the “some” qualifier after you got him to concede the point. The objective being to initially encourage his assent by lowering the bar, and then turning around and upping it again once you had that assent in hand and were looking to hammer him with it.
Raising the bar? I’ll cop to that.
Keep the hammer to yourself.
I haven’t hidden the fact that I wanted to start low and work upward and outward from there. I didn’t count on it taking 4 pages just to clear the low bar.
I think both you and Clothy are pretty silly for expecting every post in a reaction thread to one of Cameron’s socks (being a troll as usual) to even be serious, never mind rational.
I think you’re pretty silly for assuming that I had that expectation.
If you understood what I was saying you would have realized that there’s no implication in my post of whether that type of thread would be expected to have only serious posts. For that matter, there was also no implication about whether any, some, or all of the posts in that thread were in fact serious or otherwise.
My comment was solely about how Not Carlson presented the issue when he asked clothahump about it versus how he later spun clothahump’s affirmative response to that question. The validity of the underlying facts are irrelevant to that issue.
Still silly. Clothahump’s non-sequitur and gratuitous insult to liberal posters, when you don’t in fact even have to be a liberal to want to pit Cameron, is just exemplary of the kind of thing that gets him so much shit from everyone.
End result, NC, is - as I stated - that you wasted my time. I openly acknowledged that I should not have made the post. But that wasn’t good enough for you, as F-P has pointed out.
And your conclusion is wrong. But you knew that when you started out.
So, no. Your saying “mea culpa” or “Yes to everything, over and out! And quit wasting my time!!” is not enough for me. Because you haven’t answered the greater question. The very point of this attempt at discussion.
. . . If you will.
Also,
I didn’t have a conclusion when I started out.
I had a belief that you were not interested in honest and rational discourse, never having seen evidence to the contrary.
I had a tiny hope that you might prove otherwise, but you squished that through your constant refusal to address the whole point of this thread.
Thus, my conclusion is that you are in fact not interested in honest and rational discourse.
If you want to convince anyone otherwise, would you care to address either Post #193 (the whole point of the thread, spelt out as plainly as I can put it) or the individual challenges put to you by other posters here in this very thread, as catalogued in Post #225 (people rationally challenging you with issues that you don’t want to address)?
Now’s your chance.
And whilst you’re mulling it over, here’s some words from an “asshole” you decided to block out of your view:
Comes into an Elections forum thread. Says something patently false and revoltingly stupid. Doesn’t bother responding to requests for cites or explanation of his ignorant opinion.
Not that anybody still needs convincing of what kind of ignorant jackass Clot is. But it’s worth mentioning for the sake of posterity.
Clot, you’re in your own precious snowflake category of stupid.
