Oh, for fuck’s sake, Bone made a flippant remark that has now been subjected to fifty times its weight in analysis.
It was a vague remark that was reasonably interpreted by several posters to mean Bone didn’t want any new laws passed. He followed up with not a clarification of what he meant by that statement, but smokescreens about unicorns and rainbows or some such nonsense.
Which is kind of what adaher does, really. Throw something out there, people react to it, then vaguely defend the original statement, and then accuse everyone else of having their panties on too tight.
I think it’s a reasonable interpretation that I don’t want new laws passed by the Senate.
Do you think it’s a reasonable interpretation that that applies to all levels of government in the entire country? Do you think it’s a reasonable interpretation that everything in America is perfect just the way it is? Serious questions.
I question the accuracy of these graphs. If you look at the first against the last, it appears to me that the nodes have been deliberately moved apart in recent graphs. That is, the gap down the middle between Republican and Democrat voters is further apart, artificially reducing the apparent density of cross party votes.
I wouldn’t dispute that voting has become much more partisan, but I think the change is not fairly represented here.
Yes, to the extent that your posts 5, 30, and 33 don’t make any statement at all that you were referring to only the Senate. In post 36 you basically ask, “How do you know that I’m talking about local government?” as though you were the subject of an insult and that it is unreasonable that we didn’t know you may have been referring only to the Federal government; but even then you never actually said that you were referring only to the Senate. Basically, you went from vague statement to “how dare you misunderstand me” without ever fleshing out your own view of the issue.
Had you said something like, “As far as the Senate is concerned, I’m glad they aren’t getting anything done” instead of “do you believe in unicorns, champ?” I think there would at least I would know what your actual position is.
You have also mentioned that the OP is about the Senate, therefore your statement should be interpreted in that light. If someone starts a thread about how Chipotle is totally overrated, and I response, “I think fast food is crap,” I don’t believe anyone would reasonably believe I’m talking only about Chipotle fast food. My sentence would stand on its own, as your strange question in post 5 speaks for itself.
I think when Yogsosoth wrote that it is obvious from the phrasing that it is hyperbole that indeed makes a straw man out of your argument. His other two statements, which you don’t seem to take offense at, were that you believe “no more laws need to be made, no more progress needs to be had…” I think those two interpretations of your original statement are pretty reasonable.
And I’m trying to give you serious answers.
Actually, nevermind. I’m not sure why I was so snarky in the original post. I’m sorry for my tone.
And I likely would have done that had what I responded to been different. Here’s the thing – YogSosoth initiated this line of discussion with what you acknowledge was hyperbole. It didn’t merit a serious response and none was given. If you note, post 30 makes this point – I am condemning the response in a manner of ridiculousness to which was offered. Post 33 continues this, I am using the exact language and phrasing that was offered in post 28. There is no intent to make a statement, merely mockery. Look at Yog’s post 28, 32, and 34 – there are no actual questions in any of those posts. Just conclusions drawn from a flippant comment that escalates with each post including accusations of laziness and dishonesty. That’s not a desire for discussion so none was offered.
I’ve never avoided an actual question and I’m glad to expand or elaborate upon inquiry. But if I get flack from the get go there is no way I’m going to respond other than with derision. Maybe a better person than me would respond substantively to aggressiveness but today that is not me.
I object to all of the interpretations, but all the objections are essentially the same so I did not mention each specifically. Like I said above, if from the get go there is straw man and hyperbole, responses will be made in kind.
Cool.
Acknowledged and I will drop this line of discussion.
ENOUGH!
The vivisection and commentary on Bone’s cryptic post has now come to an end. Anyone wishing to continue that topic, take it elsewhere. That hijack is not productive of anything other than hard feelings.
EVERYONE, go back to the actual thread topic.
[ /Moderating]