Politicians R DumbFollow

I don't think you understand what the word "literal" means.

Beats me. Ask Cat.

Varus said that *I* was surprised. I said Varus needed to read more closely. If the answer is "Well, Cat was surprised!" then I fail to see where I was wrong in saying that Varus needs to learn to read as J-o-p-h-i-e-l looks nothing like C-a-t-w-h-o.

Actually he did. He said they ran it now because it's news now.

You do have a tendency to jump in and take up the argument started by someone else though Joph. Then you get pissy when the guy arguing the other side attributes to you the position held by the person you stepped in for. The following pattern is pretty common actually:


PosterA: "I think that circles have four sides"
PosterB: "What? That's dumb. Circles are round. They don't have four sides"
Joph: "Well, what do you know? You're geometrically challenged and wouldn't know a circle if it beat you over the head!"
PosterB: "Well, I know what a circle is"
Joph and PosterB: <argue back and forth for awhile until...>
Joph: But I never said that circles have four sides! See. That was someone else... Why are you so stupid that you think I said something I never said? Hahahahah!!! UR Dumb...


PosterB: "Um... Then why were you arguing with me?"

You're accusing me of contributing to internet forum threads and yet still expecting you to be literate enough to read the little names on the side of the posts saying which person they came from?

Well! Guilty as charged!

Nah. I'm expecting you to be literate enough to know what the person you're defending was actually saying before defending them. And then I expect you to be mature enough to accept that if you defend said person's position that you actually accept responses to said position without playing the: "But *I* didn't say that!" game.

And just for fun: *I* wasn't the one who accused you of being surprised that the NYT wrote the story. So nyah!



Yes. And your sentence shall be... 40 smacks with a Herring!

So what? Seriously. What difference does this make? You clearly expressed a similar sentiment earlier in the thread Joph. Just because you didn't literally post the word "surprised" is kinda irrelevant, isn't it? You responded to a statement about liberal whitewashing of such things for Democrat politicians by pointing out that it was the New York Times which carried the story. Then you said something about it being a liberal boogyman (and no. I'm not going to go back to find the exact quote. Deal with it).

You pretty clearly were expressing the position that since the NYT broke the story, that this can't be an example of the "liberal media" covering for a Democrat politician. Whether that equates to "surprise" that the NYT wrote the piece or not is a side issue, at best.

Heck. If you're going to get **** about words, why not point out that Cat didn't say she was surprised that the NYT wrote the piece, but that she was surprised it wasn't written by the "right wing media". Cause if you just want to nit-pick, why stop at being half a nit-wit?



And it's nothing more than **** silliness to get caught up on whether you specifically used a given word, when the position being discussed is accurate. You were taking the position that there was no liberal covering-up because the NYT wrote the article. The response to that with regard to the release of said story during a primary lead-up being better than during the election itself is completely valid as well. I'm not sure why you felt that you had to jump on a relatively minor inaccuracy unrelated to the subject at hand. It just seems kinda strange to me.


You may not have expressed "surprise" that it was the NYT which wrote the story, but you certainly did think it was relevant in the context of "liberal versus conservative" reporting on the issue at hand.





But I'm an artiste at it! I actually quote the person, name and all, and then respond as though it was written by someone else. Now that takes real talent...

Hey. I just don't want to be confused with some common word-swapper...

You have a problem with people arguing about how to argue?

Well, I don't! I'll be waiting for your rebuttal!

So does this mean you're a liberal, since you do this all the damn time?

Do you realize just how much you lay on liberalism in this forum?

They need to cry about something. It's been good times seeing them twist themselves up looking for an angle to ***** about the NYT or whatever.

"A Democrat doing something dumb, a 'mainstream media' source exposing it and a liberal posting it on the forum?? This is blowing my paradigm apart! There's GOT to be some way I can claim it's all a conspiracy and preserve my sanity!"

I wouldn't know.