(01-10-2021 12:39 AM)InterestedX Wrote:  

(01-09-2021 09:12 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  third item:

as to interested's comments as to corporations cant impinge on our first amendment rights, wasnt it his side that less than three years ago was barnstorming on how cruel it was for a bakery to impinge on some gay couple's first amendment rights?

My how the wheel turns.

My side?
My side?

Please explain to me just how you know what my "side" (i.e. me) thinks about ANYTHING that I have not addressed here. Go ahead, I'll hang up and listen.

Welcome to the club! Tanq will ascribe an idea of what he thinks that you think and then try and force you to defend that idea.

(01-10-2021 01:03 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-09-2021 09:09 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  second item:

Given Cruz and Hawley's call for an audit, did you note Slo Mo Mr Unity's message of the day? He compared them to our pal Josef Goebbels.

Interesting take on the message of 'unity'.

Kind of akin to lad's so quaint comment on butt hurt and ignorant. Funny that.

Did I actually call people ignorant? Or did I say they were in denial?

You are throwing quote marks around that word as if I said it. Me thinks it is a figment of your imagination - and you should probably be more sure before you continue to bleat on about that comment.

I see you are now going to debate the very fine distinctions between 'denial' and 'ignorance'.

Typical.

(01-10-2021 01:52 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-10-2021 01:03 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-09-2021 09:09 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  second item:

Given Cruz and Hawley's call for an audit, did you note Slo Mo Mr Unity's message of the day? He compared them to our pal Josef Goebbels.

Interesting take on the message of 'unity'.

Kind of akin to lad's so quaint comment on butt hurt and ignorant. Funny that.

Did I actually call people ignorant? Or did I say they were in denial?

You are throwing quote marks around that word as if I said it. Me thinks it is a figment of your imagination - and you should probably be more sure before you continue to bleat on about that comment.

I see you are now going to debate the very fine distinctions between 'denial' and 'ignorance'.

Typical.

I see you’re going to put quotes around a word I didn’t use - typical Tanq. Did you intentionally misrepresent what I said?

(01-09-2021 09:09 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Given Cruz and Hawley's call for an audit, did you note Slo Mo Mr Unity's message of the day? He compared them to our pal Josef Goebbels.

Not the words of somebody who wants unity and cooperation.

More the words of, "Now that we control the senate, we are going to cram what we want down your throats."

(01-10-2021 07:37 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-10-2021 01:52 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-10-2021 01:03 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-09-2021 09:09 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  second item:

Given Cruz and Hawley's call for an audit, did you note Slo Mo Mr Unity's message of the day? He compared them to our pal Josef Goebbels.

Interesting take on the message of 'unity'.

Kind of akin to lad's so quaint comment on butt hurt and ignorant. Funny that.

Did I actually call people ignorant? Or did I say they were in denial?

You are throwing quote marks around that word as if I said it. Me thinks it is a figment of your imagination - and you should probably be more sure before you continue to bleat on about that comment.

I see you are now going to debate the very fine distinctions between 'denial' and 'ignorance'.

Typical.

I see you’re going to put quotes around a word I didn’t use - typical Tanq. Did you intentionally misrepresent what I said?

I put quotes around them there to delineate the two words specifically. I was taught when the issue was the word itself, as opposed to the meaning of the word, one delineated the word to separate the issue of the word away from the meaning of the word.

That way, as if in a brief to a judge, the judge knows the issue is the word and not the underlying meaning of the word. An amazing concept, one that you didnt even bother consider as you sail forth and do battle.

if you bothered to read what I typed, the concept seems pretty clear that I am comparing two distinct words. Tell you what, next time Ill put percentage signs around them to make double good sure you understand....... sound like a plan to you?

Seems like we (i.e. you, that is) *are* going to argue the fine distinctions between 'denial' and 'ignorance' as you seemingly are wont to do ad infinitum. Fun fun fun.

Based on your response, I guess you *dont* understand the concept of delineating words as words. Hmmmm... perhaps we should explore. Got it. Here is an example: 'intact' is after 'immature' in the dictionary. Did that lesson help? Are you clear on the concept now? Or is more necessary?

And, interestingly, you seem drawn back to your 'liar' issue in the manner that a not-really-with-it dog runs to sniff and nibble deer turd. Fun, fun, fun.

Have a warm and fun day there sir lad.

Edited to add:

By the way lad, while I did see your 'apology' the other night, I also did note your follow up on how it was my fault that you used that slur. Kind of makes it into a non-apology.

Reminds me of a guy in my last year of law school legal clinic, who was before the judge and figured that an apology would help him avoid the ire of the judge after he pled guilty to slugging his wife. He apologized for his act, then immediately turned to his attorney and said 'she made me do it'. Funny that that memory surfaced the other night when reading your 'apology turned to excuse' in your follow up comment.

Now you charge down that same slow Joe path without even bothering to read the context of the phrase that you sneer and grouse about. Good job and (slow clap). Maybe look at the context of a post and sentence before a knee jerk. If *you* dont plainly see that I am referring and delineating two words, that is your mental problem and not mine. Fun, fun, fun.

(01-10-2021 10:53 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-09-2021 09:09 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Given Cruz and Hawley's call for an audit, did you note Slo Mo Mr Unity's message of the day? He compared them to our pal Josef Goebbels.

Not the words of somebody who wants unity and cooperation.

More the words of, "Now that we control the senate, we are going to cram was we want down your throats."

"...for your own good"

they think unity is everybody marching to their orders. Cooperation is obedience.

sounds very Mao to me.

"There is undoubtedly at least 35% of the country think that fraud tilted the election.

Probably north of 45% believe at least some fraud ensued. Not arguments here, just factual recitations of those numbers."

Thanks for those facts...especially that "probably north of 45%" fact.

(01-10-2021 12:56 PM)Houston Owl 2 Wrote:  "There is undoubtedly at least 35% of the country think that fraud tilted the election.

Probably north of 45% believe at least some fraud ensued. Not arguments here, just factual recitations of those numbers."

Thanks for those facts...especially that "probably north of 45%" fact.

I have seen some polls state 45% that there was 'some fraud', but not enough to alter the election, and some that go just short of the mid 50's. Hopefully that clears that up.

My apologies if I didnt put that in clear enough, but simply typed that long sentence above in in a gross form.

As to the 35%, I have seen multiple polls showing 70 -80% of Trump voters think fraud actually tilted the election. Ill leave it to you to do that math.

I put the 'probably' in because some here (one in particular in mind) would undoubtedly show one poll that had 43% of the people having that opinion and rail for three posts about the inaccuracy. And I really dont have the inclination for that nit-picky ****. That seems to be the raison d'etre in Rice discussions at times. Thank you for pulling up the slack to a certain extent.

In that manner, I know I dont have a little French pointy hat thingy above the first 'e' in the seocond word, but I dont know how to make that happen with my keybaord. Just wanted to short circuit 'that' problem in advance.

(01-10-2021 12:56 PM)Houston Owl 2 Wrote:  "There is undoubtedly at least 35% of the country think that fraud tilted the election.

Probably north of 45% believe at least some fraud ensued. Not arguments here, just factual recitations of those numbers."

Thanks for those facts...especially that "probably north of 45%" fact.

But what does that even matter? If 50% of the country believes Elvis is alive, do we need to have a Congressional investigation?

We heard directly from the Republican officials in Georgia that a lot of the “evidence” put out their about “fraud” in George was bunk. But we still saw upwards of 30% of Republicans believe there was fraud in Georgia.

Evidence and investigations are not going to do any good based on the fact that evidence and investigations in Georgia did no good...

(01-10-2021 10:56 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-10-2021 07:37 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-10-2021 01:52 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-10-2021 01:03 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-09-2021 09:09 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  second item:

Given Cruz and Hawley's call for an audit, did you note Slo Mo Mr Unity's message of the day? He compared them to our pal Josef Goebbels.

Interesting take on the message of 'unity'.

Kind of akin to lad's so quaint comment on butt hurt and ignorant. Funny that.

Did I actually call people ignorant? Or did I say they were in denial?

You are throwing quote marks around that word as if I said it. Me thinks it is a figment of your imagination - and you should probably be more sure before you continue to bleat on about that comment.

I see you are now going to debate the very fine distinctions between 'denial' and 'ignorance'.

Typical.

I see you’re going to put quotes around a word I didn’t use - typical Tanq. Did you intentionally misrepresent what I said?

I put quotes around them there to delineate the two words specifically. I was taught when the issue was the word itself, as opposed to the meaning of the word, one delineated the word to separate the issue of the word away from the meaning of the word.

That way, as if in a brief to a judge, the judge knows the issue is the word and not the underlying meaning of the word. An amazing concept, one that you didnt even bother consider as you sail forth and do battle.

if you bothered to read what I typed, the concept seems pretty clear that I am comparing two distinct words. Tell you what, next time Ill put percentage signs around them to make double good sure you understand....... sound like a plan to you?

Seems like we (i.e. you, that is) *are* going to argue the fine distinctions between 'denial' and 'ignorance' as you seemingly are wont to do ad infinitum. Fun fun fun.

Based on your response, I guess you *dont* understand the concept of delineating words as words. Hmmmm... perhaps we should explore. Got it. Here is an example: 'intact' is after 'immature' in the dictionary. Did that lesson help? Are you clear on the concept now? Or is more necessary?

And, interestingly, you seem drawn back to your 'liar' issue in the manner that a not-really-with-it dog runs to sniff and nibble deer turd. Fun, fun, fun.

Have a warm and fun day there sir lad.

Edited to add:

By the way lad, while I did see your 'apology' the other night, I also did note your follow up on how it was my fault that you used that slur. Kind of makes it into a non-apology.

Reminds me of a guy in my last year of law school legal clinic, who was before the judge and figured that an apology would help him avoid the ire of the judge after he pled guilty to slugging his wife. He apologized for his act, then immediately turned to his attorney and said 'she made me do it'. Funny that that memory surfaced the other night when reading your 'apology turned to excuse' in your follow up comment.

Now you charge down that same slow Joe path without even bothering to read the context of the phrase that you sneer and grouse about. Good job and (slow clap). Maybe look at the context of a post and sentence before a knee jerk. If *you* dont plainly see that I am referring and delineating two words, that is your mental problem and not mine. Fun, fun, fun.

You literally said my “comment on butt hurt and ignorant.” You’re literally saying that I made a comment about people being ignorant - I did not.

Hard to dig yourself outta that position, but the above is a good effort. A+ for effort.

Here's my concern as a reluctant Trump voter:

1. Ted Cruz continually states that there are "unprecedented allegations of fraud" in this election...of course there are "unprecedented allegations"...you and Trump and his supporters make those allegations continually and constantly...that doesn't mean there was fraud and at least Cruz never really states there was fraud as he always seems to state that there are "unprecedented allegations".

2. Unfortunately, I also believe that there are a number of voters who believe there was fraud...do we state to them that their concerns are unworthy of consideration. I don't think that telling those voters to go away is productive at all. Perhaps the way to resolve the situation is to actually have a non-partisan review and determine whether the allegations are "unprecedented" and also false or truthful. Of course, any non-partisan review would probably include Democrats and RINOs and we all know how corrupt all of those people are.

(01-10-2021 01:41 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-10-2021 10:56 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-10-2021 07:37 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-10-2021 01:52 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-10-2021 01:03 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Did I actually call people ignorant? Or did I say they were in denial?

You are throwing quote marks around that word as if I said it. Me thinks it is a figment of your imagination - and you should probably be more sure before you continue to bleat on about that comment.

I see you are now going to debate the very fine distinctions between 'denial' and 'ignorance'.

Typical.

I see you’re going to put quotes around a word I didn’t use - typical Tanq. Did you intentionally misrepresent what I said?

I put quotes around them there to delineate the two words specifically. I was taught when the issue was the word itself, as opposed to the meaning of the word, one delineated the word to separate the issue of the word away from the meaning of the word.

That way, as if in a brief to a judge, the judge knows the issue is the word and not the underlying meaning of the word. An amazing concept, one that you didnt even bother consider as you sail forth and do battle.

if you bothered to read what I typed, the concept seems pretty clear that I am comparing two distinct words. Tell you what, next time Ill put percentage signs around them to make double good sure you understand....... sound like a plan to you?

Seems like we (i.e. you, that is) *are* going to argue the fine distinctions between 'denial' and 'ignorance' as you seemingly are wont to do ad infinitum. Fun fun fun.

Based on your response, I guess you *dont* understand the concept of delineating words as words. Hmmmm... perhaps we should explore. Got it. Here is an example: 'intact' is after 'immature' in the dictionary. Did that lesson help? Are you clear on the concept now? Or is more necessary?

And, interestingly, you seem drawn back to your 'liar' issue in the manner that a not-really-with-it dog runs to sniff and nibble deer turd. Fun, fun, fun.

Have a warm and fun day there sir lad.

Edited to add:

By the way lad, while I did see your 'apology' the other night, I also did note your follow up on how it was my fault that you used that slur. Kind of makes it into a non-apology.

Reminds me of a guy in my last year of law school legal clinic, who was before the judge and figured that an apology would help him avoid the ire of the judge after he pled guilty to slugging his wife. He apologized for his act, then immediately turned to his attorney and said 'she made me do it'. Funny that that memory surfaced the other night when reading your 'apology turned to excuse' in your follow up comment.

Now you charge down that same slow Joe path without even bothering to read the context of the phrase that you sneer and grouse about. Good job and (slow clap). Maybe look at the context of a post and sentence before a knee jerk. If *you* dont plainly see that I am referring and delineating two words, that is your mental problem and not mine. Fun, fun, fun.

You literally said my “comment on butt hurt and ignorant.” You’re literally saying that I made a comment about people being ignorant - I did not.

Hard to dig yourself outta that position, but the above is a good effort. A+ for effort.

Perhaps you should read the comment that I responded to, that is, as opposed to another one. Funny that that context escapes you. Fun, fun, fun.

Lets look:

You got torqued up about my "put[ting] quotes around a word [you] didn’t use". Then you repeated you got-to (I assume now) of a liar. Please tell me where there is any mischaracterization of your post that I directly responded to (i.e. the one directly above my response, if you cant quite fathom it).

Funny, to me, the words "put[ting] quotes around" seem to mean a specific thing. So I responded to *that* specific thing you brought up. Literally.

Please do tell what *you* think "put[ting] quotes around" means.

Or, are we going to get into the lad-world thingy of arguing the differences between 'denial' and 'ignorant'? Are we going to include your thesis and studied and professional discernment on what either 'denial' and 'ignorant' mean in conjunction with your good feel words of 'butt' and 'hurt'? I am sure you mean the very best with any and all of those words in usage together.

Take a fing ritalin.

As a 2020 Trump voter, I believe there was a lot of Democratic bad actions. I have no idea if it was enough to turn the presidential election. But I also believe it has been done in such a way as to make it nearly impossible to prove in the limited time available, and I don't need idiots calling on me to "show me the proof".

So whether Trump was voted out fairly or not, he is out. I think we need to follow the American way, and move on, for now to the next Administration, and then to the next election. I also think we need to follow the American way and not try to extract vengeance against the vanquished. However, I think that will be the Democratic Way, and may signal a change in the American for the future. Tit for tat will prove to be the undoing of this country.

(01-10-2021 01:39 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  But what does that even matter? If 50% of the country believes Elvis is alive, do we need to have a Congressional investigation?

If 50% of the country thought Trump was put into office by the Russians, did that need a Congressional investigation? You have said many times, it did.

(01-10-2021 01:39 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-10-2021 12:56 PM)Houston Owl 2 Wrote:  "There is undoubtedly at least 35% of the country think that fraud tilted the election.

Probably north of 45% believe at least some fraud ensued. Not arguments here, just factual recitations of those numbers."

Thanks for those facts...especially that "probably north of 45%" fact.

But what does that even matter? If 50% of the country believes Elvis is alive, do we need to have a Congressional investigation?

We heard directly from the Republican officials in Georgia that a lot of the “evidence” put out their about “fraud” in George was bunk. But we still saw upwards of 30% of Republicans believe there was fraud in Georgia.

Evidence and investigations are not going to do any good based on the fact that evidence and investigations in Georgia did no good...

Your sides adherence to the concept of STFU and kicking people off media for stating it is going to be far worse than an audit. And that is precisely what your side is doing.

Do you have an issue with a concerted 'airing out'? I dont -- whichever way it goes it will clear air.

Hate to tell you that concerted stamping something into the ground never really works, nor does it really help. Most often that will make things worse.

(01-10-2021 01:56 PM)Houston Owl 2 Wrote:  Here's my concern as a reluctant Trump voter:

1. Ted Cruz continually states that there are "unprecedented allegations of fraud" in this election...of course there are "unprecedented allegations"...you and Trump and his supporters make those allegations continually and constantly...that doesn't mean there was fraud and at least Cruz never really states there was fraud as he always seems to state that there are "unprecedented allegations".

I too was a reluctant Trump voter. My decision was between a marginal spokesman hawking a complete crap product, and a detestable, narcissistic, venal, and grotesque spokesperson hawking a 40% acceptable product.

One of the problems is the Democrats, in their overriding hard on to get rid of Trump, basically championed a series of systems that maximally enhanced the opportunity for fraud.

In some cases, the changes took the form of extra-legal actions by the states themselves in contravention of their own laws. In some cases, there were reports of local clerks ignoring state laws, adding dates to ballots, ignoring lacks of signatures, and many other activities. Instead of enhancing openness and transparency (funnily in the most suspect areas) there are sworn allegations that clerks denied access to one and only one party to counting issues.

And, for the record, I dont think an amount of fraud or wrongful admitted ballots swayed the election. But in a system that has evolved to an all powerful national government, coupled with the horrendous expansion of Presidential fiat power, the enticement of 'going around the edges' to ensure such power cannot be denied. And bluntly I dont think either party is above 'cutting those edges' to the maximal amount that they can to ensure such reservations of power. One would have to have powerful blinders on to think otherwise.

Quote:2. Unfortunately, I also believe that there are a number of voters who believe there was fraud...do we state to them that their concerns are unworthy of consideration. I don't think that telling those voters to go away is productive at all.

Bingo. And it goes beyond the very mild 'telling them to go away'. It is now telling them that they cannot even engage in discourse on media platforms. And now it is evolving to telling them they cannot even have a platform to discuss anything.

Cancel culture going wild. Again, progressivism in its modern incarnation. Punish bad thought. Orwell is seemingly spot on with regards to the precepts of modern progressivism.

Quote:Perhaps the way [b]to resolve the situation is to actually have a non-partisan review and determine whether the allegations are "unprecedented" and also false or truthful.

+100, and the thrust of my initial point in the first place.

(01-10-2021 02:08 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-10-2021 01:39 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  But what does that even matter? If 50% of the country believes Elvis is alive, do we need to have a Congressional investigation?

If 50% of the country thought Trump was put into office by the Russians, did that need a Congressional investigation? You have said many times, it did.

Funny how that kind of fell in the logical cracks.

(01-10-2021 02:05 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-10-2021 01:41 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-10-2021 10:56 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-10-2021 07:37 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-10-2021 01:52 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I see you are now going to debate the very fine distinctions between 'denial' and 'ignorance'.

Typical.

I see you’re going to put quotes around a word I didn’t use - typical Tanq. Did you intentionally misrepresent what I said?

I put quotes around them there to delineate the two words specifically. I was taught when the issue was the word itself, as opposed to the meaning of the word, one delineated the word to separate the issue of the word away from the meaning of the word.

That way, as if in a brief to a judge, the judge knows the issue is the word and not the underlying meaning of the word. An amazing concept, one that you didnt even bother consider as you sail forth and do battle.

if you bothered to read what I typed, the concept seems pretty clear that I am comparing two distinct words. Tell you what, next time Ill put percentage signs around them to make double good sure you understand....... sound like a plan to you?

Seems like we (i.e. you, that is) *are* going to argue the fine distinctions between 'denial' and 'ignorance' as you seemingly are wont to do ad infinitum. Fun fun fun.

Based on your response, I guess you *dont* understand the concept of delineating words as words. Hmmmm... perhaps we should explore. Got it. Here is an example: 'intact' is after 'immature' in the dictionary. Did that lesson help? Are you clear on the concept now? Or is more necessary?

And, interestingly, you seem drawn back to your 'liar' issue in the manner that a not-really-with-it dog runs to sniff and nibble deer turd. Fun, fun, fun.

Have a warm and fun day there sir lad.

Edited to add:

By the way lad, while I did see your 'apology' the other night, I also did note your follow up on how it was my fault that you used that slur. Kind of makes it into a non-apology.

Reminds me of a guy in my last year of law school legal clinic, who was before the judge and figured that an apology would help him avoid the ire of the judge after he pled guilty to slugging his wife. He apologized for his act, then immediately turned to his attorney and said 'she made me do it'. Funny that that memory surfaced the other night when reading your 'apology turned to excuse' in your follow up comment.

Now you charge down that same slow Joe path without even bothering to read the context of the phrase that you sneer and grouse about. Good job and (slow clap). Maybe look at the context of a post and sentence before a knee jerk. If *you* dont plainly see that I am referring and delineating two words, that is your mental problem and not mine. Fun, fun, fun.

You literally said my “comment on butt hurt and ignorant.” You’re literally saying that I made a comment about people being ignorant - I did not.

Hard to dig yourself outta that position, but the above is a good effort. A+ for effort.

Perhaps you should read the comment that I responded to, that is, as opposed to another one. Funny that that context escapes you. Fun, fun, fun.

Lets look:

You got torqued up about my "put[ting] quotes around a word [you] didn’t use". Then you repeated you got-to (I assume now) of a liar. Please tell me where there is any mischaracterization of your post that I directly responded to (i.e. the one directly above my response, if you cant quite fathom it).

Funny, to me, the words "put[ting] quotes around" seem to mean a specific thing. So I responded to *that* specific thing you brought up. Literally.

Please do tell what *you* think "put[ting] quotes around" means.

Or, are we going to get into the lad-world thingy of arguing the differences between 'denial' and 'ignorant'? Are we going to include your thesis and studied and professional discernment on what either 'denial' and 'ignorant' mean in conjunction with your good feel words of 'butt' and 'hurt'? I am sure you mean the very best with any and all of those words in usage together.

Take a fing ritalin.

Just more "sarcasm" from Tanq. None of need be put off by a little sarcasm.

(01-10-2021 02:30 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(01-10-2021 02:05 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-10-2021 01:41 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-10-2021 10:56 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-10-2021 07:37 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I see you’re going to put quotes around a word I didn’t use - typical Tanq. Did you intentionally misrepresent what I said?

I put quotes around them there to delineate the two words specifically. I was taught when the issue was the word itself, as opposed to the meaning of the word, one delineated the word to separate the issue of the word away from the meaning of the word.

That way, as if in a brief to a judge, the judge knows the issue is the word and not the underlying meaning of the word. An amazing concept, one that you didnt even bother consider as you sail forth and do battle.

if you bothered to read what I typed, the concept seems pretty clear that I am comparing two distinct words. Tell you what, next time Ill put percentage signs around them to make double good sure you understand....... sound like a plan to you?

Seems like we (i.e. you, that is) *are* going to argue the fine distinctions between 'denial' and 'ignorance' as you seemingly are wont to do ad infinitum. Fun fun fun.

Based on your response, I guess you *dont* understand the concept of delineating words as words. Hmmmm... perhaps we should explore. Got it. Here is an example: 'intact' is after 'immature' in the dictionary. Did that lesson help? Are you clear on the concept now? Or is more necessary?

And, interestingly, you seem drawn back to your 'liar' issue in the manner that a not-really-with-it dog runs to sniff and nibble deer turd. Fun, fun, fun.

Have a warm and fun day there sir lad.

Edited to add:

By the way lad, while I did see your 'apology' the other night, I also did note your follow up on how it was my fault that you used that slur. Kind of makes it into a non-apology.

Reminds me of a guy in my last year of law school legal clinic, who was before the judge and figured that an apology would help him avoid the ire of the judge after he pled guilty to slugging his wife. He apologized for his act, then immediately turned to his attorney and said 'she made me do it'. Funny that that memory surfaced the other night when reading your 'apology turned to excuse' in your follow up comment.

Now you charge down that same slow Joe path without even bothering to read the context of the phrase that you sneer and grouse about. Good job and (slow clap). Maybe look at the context of a post and sentence before a knee jerk. If *you* dont plainly see that I am referring and delineating two words, that is your mental problem and not mine. Fun, fun, fun.

You literally said my “comment on butt hurt and ignorant.” You’re literally saying that I made a comment about people being ignorant - I did not.

Hard to dig yourself outta that position, but the above is a good effort. A+ for effort.

Perhaps you should read the comment that I responded to, that is, as opposed to another one. Funny that that context escapes you. Fun, fun, fun.

Lets look:

You got torqued up about my "put[ting] quotes around a word [you] didn’t use". Then you repeated you got-to (I assume now) of a liar. Please tell me where there is any mischaracterization of your post that I directly responded to (i.e. the one directly above my response, if you cant quite fathom it).

Funny, to me, the words "put[ting] quotes around" seem to mean a specific thing. So I responded to *that* specific thing you brought up. Literally.

Please do tell what *you* think "put[ting] quotes around" means.

Or, are we going to get into the lad-world thingy of arguing the differences between 'denial' and 'ignorant'? Are we going to include your thesis and studied and professional discernment on what either 'denial' and 'ignorant' mean in conjunction with your good feel words of 'butt' and 'hurt'? I am sure you mean the very best with any and all of those words in usage together.

Take a fing ritalin.

Just more "sarcasm" from Tanq. None of need be put off by a little sarcasm.

Nope no sarcasm there nor none intended. Just an insult in line and in response to lads insult.

Sorry if it confused you there pardner. I'll studiously try to set up a system so you can more efficiently note the differences in the future.

(01-10-2021 03:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-10-2021 02:30 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(01-10-2021 02:05 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-10-2021 01:41 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-10-2021 10:56 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I put quotes around them there to delineate the two words specifically. I was taught when the issue was the word itself, as opposed to the meaning of the word, one delineated the word to separate the issue of the word away from the meaning of the word.

That way, as if in a brief to a judge, the judge knows the issue is the word and not the underlying meaning of the word. An amazing concept, one that you didnt even bother consider as you sail forth and do battle.

if you bothered to read what I typed, the concept seems pretty clear that I am comparing two distinct words. Tell you what, next time Ill put percentage signs around them to make double good sure you understand....... sound like a plan to you?

Seems like we (i.e. you, that is) *are* going to argue the fine distinctions between 'denial' and 'ignorance' as you seemingly are wont to do ad infinitum. Fun fun fun.

Based on your response, I guess you *dont* understand the concept of delineating words as words. Hmmmm... perhaps we should explore. Got it. Here is an example: 'intact' is after 'immature' in the dictionary. Did that lesson help? Are you clear on the concept now? Or is more necessary?

And, interestingly, you seem drawn back to your 'liar' issue in the manner that a not-really-with-it dog runs to sniff and nibble deer turd. Fun, fun, fun.

Have a warm and fun day there sir lad.

Edited to add:

By the way lad, while I did see your 'apology' the other night, I also did note your follow up on how it was my fault that you used that slur. Kind of makes it into a non-apology.

Reminds me of a guy in my last year of law school legal clinic, who was before the judge and figured that an apology would help him avoid the ire of the judge after he pled guilty to slugging his wife. He apologized for his act, then immediately turned to his attorney and said 'she made me do it'. Funny that that memory surfaced the other night when reading your 'apology turned to excuse' in your follow up comment.

Now you charge down that same slow Joe path without even bothering to read the context of the phrase that you sneer and grouse about. Good job and (slow clap). Maybe look at the context of a post and sentence before a knee jerk. If *you* dont plainly see that I am referring and delineating two words, that is your mental problem and not mine. Fun, fun, fun.

You literally said my “comment on butt hurt and ignorant.” You’re literally saying that I made a comment about people being ignorant - I did not.

Hard to dig yourself outta that position, but the above is a good effort. A+ for effort.

Perhaps you should read the comment that I responded to, that is, as opposed to another one. Funny that that context escapes you. Fun, fun, fun.

Lets look:

You got torqued up about my "put[ting] quotes around a word [you] didn’t use". Then you repeated you got-to (I assume now) of a liar. Please tell me where there is any mischaracterization of your post that I directly responded to (i.e. the one directly above my response, if you cant quite fathom it).

Funny, to me, the words "put[ting] quotes around" seem to mean a specific thing. So I responded to *that* specific thing you brought up. Literally.

Please do tell what *you* think "put[ting] quotes around" means.

Or, are we going to get into the lad-world thingy of arguing the differences between 'denial' and 'ignorant'? Are we going to include your thesis and studied and professional discernment on what either 'denial' and 'ignorant' mean in conjunction with your good feel words of 'butt' and 'hurt'? I am sure you mean the very best with any and all of those words in usage together.

Take a fing ritalin.

Just more "sarcasm" from Tanq. None of need be put off by a little sarcasm.

Nope no sarcasm there nor none intended. Just an insult in line and in response to lads insult.

Sorry if it confused you there pardner. I'll studiously try to set up a system so you can more efficiently note the differences in the future.

Got it... you had previously defended your behavior here as "being sarcastic". Now I see that you acknowledge that you can also be insulting. I also see that you blame your behavior on Lad. Cool.