I referred to the “I only asked a question” PLOY ias unprincipled. If you apply that statement to your comment, so be it. If the shoe fits …
I did not go back and check your precise words, but neither did I say I was quoting you. I was referring to the ploy that was used. It comes in several variations, but they …
I referred to the “I only asked a question” PLOY ias unprincipled. If you apply that statement to your comment, so be it. If the shoe fits …
I did not go back and check your precise words, but neither did I say I was quoting you. I was referring to the ploy that was used. It comes in several variations, but they are recognizably similar.
Your “deliberate” conflating of yourself with everyone who uses the ploy [it is not a rare technique — it’s often used by people to get out of admitting that they are spreading crap] just shows that you are continuing to misrepresent reality.
Your hypocrisy remains intact, as does your dishonesty. You obviously (and falsely) applied your "ploy" to my question, and then underscored your false point by stating "And the link to a crap article only compounds the lack of integrity."
And now you have the gall to brazenly pretend that you weren't talking about me.
You might want to consider quitting making an ass of yourself.
You might want to consider reading with comprehension.
I WAS talking about your use of the ploy. CLEARLY. And coupled with citing false information — another ploy, using citations of crap to create the false impression of validation — WAS aimed at your comment. CLEARLY. No one could think differently, upon reading the thread.
I would not presume to try to deny I was saying you used the ploy.
I am saying I did not, as you are trying to assert, QUOTE you. I quoted the PLOY, and I mentioned the use of citations to back up such a ploy.
BOTH of which you used, and I was clearly describing the nature of YOUR ploy.
I never quoted, nor MIS-quoted, you. {I edited here to expand what I siad!!]
You think you are “innocent” only because your comment did not include the word “only’? You’re not. You’re splitting hairs to try to rescue your crap-disseminating comments. And you are still dishonest.
John, you posted a leading question that put an idea into the conversation that was not supported by much, and you used a citation of lots of improbability {not really supportive — I could ask if the world will end before the election, too, and cite Jules Verne, for that matter.}
I saw in your comment the weasely behavior of someone muddying the water.
John Schm —
No, it doesn’t.
I referred to the “I only asked a question” PLOY ias unprincipled. If you apply that statement to your comment, so be it. If the shoe fits …
I did not go back and check your precise words, but neither did I say I was quoting you. I was referring to the ploy that was used. It comes in several variations, but they are recognizably similar.
Your “deliberate” conflating of yourself with everyone who uses the ploy [it is not a rare technique — it’s often used by people to get out of admitting that they are spreading crap] just shows that you are continuing to misrepresent reality.
My integrity remains intact.
Your hypocrisy remains intact, as does your dishonesty. You obviously (and falsely) applied your "ploy" to my question, and then underscored your false point by stating "And the link to a crap article only compounds the lack of integrity."
And now you have the gall to brazenly pretend that you weren't talking about me.
You might want to consider quitting making an ass of yourself.
You might want to consider reading with comprehension.
I WAS talking about your use of the ploy. CLEARLY. And coupled with citing false information — another ploy, using citations of crap to create the false impression of validation — WAS aimed at your comment. CLEARLY. No one could think differently, upon reading the thread.
I would not presume to try to deny I was saying you used the ploy.
I am saying I did not, as you are trying to assert, QUOTE you. I quoted the PLOY, and I mentioned the use of citations to back up such a ploy.
BOTH of which you used, and I was clearly describing the nature of YOUR ploy.
I never quoted, nor MIS-quoted, you. {I edited here to expand what I siad!!]
You think you are “innocent” only because your comment did not include the word “only’? You’re not. You’re splitting hairs to try to rescue your crap-disseminating comments. And you are still dishonest.
Just stop it.
You try to pretend that you're "sweet and snarky," but you're just plain bad-tempered.
p.s. It's tough making money as a Biden thug unless you actually LIKE being an a**hole.
Projection…
Bye …
I posed, as a question, a New Year's prediction by a well-connected Wall Street insider.
You chose to attack me for that, and then wrapped yourself in sanctimonious hypocrisy.
Takes one to know one.
John, you posted a leading question that put an idea into the conversation that was not supported by much, and you used a citation of lots of improbability {not really supportive — I could ask if the world will end before the election, too, and cite Jules Verne, for that matter.}
I saw in your comment the weasely behavior of someone muddying the water.
I still see it.
YMMD.
BYE. [
Well, maybe not Jules Verne, but some science fiction writer somewhere …
In other words, you were blathering again. Does Biden pay you by the word?
"Muddying the water"??
As if you're the local Water Purity Nazi??
https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/january-6-2024/comment/46868665