Riots in DC outside capitol building

[Gondwanaland]

What I wrote was quite clear. However, it would appear that nuance is not your forte. Did you ever study lit crit?

Irony meter go boom.

[casaba]

Wow, some here have just spent three pages disparaging the following post, claiming that it must be taken literally.

It might be opined that many RW Fundamentalist Christians made an unholy pact with Trump.

The meaning seems quite clear. The opening, "It might be opined", puts it squarely in metaphorical sense. The very idea that a fundamentalist Christian would support a person with Trump's verifiable unchristian behavior, past and present, would suggest that there must be some give and take in the relationship, thus the idea that it is a negotiated 'pact'.

Finally, I was quite surprised by the whole virgin side thread here. Even if you ignore the sexist side, I did not expect to hear such banter within public Christian hosted discussion pages. Nothing shocking but in my opinion, does not shine a favorable light on those involved.

[CivilDiscourse]

Wow, some here have just spent three pages disparaging the following post, claiming that it must be taken literally.


The meaning seems quite clear. The opening, "It might be opined", puts it squarely in metaphorical sense. The very idea that a fundamentalist Christian would support a person with Trump's verifiable unchristian behavior, past and present, would suggest that there must be some give and take in the relationship, thus the idea that it is a negotiated 'pact'.

Finally, I was quite surprised by the whole virgin side thread here. Even if you ignore the sexist side, I did not expect to hear such banter within public Christian hosted discussion pages. Nothing shocking but in my opinion, does not shine a favorable light on those involved.

I take it you are unfamiliar with the grammar names pedantic and semantic games. One of her favorite derailment games is to ignore conversational context, and feign inability to understand what someone wrote even though everyone else understands. She then just keeps going the rabbit hole.

Its so bad that at this point I refuse to clarify anything unless her post makes a good faith effort to attempt at reading comprehension..

Her oft used excuses are "i can only go by what you write" and "perhaps you should write clearer"

So what you are seeing is more of a troll getting a dose of her own medicine

[casaba]

I take it you are unfamiliar with the grammar names pedantic and semantic games. One of her favorite derailment games is to ignore conversational context, and feign inability to understand what someone wrote even though everyone else understands. She then just keeps going the rabbit hole.

Its so bad that at this point I refuse to clarify anything unless her post makes a good faith effort to attempt at reading comprehension..

Her oft used excuses are "i can only go by what you write" and "perhaps you should write clearer"

So what you are seeing is more of a troll getting a dose of her own medicine

Sorry CD, but this is getting so tiresome. All I hear here is, 'But they did it first!' Cannot everybody here do better than that?

What I have read from Hypatia in this thread is articulate and clear. In particular, the post I quoted above does not lead itself to misunderstanding without, I believe, willful intent to misunderstand. That said, I have misunderstood posts which later, on a second reading, seemed clear. It is entirely legitimate to ask someone to clarify themselves. I have done it multiple times in this thread. Earlier, Mossy even wrote a new reply after she realized she had misread one of my posts.

I am sure I am not the first to point this out, CD, but based on your chosen screen name, I would hope for better discussion.

[CivilDiscourse]

Sorry CD, but this is getting so tiresome. All I hear here is, 'But they did it first!' Cannot everybody here do better than that?

What I have read from Hypatia in this thread is articulate and clear. In particular, the post I quoted above does not lead itself to misunderstanding without, I believe, willful intent to misunderstand. That said, I have misunderstood posts which later, on a second reading, seemed clear. It is entirely legitimate to ask someone to clarify themselves. I have done it multiple times in this thread. Earlier, Mossy even wrote a new reply after she realized she had misread one of my posts.

I am sure I am not the first to point this out, CD, but based on your chosen screen name, I would hope for better discussion.

I have, unfortunately, been dealing with this particular troll for a while. Theirstyle of trolling is subtle. You are right. Ha is articulate. And asking for clarification is acceptable. Which is why her trolling is subtle. You are 5 posts deep before you realize her asks for clarification were just a means to derail you, and not in good faith.

As I said, I've stopped clarifying posts to her unless she makes a good faith effort first at reading comprehension. Too many times shes played the "clarification game" when every other participant in the conversation has understood perfectly what was said.

Unfortunately she now gets the level of respect she has earned for herself over the years.

[shunyadragon]

As usual when you you read something that doesn't conform to your preconceived narrative you get flustered.

And the post wasn't addressed to you and it shows in your ignorant reply. For instance kccd referred to those who physically assaulted a Congressman in his office as being just "a few constituents tried to get Andy Harris's attention" so I asked her if we should similarly cavalierly excuse those involved in the riots as just being "a few constituents trying to get their attention."

First, there is not a rule that I cannot respond to a post not addressed to me. As far as being flustered and in a rage your posts top the list.

OK, your posted object to the use of a 'few.' Sorry fo the miscommunication, but again, you give mixed messages as far as the tragic nature of the assault on the Capital building.

[Reepicheep]

The various internet news feeds are full of stories about people who took part in the riot and who have now been arrested. Interestingly, many of the arrests were made possible because of what the perpetrators posted on their own social media accounts. I think the lesson many Trump supporters have learned is this: if you're going to break the law, don't go on to the internet afterword and post photos and videos of you breaking the law, and then brag about it online.

The story of Larry Rendell Brock is kind of interesting. He is a 53 year old retired Air Force lieutenant colonel who participated in the riot wearing a helmet and other military gear and carrying zip-tie handcuffs. He was arrested after his ex-wife phoned the FBI and identified him. "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned."

[Gondwanaland]

Sorry CD, but this is getting so tiresome. All I hear here is, 'But they did it first!' Cannot everybody here do better than that?

What I have read from Hypatia in this thread is articulate and clear. In particular, the post I quoted above does not lead itself to misunderstanding without, I believe, willful intent to misunderstand. That said, I have misunderstood posts which later, on a second reading, seemed clear. It is entirely legitimate to ask someone to clarify themselves. I have done it multiple times in this thread. Earlier, Mossy even wrote a new reply after she realized she had misread one of my posts.

I am sure I am not the first to point this out, CD, but based on your chosen screen name, I would hope for better discussion.

This isn't a new thing, casaba. H_A has done this for years. That's why she gets little to no respect from most people, and usually people simply turn her posting right back at her. This isn't something new, and she's more than earned the treatment she gets.

[Cow Poke]

First, there is not a rule that I cannot respond to a post not addressed to me. As far as being flustered and in a rage your posts top the list.

My brudder and I don't get "flustered" or in a rage --- I've got a shotgun, a shovel and 40 acres -- nobody will find the bodies, and nobody will see the slightest bit of anger.

[CivilDiscourse]

This isn't a new thing, casaba. H_A has done this for years. That's why she gets little to no respect from most people, and usually people simply turn her posting right back at her. This isn't something new, and she's more than earned the treatment she gets.

It's more egregious with the Grammar Nazi too. Someone like Shuny or Firstfloor, They are obvious trolls, and that you can essentially dismiss their posts. HA is more subtle, and you start off thinking that they are engaging in serious conversation. Then they start trolling with weird semantic or pedantic games. At that point you realize you've wasted your time and that HA was being dishonest in their attempts at actually engaging.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Sorry CD, but this is getting so tiresome. All I hear here is, 'But they did it first!' Cannot everybody here do better than that?

What I have read from Hypatia in this thread is articulate and clear. In particular, the post I quoted above does not lead itself to misunderstanding without, I believe, willful intent to misunderstand. That said, I have misunderstood posts which later, on a second reading, seemed clear. It is entirely legitimate to ask someone to clarify themselves. I have done it multiple times in this thread. Earlier, Mossy even wrote a new reply after she realized she had misread one of my posts.

I am sure I am not the first to point this out, CD, but based on your chosen screen name, I would hope for better discussion.

Thank for your kind words.

In response to the accusations made CivilDiscourse and Gondwanaland I am more than prepared to respond to a post if I can understand it. However, when I am presented with atrocious prose in which there is no clear meaning I am not prepared to waste time "decoding" what I think my correspondent intended, writing a response based on that interpretation only to find myself being informed that I am either wrong, stupid, or that I have [deliberately] misrepresented my correspondents' intent.

It is also clear that some here do not know the basic rules of grammar and what constitutes the various parts of English speech/writing.

[Sparko]

My brudder and I don't get "flustered" or in a rage --- I've got a shotgun, a shovel and 40 acres -- nobody will find the bodies, and nobody will see the slightest bit of anger.

Impeach Cow Poke!!! He is inciting violence!!!!

[Sparko]

Thank for your kind words.

In response to the accusations made CivilDiscourse and Gondwanaland I am more than prepared to respond to a post if I can understand it. However, when I am presented with atrocious prose in which there is no clear meaning I am not prepared to waste time "decoding" what I think my correspondent intended, writing a response based on that interpretation only to find myself being informed that I am either wrong, stupid, or that I have [deliberately] misrepresented my correspondents' intent.

It is also clear that some here do not know the basic rules of grammar and what constitutes the various parts of English speech/writing.

I thinks that is a goodlier stratemegy if'n yer wanna avoid answering some feller.

[shunyadragon]

Incoherent! Incohernet! Duck! Bob! Weave!

JauntyThirstyArmedcrab-small.gif

Good description of your communication issues with the English language

[Sparko]

Good description of your communication issues with the English language

Incoherent response.