Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

In hindsight, did Borat 2 violate campaign laws?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

    You quote mined me, and only did something after your lie was called out. Don't try to Ted Cruz me.
    No I cited the first sentence of your OP and pointed out that it was not a question.
    "It ain't necessarily so
    The things that you're liable
    To read in the Bible
    It ain't necessarily so
    ."

    Sportin' Life
    Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

    Comment


    • #47
      Yes, and ignored the question posted right after, hence a lying quote mine from a grammar nazi.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post
        Yes, and ignored the question posted right after, hence a lying quote mine from a grammar nazi.
        How can my quoting you be a lie?
        "It ain't necessarily so
        The things that you're liable
        To read in the Bible
        It ain't necessarily so
        ."

        Sportin' Life
        Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

          How can my quoting you be a lie?
          Quotemine, lie by omission, something I would expecta grammar nazi to understand. But seeing as how you've had trouble understanding what a question is today, I'm not surprised.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

            Quotemine, lie by omission, something I would expecta grammar nazi to understand. But seeing as how you've had trouble understanding what a question is today, I'm not surprised.
            A quote cannot be a lie. It can be selective and it may possibly distort the original intention but it is not a lie. However, I have not distorted your original intention. You asked me a question and I gave you the relevant comments from yourself that led to my offering my opinion.

            Your continual hammering away at my comment concerning the first sentence in your OP suggests that you are somewhat irked. I cannot help the fact that your prose style leaves a great deal to be desired.

            "It ain't necessarily so
            The things that you're liable
            To read in the Bible
            It ain't necessarily so
            ."

            Sportin' Life
            Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

              A quote cannot be a lie. It can be selective and it may possibly distort the original intention but it is not a lie. However, I have not distorted your original intention. You asked me a question and I gave you the relevant comments from yourself that led to my offering my opinion.

              Your continual hammering away at my comment concerning the first sentence in your OP suggests that you are somewhat irked. I cannot help the fact that your prose style leaves a great deal to be desired.
              Lie by omission. Dishonest, exactly what you did.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

                Lie by omission. Dishonest, exactly what you did.
                At post #23 You asked me "Why would it need to reach them? Why did you connect the two things?"

                I gave you my reply citing the first sentence from the OP. That opening comment was reinforced [in my opinion] by your later remark to Stoic which was "Well if you go through the article, he was making an attack ad designed to influence the election against Trump".

                Those are the two quotes of yours that prompted my first reply and those two quotes provide the answer to your question.

                Your histrionic accusations about "quote mining" are therefore quite ludicrous.



                "It ain't necessarily so
                The things that you're liable
                To read in the Bible
                It ain't necessarily so
                ."

                Sportin' Life
                Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

                  At post #23 You asked me "Why would it need to reach them? Why did you connect the two things?"

                  I gave you my reply citing the first sentence from the OP. That opening comment was reinforced [in my opinion] by your later remark to Stoic which was "Well if you go through the article, he was making an attack ad designed to influence the election against Trump".

                  Those are the two quotes of yours that prompted my first reply and those two quotes provide the answer to your question.

                  Your histrionic accusations about "quote mining" are therefore quite ludicrous.


                  You quotemined. I'm sorry your dishonesty is on display for all to see.

                  I'm also sorry you made a connection then backed out of it when it was shown to be stupid.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

                    You quotemined. I'm sorry your dishonesty is on display for all to see.

                    I'm also sorry you made a connection then backed out of it when it was shown to be stupid.
                    In response to your question at post #23 I provided the quotes from you that prompted my first reply. That is not quote mining. That is citing the specific comments you made which led to my making my initial response.

                    Why was my initial response stupid? You have never managed [in 3 pages] to offer any substantive evidence or opinion as to why you posed the question in the title.

                    So to rephrase your thread title, do you "in hindsight" consider that "Borat 2" violated "campaign laws"?







                    Last edited by Hypatia_Alexandria; 02-24-2021, 07:26 PM.
                    "It ain't necessarily so
                    The things that you're liable
                    To read in the Bible
                    It ain't necessarily so
                    ."

                    Sportin' Life
                    Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

                      In response to your question at post #23 I provided the quotes from you that prompted my first reply. That is not quote mining. That is citing the specific comments you made which led to my making my initial response.

                      Why was my initial response stupid? You have never managed [in 3 pages] to offer any substantive evidence or opinion as to why you posed the question in the title.

                      So to rephrase your thread title, do you "in hindsight" consider that "Borat 2" violated "campaign laws"?






                      You told a lie by omission in order to play the smarter than you game. You also asked an idiotic question best paraphrased as "How can he have violated the law if trump supporters didn't watch the movie".

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Having read the rest of this thread, I have reached two conclusions:
                        1) CivilDiscourse is not in the slightest bit interested in any answer to the question he posed;
                        2) The mods should change his username to UncivilDisruption.
                        Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                        MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                        MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                        seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

                          You told a lie by omission in order to play the smarter than you game.
                          You asked a question, I quoted comments made by you to explain how I arrived at my remarks. It really is that simple.

                          Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post
                          You also asked an idiotic question best paraphrased as "How can he have violated the law if trump supporters didn't watch the movie".
                          Comments made by you on page 1:

                          Thread title: “violate campaign laws”
                          Post #1 “foreign national, admitting to deliberately trying to influence the US election
                          Post #4 “he was making an attack ad designed to influence the election against Trump.”

                          It was the comment from post #4 that led me to make my first reply at post 13.which began with the sentence “I doubt the film was even watched by most Trump supporters”, which to my way of thinking directly addressed your remark that this film was “designed to influence the election against Trump”. If, as I surmised, most Trump supporters did not watch it, how did you consider the film was “designed to influence the election against Trump”. You never offered any explanation for your remark.

                          At post #15 I did actually ask you “If most Trump supporters probably never watched the film in what way do you consider it violated campaign laws?And you never answered my question. You also ignored Stoic who at post #5 had written:

                          "I don't believe any Russians were indicted for violating campaign laws. They were indicted for things like defrauding the US, fraud, identity theft, and money laundering. Do you think Cohen was guilty of any of those things?"

                          Instead, we have had 3 pages of attacks against me because I pointed out that you put a clause in the wrong sentence.

                          "It ain't necessarily so
                          The things that you're liable
                          To read in the Bible
                          It ain't necessarily so
                          ."

                          Sportin' Life
                          Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

                            You asked a question, I quoted comments made by you to explain how I arrived at my remarks. It really is that simple.



                            Comments made by you on page 1:

                            Thread title: “violate campaign laws”
                            Post #1 “foreign national, admitting to deliberately trying to influence the US election
                            Post #4 “he was making an attack ad designed to influence the election against Trump.”

                            It was the comment from post #4 that led me to make my first reply at post 13.which began with the sentence “I doubt the film was even watched by most Trump supporters”, which to my way of thinking directly addressed your remark that this film was “designed to influence the election against Trump”. If, as I surmised, most Trump supporters did not watch it, how did you consider the film was “designed to influence the election against Trump”. You never offered any explanation for your remark.

                            At post #15 I did actually ask you “If most Trump supporters probably never watched the film in what way do you consider it violated campaign laws?And you never answered my question. You also ignored Stoic who at post #5 had written:

                            "I don't believe any Russians were indicted for violating campaign laws. They were indicted for things like defrauding the US, fraud, identity theft, and money laundering. Do you think Cohen was guilty of any of those things?"

                            Instead, we have had 3 pages of attacks against me because I pointed out that you put a clause in the wrong sentence.
                            You never explained why you thought Trump supporters watching the movie mattered. It's like saying "How can it be domestic violence if they aren't married?"

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

                              You never explained why you thought Trump supporters watching the movie mattered. It's like saying "How can it be domestic violence if they aren't married?"
                              At post # 4 you wrote "he was making an attack ad designed to influence the election against Trump.”

                              It was that comment that led me to make my first reply at post # 13 which began with the sentence “I doubt the film was even watched by most Trump supporters”, which to my way of thinking directly addressed your remark that this film was “designed to influence the election against Trump”.


                              If you considered that my observation was wrong it was up to you to demonstrate why you considered it to be wrong. Not simply dismiss my entire post with the comment "That is largely irrelevant to the question brought up".

                              I then asked you "If most Trump supporters probably never watched the film in what way do you consider it violated campaign laws?" Instead of explaining where you considered I was in error or where I had misunderstood the situation, you again replied with more questions about what I had written, namely "Again, your comment about trump supporters watching has nothing to do with the question about campaign law. Why are you connecting them? Why do you think one has anything to do with the other?

                              Given that you had also ignored @Stoic's comments at post # 5 it became apparent to me that I was unlikely to receive any satisfactory answers from you; although I did try again at post # 19 where I wrote I also asked you why you considered Baron Cohen had violated campaign laws. What is your response?”

                              The following morning I found that you had yet again ignored the question but simply posted yet more questions of your own at post # 20. I replied again at post # 22 and received even more questions at post # 23. I replied at post # 24 adding that your first sentence in the OP was not actually a question.

                              That seemed to irk you somewhat and at post # 25 you accused me of quote-mining you while you continued to pose ever more questions.

                              I replied at post # 26 with an explanatory post and suggested that the Stop Hate for Profit campaign might have had more impact on the election than the movie. I explained again at post # 28 and corrected your inaccurate comment that I had been “making assumptions about "swing the election". I ended that post with the remark I still do not know why you consider that this film may have violated campaign law. A question you pose in the thread's title.

                              To which I then received the following reply at post # 29 “Did I say it violated? I said no such thing. You keep making stuff up”.

                              I pointed out that you had posed the question “In hindsight, did Borat 2 violate campaign law” in the thread title . Since then all I received are ludicrous comments and accusations.

                              Roy has noticed that you are "
                              not in the slightest bit interested in any answer to the question" you have posed, which leads me to wonder why you posted this thread in the first place.
                              "It ain't necessarily so
                              The things that you're liable
                              To read in the Bible
                              It ain't necessarily so
                              ."

                              Sportin' Life
                              Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

                                At post # 4 you wrote "he was making an attack ad designed to influence the election against Trump.”

                                It was that comment that led me to make my first reply at post # 13 which began with the sentence “I doubt the film was even watched by most Trump supporters”, which to my way of thinking directly addressed your remark that this film was “designed to influence the election against Trump”.


                                If you considered that my observation was wrong it was up to you to demonstrate why you considered it to be wrong. Not simply dismiss my entire post with the comment "That is largely irrelevant to the question brought up".

                                I then asked you "If most Trump supporters probably never watched the film in what way do you consider it violated campaign laws?" Instead of explaining where you considered I was in error or where I had misunderstood the situation, you again replied with more questions about what I had written, namely "Again, your comment about trump supporters watching has nothing to do with the question about campaign law. Why are you connecting them? Why do you think one has anything to do with the other?

                                Given that you had also ignored @Stoic's comments at post # 5 it became apparent to me that I was unlikely to receive any satisfactory answers from you; although I did try again at post # 19 where I wrote I also asked you why you considered Baron Cohen had violated campaign laws. What is your response?”

                                The following morning I found that you had yet again ignored the question but simply posted yet more questions of your own at post # 20. I replied again at post # 22 and received even more questions at post # 23. I replied at post # 24 adding that your first sentence in the OP was not actually a question.

                                That seemed to irk you somewhat and at post # 25 you accused me of quote-mining you while you continued to pose ever more questions.

                                I replied at post # 26 with an explanatory post and suggested that the Stop Hate for Profit campaign might have had more impact on the election than the movie. I explained again at post # 28 and corrected your inaccurate comment that I had been “making assumptions about "swing the election". I ended that post with the remark I still do not know why you consider that this film may have violated campaign law. A question you pose in the thread's title.

                                To which I then received the following reply at post # 29 “Did I say it violated? I said no such thing. You keep making stuff up”.

                                I pointed out that you had posed the question “In hindsight, did Borat 2 violate campaign law” in the thread title . Since then all I received are ludicrous comments and accusations.

                                Roy has noticed that you are "
                                not in the slightest bit interested in any answer to the question" you have posed, which leads me to wonder why you posted this thread in the first place.
                                You never explained why it had to be seen by trump supporters in order to either A. Swing/sway/influence the election (or attempt to), B. violate campaign laws. That's like saying that marriage is required for domestic abuse.
                                Last edited by CivilDiscourse; 02-25-2021, 06:30 AM.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                184 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                417 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                114 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                198 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                88 responses
                                400 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X