Obamagate

[Mountain Man]

When you learn what it means to think, you'll undertand.

And irony meters everywhere broke from overload.

[Mountain Man]

"Probably guilty" does not mean "guilty".

Difference without a distinction in this case.

[Charles]

Difference without a distinction in this case.

In your simplified world, perhaps.

[Sparko]

nope. "probably guilty" does not mean "guilty". You can manipulate as much as you like but it will not change the fact that you and sparko were wrong.
Some of us know how to nitpik little details that allow us to deflect in order to avoid engaging the actual point.

fify.

[Mountain Man]

In your simplified world, perhaps.

Still not simple enough for you it seems.

[Charles]

Mountain Man and Sparko... Why can't you just admit you were wrong. Keeping ignoring details will not change the facts.

If it is too hard for you to figure out let me explain: Tassman and I actually allow for the fact that the ongoing investigation may come up with the result that Trump is not guilty. Even if we may find it unlikely, it could happen. That means, which should also be quite easy to grasp, that we do not yet claim that Trump is guilty.

Got it?

[Charles]

fify.

Changing my text is not ok.

[Meh Gerbil]

Mountain Man and Sparko... Why can't you just admit you were wrong. Keeping ignoring details will not change the facts.

If it is too hard for you to figure out let me explain: Tassman and I actually allow for the fact that the ongoing investigation may come up with the result that Trump is not guilty. Even if we may find it unlikely, it could happen. That means, which should also be quite easy to grasp, that we do not yet claim that Trump is guilty.

Got it?

How many times are you going to explain this painfully obvious point?
I'm not being mean here - I keep having to remind myself of that all of the time.

You do a pretty good job of communicating so if your audience, at this point in the dialog, believes that you're declaring Trump unequivocally guilty then it is on them.

[Meh Gerbil]

Changing my text is ok.

Got it.

[Charles]

How many times are you going to explain this painfully obvious point?
I'm not being mean here - I keep having to remind myself of that all of the time.

You do a pretty good job of communicating so if your audience, at this point in the dialog, believes that you're declaring Trump unequivocally guilty then it is on them.

Thanks a lot.

[Sparko]

fify

[Meh Gerbil]

covfefe

fify

[Sparko]

Mountain Man and Sparko... Why can't you just admit you were wrong. Keeping ignoring details will not change the facts.

If it is too hard for you to figure out let me explain: Tassman and I actually allow for the fact that the ongoing investigation may come up with the result that Trump is not guilty. Even if we may find it unlikely, it could happen. That means, which should also be quite easy to grasp, that we do not yet claim that Trump is guilty.

Got it?

this is why I am saying you are nitpiking. I said "You claim Trump is guilty" because basically that is what Tassman (and you) have been promoting. You know what I mean. I mean "Tassman (and you) believe he is guilty and keep showing that in your posts. It is freaking obvious to anyone reading your posts"

Just because tassman didn't use the exact words, "I think Trump is guilty" doesn't mean it isn't true. He just admitted he believes Trump is likely guilty a few posts ago. So your continued nattering about some piddling detail is just a way to score a point on some semantic glitch.

OK I am sorry I said Tassman keeps saying trump is guilty. I meant to say "Tassman you believe Trump is guilty"

better? If not, stick it.

[Sparko]

covfify

fefe.

[One Bad Pig]

How many times are you going to explain this painfully obvious point?
I'm not being mean here - I keep having to remind myself of that all of the time.

You do a pretty good job of communicating so if your audience, at this point in the dialog, believes that you're declaring Trump unequivocally guilty then it is on them.

I think it's painfully obvious that Tassman and Charles unequivocally think that Trump is guilty, but want to maintain a pretense of neutrality on the question. Maybe that's just me.