Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That is taken from the article linked in the OP. It had to be paraphrased to fit into the character limit imposed by forum software. Did you absolutely fail to realize this? Of have you never created a topic here and instead only toss rocks at others who do?
That is taken from the article linked in the OP. It had to be paraphrased to fit into the character limit imposed by forum software. Did you absolutely fail to realize this? Of have you never created a topic here and instead only toss rocks at others who do?
I don't care if you paraphrased it or quoted it exactly, you started a thread that makes an assertion, therefore it is your assertion. Defend it.
What assertion? I've already addressed the topic title.
The assertion YOU made when YOU started this thread.
You have not addressed the topic title. You've played peek-a-boo with the requests that you provide some corroboration for the assertion you made when you started this thread.
The point is that you don't like the topic but you lack any means to dispute it. Thus you attempt to discredit the messenger. It's nothing more complicated than that. You are only indignant now for being called out about it.
Nope, the messenger has done a fantastic job discrediting himself/herself; by refusing to address points put forth by other posters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaldoKitty
The point is that you don't like the topic but you lack any means to dispute it. Thus you attempt to discredit the messenger. It's nothing more complicated than that. You are only indignant now for being called out about it.
I was asking you what your point is in regard to the thread subject.
You did not start a title about shooting the messenger right? So what exactly is your point in regard to this?
What point have you made about the topic, that I have not addressed? Please be specific.
Too many to list. Do us a favor and just go back review the posts again. There were lots of questions raised regarding the specifics in Klein's excerpt. Questions about what "issues" you are seeing. Questions about what your point is, etc, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaldoKitty
I've previously stated the title was a short paraphrase of the article I linked in the OP.
And.....?? You linked to an article and.....what?????
That's it? There was no point? You just wanted to link to an article and leave it at that?
.
Too many to list. Do us a favor and just go back review the posts again. There were lots of questions raised regarding the specifics in Klein's excerpt. Questions about what "issues" you are seeing. Questions about what your point is, etc, etc. And.....?? You linked to an article and.....what????? That's it? There was no point? You just wanted to link to an article and leave it at that?
.
So you are unable to list ANY point that you have made about the topic where you have made 12 posts. It's also strange behavior for someone who considers the topic to be pointless. Obviously there WAS a point and you don't like it.
We all know there are people who are going to vote for King Hillary no matter what she has done including the antics described in that article. This is what partisans do though most are more "proud" of their decisions than what you seem to be. If this describes you then man up and state your support for the King. No need for personal attacks in order to defend it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.