If I'm wrong I'm wrong. No biggie.

Therein lies the difference. Too bad (not really) that you choose not to see it.

It was quite clear, Paul, that you were responding to what I'd been saying. That you were being indirect only means that you were not addressing me while responding to what I wrote.

That means that you're still guilty of breaking your stated intent of no longer responding to me. It's similar to a situation where two five year olds are sitting at a table with a third kid and Kid A says "Tell Kid B that I'm not talking to him and he's a dummy", and Kid B responds "Well tell Kid A that I'm not hearing him and he's the dummy." If Kid A or Kid B believes that they're not responding to one another they'd be almost as foolish as Paul but without the sociopathy.

I bet even SlowJoe can follow that one (although I have overestimated him before).

Wow!

Nine pages (Yay! I can count!)!

And aside from a few party-poopers, most seem to realize what an utter loser the character of IvanJim has proven himself to be.

L! O! L!

Actually Squeeky, I brought it up because you've been occasionally sniping at me ever since then. I'm just putting your current sniping into context.


Context. It's an interesting thing. I've pointed out when Geedis was responding out of context, so it can be said that I've backed up my statements.

You, on the other hand, have always been fairly lazy about the way you post and don't bother to back up what you say until you've been goaded into doing so. Interesting behavior from someone who states that he's a responsible member of society but has never demonstrated any responsibility to even bother backing up his own silliness.

I think I'm going to stay with my conclusion that you snipe because you're upset that you were successfully taken to task. It seems more verifiable in your posting patterns than what you're currently claiming.

Responding again Paul?


But what about your vow to never ever do so again?

I guess that being out of the spotlight was just a little too hard on you.

I dunno, Ivanjim, I'm an Obama supporter, but I think it's a stretch to assert that Hillary is engaging in "obvious and dishonest dissembling," and that therefore calling someone "Hillary" is the same as accusing them of using those tactics. Maybe she is doing that, but there's not really a widespread consensus on that point, such as would be necessary to make that insult widely understandable.

Maybe if Geedis was known to have an annoying laugh, or if his husband had cheated on him with an intern, or if his one small display of cleavage on the Senate floor had caused a media sensation, the insult would have made more sense. But Hillary's character is just too diffuse and too contested to make her name a useful epithet at this point. Nobody understands which of the many facets of her character you're talking about or comparing Geedis to.

I understand that you don't grasp the difference between describing you as Slow and saying that you're, say, a rotted and infected tooth.

I also understand that you use cuss words and sexual references because you're not capable of actually making an effective argument.

It's okay, SlowJoe. When you've a lost a battle of wits I can see why you want to throw rocks (metaphorically, that is) instead of admitting that you can no longer effectively defend yourself with words. Lots of immature and dysfunctional people act this way, and it's nice that you can work yourself up to that level. It's a little better then your usual whining.

I was referring to the way she responded to Obama's remarks about folks getting frustrated and turning to religion, gun-love and xenophobia, when I believe it was fairly clear that she was distorting his statement out of context and she was quite aware of what he actually meant. He's done similar things with her statements, but he hasn't done so by pretending that his beliefs were something other than his voting record would indicate.

I'm not an Barack Obama supporter, nor am I enamored of Hillary Clinton, but I was thinking that she might make a marginally better President than he would. Her dishonest dissembling, combined with her making up verifiably false stories about her experiences in a combat zone have caused me to believe that she's at the very least no better than him.

I still wish that Gore or Edwards was the presumptive nominee, but at this point I feel more supportive of Obama than of someone so clearly dishonest and so sloppy about it.

You make a convincing case for your point of view about Hillary, but my point was, if you need to make the case and basically explain the joke, then the joke's not funny. Would you agree with that?

Anyone with a sense of humor would agree with that.

Uh oh!