Originally Posted By friendofdd I gotta admit I just sorta shake my head when I read this topic. "This is what I meant" "It's not what you said" "Yes it is" "No it isn't" Ad Naseum Surely, friends, you have something better to do.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Omitting a large part of it DOES take it out of context. That's axiomatic.>> <Right. I'll remember that whenever you quote someone and don't include ALL of their remarks.> Whenever I do that, I put "<snip>" in there to indicate I have done so, and include the link so that anyone who wants to can read the whole thing. <<And you said, flat out, "Obama claimed that he owed his existence to the march from Selma, Al - that if it hadn't been for that march, his parents wouldn't have gotten together." That's not what he claimed at all, and when you read the whole quote, that's clear.>> <One, I didn't say that "flat out".> Yes, you did. I quoted you verbatim. <As I mentioned before, I put the word "lied" in quotation marks, in my first two posts on the subject. When you asked for more information, I passed on an accusation I had heard. I did not mean to imply I believed it.> OH BROTHER!! ROTFLMAO! Even if that's true, you should have said so in the post where you brought it up. <That said, I do not believe it was all that clear that he did not mean what I reported.> Well, we all know you tend to read things the way you'd like them to read. <There was no intent to deceive on my part. I also do not believe there was any intent to deceive on Gov Romney's part, or on Sen Obama's part.> Let's all sing Kum Ba Yah now.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Whenever I do that, I put "<snip>" in there to indicate I have done so, and include the link so that anyone who wants to can read the whole thing.> In other words, just like I did, except that I used the traditional elipses instead of "<snip>". <I quoted you verbatim.> Yes, but you took it out of context. <Even if that's true, you should have said so in the post where you brought it up.> It is true, and I thought I did it implicity. Of course, I said it explicity a while ago, but that evidently people would prefer to demonize me rather than accept my explanations. <Well, we all know you tend to read things the way you'd like them to read.> Actually, that's your problem.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Actually, that's your problem." If you want to marginalize yourself, jusr expressly say so. It'll save time.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh How is pointing out Dabob's tendency to read into things marginalizing myself?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Whenever I do that, I put "<snip>" in there to indicate I have done so, and include the link so that anyone who wants to can read the whole thing.>> <In other words, just like I did, except that I used the traditional elipses instead of "<snip>".> Which would have been fine, except that what you said in post 24 was an accusation that Obama was dishonest. When asked for the source you posted what you posted with the elipses. Nowhere in there, until AFTER YOU WERE CALLED ON IT, did you provide any context, say you didn't believe he was being dishonest, or anything else. It looked for all the world like you thought this quote proved he was dishonet. <<I quoted you verbatim.>> <Yes, but you took it out of context.> No, I didn't. The only other thing in that post was " Fact is, he was born before the march from Selma to Montgomery." Which just looks MORE like you're claiming him of dishonesty. And besides "flat out" merely means verbatim. <<Even if that's true, you should have said so in the post where you brought it up.>> <It is true, and I thought I did it implicity.> What?! WOW. Here is post 24: "Obama claimed that he owed his existence to the march from Selma, Al - that if it hadn't been for that march, his parents wouldn't have gotten together. Fact is, he was born before the march from Selma to Montgomery." What in there, exactly, implies in ANY way that you thought this represented an unfair accusation of Obama being untruthful? In fact, it implies you think just the opposite. Only after you were called on it did you try to weasel out of it. < Of course, I said it explicity a while ago, but that evidenevidently people would prefer to demonize me rather than accept my explanations. > If quoting your own words is demonizing you, well, there you are. <<Well, we all know you tend to read things the way you'd like them to read.>> <Actually, that's your problem.> It's very easy for you to play the "Argument Clinic" game, for which you are roundly lampooned; the difference is that I point out where you read into things what you'd like to see - you merely parrot the charge back to me (getting in another Python sketch, I guess).
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Which would have been fine, except that what you said in post 24 was an accusation that Obama was dishonest.> And that followed two posts in which I put the word "lied" in quotation marks, to show that I did not agree with that assessment. <Nowhere in there, until AFTER YOU WERE CALLED ON IT, did you provide any context, say you didn't believe he was being dishonest, or anything else.> I provided a link to the entire speech. I wasn't trying to hide any of the context. Again, I edited for brevity. <It looked for all the world like you thought this quote proved he was dishonet.> I've already said that wasn't my intention. <No, I didn't.> Yes, you did. The posts which preceeded it show my intent. If you want to continue to call me dishonest, I can't stop you. But it's not true.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Oh good grief. If you want to play that game, I'll point out that post 23 asked you what Obama lied about, without quotes around the word. You then responded in 24 the way you did, with no indication that you thought the accusation he was lying was bogus. At best, it was real sloppiness. At worst, an attempt to cast doubt on his veracity while being able to claim you didn't actually do so.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I'll point out that post 23 asked you what Obama lied about, without quotes around the word.> And I'll point out that post 23 was by you. I'm sorry if I assumed you were smart enough to see what I was getting at by putting quotes around the word. I won't make that assumption again.
Originally Posted By DAR Again who give a rip about Romney's hunting experience or Obama's birth right.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <And I'll point out that post 23 was by you. I'm sorry if I assumed you were smart enough to see what I was getting at by putting quotes around the word. I won't make that assumption again. > And I'll assume that when I don't put quotes around <lied> and ask you what you meant by that and then you post something that sounds like a straight accusation, you'll be smart enough to know how that comes across. I won't make that assumption again.
