GOP'ish candidates

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

First, thank you for a thoughtful post in response. TracyCoxx could take some lessons from you.

Show me how it's done smc. Respond to my post in Thoughts on Today's Political Landscape that's been sitting there unanswered by you for 2 weeks. No scratch that. You've demonstrated before that you are unable to answer with a thoughtful response. Preferring to use responses such as "boo-fucking-hoo". Why don't you start leading by example.

Originally Posted by smc

By the way, are you aware that TracyCoxx speaks for you in the post just above mine? I'm wondering whether that is with your specific permission.

Let's see.... how does that go now? Oh yes...

Originally Posted by smc

NOTICE ABOVE that [smc] once again seems to reserve some right to post one-to-one conversations on this Forum, in public threads, and by inference wants anyone who [smc] doesn't agree with to be denied the right to participate in those public conversations.

I never realized that you sought permission to answer for all the hundreds of people you've answered for when I addressed them. I am impressed!

Originally Posted by smc

I know you like to put words in people's mouth, but I've made my point again and again, including in my response just above to tslust. I also know that you like to ignore what people actually write when it doesn't suit your purposes. So have your fun. As we both know from the Internet, people get off on all sorts of weird things.

You may have looked at my post, but you didn't read it. Seriously... it's ok not to answer if you do not know the answer. Or if you must answer, a simple "I don't know" will suffice.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Show me how it's done smc. Respond to my post in Thoughts on Today's Political Landscape that's been sitting there unanswered by you for 2 weeks. No scratch that. You've demonstrated before that you are unable to answer with a thoughtful response. Preferring to use responses such as "boo-fucking-hoo". Why don't you start leading by example.

You can ignore what I write until the cows come home, and cast aspersions, and try to paint me as having deliberately ignored a post in another thread, but you're the troll and not me.

Your post in the other thread will be answered when I'm done writing this post. I don't remember seeing it, which is probably why I didn't answer. Unlike some people, I masturbate to pictures online, not just things I myself have written, so I might have been busy.

(Yes, go whine to the site owner that I insulted you. I have decided to do you a solid by giving you as many direct opportunities to whine to the site owner as possible, so you don't have to spend time writing compelling arguments about how something that wasn't really an insult actually is.)

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Let's see.... how does that go now? Oh yes...
I never realized that you sought permission to answer for all the hundreds of people you've answered for when I addressed them. I am impressed!

]

A time-honored trick: throw that which you are accused of back at the accuser, rather than deal with the substance. The differences will be clear to anyone who has the time to look at the full, complete record of your posts and mine, in toto, but I doubt anyone will do so. It's not worth the trouble.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

You may have looked at my post, but you didn't read it. Seriously... it's ok not to answer if you do not know the answer. Or if you must answer, a simple "I don't know" will suffice.

Wow, you're so clever, trying to make it look like I don't know something, or that I'm refusing to answer your questions. But the reality is that I did answer. I have written that unlike you, I don't pretend to be a Constitutional scholar. I have written that I accept the Supreme Court's decision because they get to make it. I think the Affordable Care Act is constitutional. I also happen not to like the Affordable Care Act, as I've also written. I think we should have single-payer healthcare, Medicare for all.

Now, I'm going to the other thread to deal with that post that you are implying I deliberately ignored ... despite that you have no proof. I could point out all the things, again, that you've never actually answered, but I have other things to do after logging off. For instance, I'm going to search for a manual that explains how to be the best possible troll, because you're slipping. I'll send you the link.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

NOTICE ABOVE that [smc] once again seems to reserve some right to post one-to-one conversations on this Forum, in public threads, and by inference wants anyone who [smc] doesn't agree with to be denied the right to participate in those public conversations.


I never realized that you sought permission to answer for all the hundreds of people you've answered for when I addressed them. I am impressed!

Oh, I forgot that I wanted to address this quote more directly.

Hundreds? Seriously? More important, though, I defy you to find a single post of mine where I reserve the right to post one-to-one conversations on this Forum. Find one. I dare you.

I, on the other hand, can find many posts of yours where you have complained that I intervened in, or interrupted, or had the nerve to participate in, an open thread -- open meaning anyone can participate.

So, in the tradition of TracyCoxx, I want an apology for attributing to me something that I have never done. ... Not really -- I don't want an apology. Because an apology from you would be meaningless. An apology from someone who serially makes up stuff like what I quote above is meaningless.