The government-run American media seems to have slipped up a bit lately. Where as pre-November news reports highlighting American fatalities in Iraq & Afghanistan and blaming Bush for them were the norm, I’ve not seen or heard much from tho…

The government-run American media seems to have slipped up a bit lately. Where as pre-November news reports highlighting American fatalities in Iraq & Afghanistan and blaming Bush for them were the norm, I’ve not seen or heard much fr…

On July 13th, 2009 at 8:47 pm, zyzzyg said:

As I have explained, the use of the words that cause you such distress is a colloquialism.

I’m willing to accept the fact that you didn’t mean exactly what you typed in your first comment. No problem. But don’t try salvaging your credibility by asking me stupid questions which aren’t analogous to your poor word choice.

There is no such thing as a stupid question.

There most certainly is. And that’s a stupid statement.

On July 13th, 2009 at 8:54 pm, zyzzyg said:

I know it’s late, but do try to keep up. My “No it’s not” wasn’t a denial of my words. I was refuting your point.

On July 13th, 2009 at 4:18 pm, corkie said: #47

Your words, cut and pasted -

No it’s not.

Are you feakin kidding me?

I actually cut and pasted your words, and then you actually cut and pasted your words, and it is the same freakin’ thing.

Please Corkie. Please, I am begging you, don’t comment on my posts.

On July 13th, 2009 at 4:18 pm, corkie said: #47

As I have explained, the use of the words that cause you such distress is a colloquialism.

There is no such thing as a stupid question. Only stupid people who are fearful of answering them. Are you stupid or fearful? If you do not want to answer the questions, have the stones to say you will not answer the questions, ‘everyone’ wants to know.

Since you said, “I’m hoping that this country isn’t attacked again” in your post #34, is it reasonable to suggest that you do not care one way, or the other, if England, Israel, or our troops are attacked?”

Yes, or no?

If you do not mention all the people, places and countries that you do not want harm to come to, are you, by deliberate exclusion, wanting harm to come those you do not mention?

Yes, or no?

Don’t hide behind semantics.

It is entirely too easy to call people names and be dismissive, but is it that difficult to respond with a simple ‘yes’ or, ‘no’? Anything else is a cop out.

Come on tree barkie, don’t tell me the moss growing on you is keeping your mouth shut.

Oh, wait a minute, maybe you have been harvested and have wait 5 to 7 years to grow a pair?

On July 13th, 2009 at 3:59 pm, zyzzyg said:

Your words, cut and pasted -

No it’s not.

I stated, “I’m hoping that this country isn’t attacked again.”

I didn’t state, “I’m only hoping this country isn’t attacked again.”

I didn’t state, “I just hope this country isn’t attacked again.”

The latter two statements would be exclusionary. This isn’t rocket science. Second graders would easily understand this concept.

If you do not mention all the people, places and countries that you do not want harm to come to, are you, by deliberate exclusion, wanting harm to come those you do not mention?

That’s stupid. See above. Stop attempting such a stupid counterattack. It makes you appear desperate.

On July 13th, 2009 at 3:26 pm, corkie said: #45

It’s weak for you to suggest that I took you to task for what you didn’t say. I’ve been very clear, and it’s obvious.

Your words, cut and pasted -

On July 12th, 2009 at 11:29 pm, corkie said: #35

I’m hoping that this country isn’t attacked again. Not you – you’re “just” hoping OBL and Omar are “dealt with.”

Try answering the following question -

Since you said, “I’m hoping that this country isn’t attacked again” in your post #34, is it reasonable to suggest that you do not care one way, or the other, if England, Israel, or our troops are attacked?”

If you do not mention all the people, places and countries that you do not want harm to come to, are you, by deliberate exclusion, wanting harm to come those you do not mention?

Take me literally, or don’t take me literally

You’ve often insisted on being taken literally on here. From now on, tell us when you want to be taken literally and when you don’t want to be taken literally.

try commenting on what I said, and not on what I did not say.

That’s exactly what I did. You’ve attempted to dismiss what you said.

‘Everyone’ is not curious about my meaning.

I never stated otherwise.

it is not everyone, it is only just you. Geez, did I just use the words ‘only’ and ‘just’?

It’s good to see you admit to the definition of the word “just.” Now, own it!

I made no assumptions

Yes, you did.

Unless, of course, you now want to take me to task, because I deliberately excluded any mention of the terror experienced by women in Aghanistan, and attacks on the same.

It’s weak for you to suggest that I took you to task for what you didn’t say. I’ve been very clear, and it’s obvious.

On July 13th, 2009 at 1:47 pm, corkie said: #43

zyzzyg, feel free to explain to everyone what you meant by,

Let’s just hope that Osama Bin Laden and Mullah Omar are dealt with…

‘Everyone’ is not curious about my meaning. Only you are, because you are the only one asking about my meaning. Others have suggested a level of partisanship, which I rejected.

‘Dealt with’ means, what it meant when Pres Bush said, “Dead or Alive”. I prefer dead, maybe with his head on a stick. But, I am extreme in that way.

Tell everyone what you meant by the word, “just.” The word is exclusionary by definition.

Using the word ‘just’ is merely a colloquialism. You taking issue with a pattern of speech, is just ridiculous.

There is no way to assert, or conclude, that you would want harm to come to anyone because you did not mention them in your statement.

Yes, those are my words. Do you agree, or disagree? ‘Everyone’ wants to know.

Nope. That is a stretch. I want to know.

For your benefit I will repeat the question that you did not address, and hope that you do so now, “Since you said, “I’m hoping that this country isn’t attacked again” in your post #34, is it reasonable to suggest that you do not care one way, or the other, if England, Israel, or our troops are attacked?”

If you do not mention all the people, places and countries that you do not want harm to come to, are you, by exclusion, wanting harm to come those you do not mention?

I didn’t conclude that “because” you didn’t mention them. I concluded that because of your own word choice. Bad assumption on your part – very hypocritical of you.

I made no assumptions, and am far from being hypocritical. I presented a hypothesis. One that I had hoped you would examine. Try examining the hypothesis and answering the direct questions.

If you think I’m taking your comment too literally, then feel free to explain to everyone exactly what you meant.

Again, it is not everyone, it is only just you. Geez, did I just use the words ‘only’ and ‘just’? LOL.

For your benefit -

Main Entry: col·lo·qui·al
Pronunciation: \kə-ˈlō-kwē-əl\
Function: adjective
Date: 1751
1: of or relating to conversation : conversational
2 a: used in or characteristic of familiar and informal conversation ; also : unacceptably informal b: using conversational style

Take me literally, or don’t take me literally, but try commenting on what I said, and not on what I did not say.

Unless, of course, you now want to take me to task, because I deliberately excluded any mention of the terror experienced by women in Aghanistan, and attacks on the same.

Tree Barkiie, your serve. And have the stones to answer the questions this time.

Let’s just hope that Osama Bin Laden and Mullah Omar are dealt with…

Tell everyone what you meant by the word, “just.” The word is exclusionary by definition.

There is no way to assert, or conclude, that you would want harm to come to anyone because you did not mention them in your statement.

I didn’t conclude that “because” you didn’t mention them. I concluded that because of your own word choice. Bad assumption on your part – very hypocritical of you.

If you think I’m taking your comment too literally, then feel free to explain to everyone exactly what you meant.