Politics and Religion
I had every "intention" to stop. You still haven't refuted my last points. And, I know someone who hasn't proved his point! 
some refuse to admit to themselves or others, regarding FOX News. But, also when he says the truth is some where between FOX News and CNN and MSNBC ( I'll go even further and include Huffpo in the later group).
So, I guess we'll have to score it, Republicans 1, Democrats 0, for the time being, or, Republicans ahead by a nose!
You still haven't answered my question. That's probably because, as your MO, you are straining at a gnat while swallowing a camel. The answer to my question is the camel!
I think we'd best call it a night before you spin any further out of control!
In your example, I follow the Dodgers. That's what's called a constant, and a reference point around your argument builds. In this case, your reasoning and argument is good. However, there is nothing in what you've produced to make the case, from your posts, that establishes Coburn is a follower of Fox News. You have to make that case before you can use your argument as it applies to the articles headline (a camel). You cannot just assume that to be true. To make it clear, I'm in no way defending the article or the authors use of the headline, that's an error in your interpretation (a gnat). I'm challenging you on: 1. your logic, and 2. how you got stuck on something so inconsequential (a gnat), when the real meat of the issue is Coburn's main point (a camel); we should not try to control what and how the press reports the news, but the press should leave out commentary when doing so, or if commentary is given, it should be clearly stated as being such.
I have no idea your views regarding Fox News; whether you watch it or not. But, your continual straining at the gnat makes it easy for me to imagine that it's you who feels a need to defend it. But, of course that's merely my interpretation of how you are coming across. I could be wrong of course. And, I'm not much invested in being right or wrong on the issue.
The truth is, "most" of us are uninformed.
hoist by your own petard on. "Say goodnight Gracie!"
1. That's in your mind, not mine! The fact that you even imagine it, let alone say it speaks to the level of grandiosity you harbor.
2. I choose to read the Huffpo heading as a common turn of phrase, not a statement regarding the absolute state of Senator Coburn being a fan or not of Fox News. You can choose to do so, but I'm under no compunction to do so. The arguments you use to do so are full of holes, which you are blind to.
I have said to some of my family members, "I'm not exactly a fan of Olive Garden." This is no hypothetical example, like yours. However, some of my grandkids love going there. So, when one of them wants to go there, I attend with them, enjoy their company, find something on the menu that usually turns out to be agreeable to my tastes. I would never choose to go there, if I'm making the decision for myself. But, here's the rub; I'm no fan of any particular restaurant! Particularly when you compare it to sports fans. I have one sister who is a Seattle Seahawks fan, while the other is an Oakland Raider fan. Now, get in the same room with the two of them during a Seahawks-Raider game, then you can talk about fan-ship in absolute terms. Usually, in my experience, it's just a common turn of phrase, or statement that is not meant to be debated in absolute terms. You, demanding to do so says more about you than me.
me explaining my point of view. I'm not asking or demanding anyone accept my point of view, just trying to clarify. It does show, despite the differences Ed and I have with each other, I respect him enough to try to explain my point of view, and say where I think his logic is flawed, which as you've probably noticed, I seldom do with you!
P.S. Was that your "Checkmate" post that got pulled?
I had every "intention" to stop. You still haven't refuted my last points. And, I know someone who hasn't proved his point!
"the language." And, you can make a declaration on someone's intent, and are free to decide what is relevant or irrelevant to the discussion. You're sounding pretty high and mighty to me!
I won't make any promises whether I'll respond or not. I wouldn't want you to think I'm a liar if I change my mind!
And, saying my analogies suck is a far cry from explaining in what way you see them as not useful, as I did with yours; which I showed blew your arguments and logic out of the water. And, no you've touched on very few of the points I've brought up.
No doubt you are hoping I'll read something into it, and share that with you. Nope! I know that game. You've played it often in this thread!
Point out where it seems I have been looking for your ulterior motives. I've just been refuting your logic!
Sounds like refuting it to me! See link below!
Re-read the definition from Merriam-Webster. They call that refuting. I'll trust them more than you, so I'll go with their definition.
Wouldn't something have to be untrue before it could be considered dishonest or misleading? Can something be dishonest or misleading if it's true?
I dare you to run your opinion, on how women argue, by all the women in your life!
And no, I'm not changing the subject. Still focused on you refuting having refuted the Huffpo headline. Just shows how lost you are!
It's so much fun watching you twist yourself into knots trying to wiggle out of the 'refute' definition. Good luck with that.
I think you know that I haven't changed the subject. You're just hoping I will!
-- Modified on 8/22/2014 10:30:45 AM