Reprehensible Voting/Ballot Outrages

[MoonWater]

Date: 10/14/2008 5:00:50 PM
Author: beebrisk

Date: 10/14/2008 4:54:21 PM
Author: MoonWater
I am amused by what you chose to put in bold. What I said is plainly clear. I think people are looking for argument where there is none.

Circular reasoning and a wee bit of double-talk here.
I think LuckyStar and I are probably capable of reading and understanding what you wrote.

That''s laughable since you dilberately keep reading it incorrectly. Perhaps if you say it outloud to yourself it will click. Leaving out part of what I said to suit your meaning doesn''t work.

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 10/14/2008 5:02:56 PM
Author: luckystar112
....and I told you how I interpreted your sentence. The bold only highlights why I interpreted it the way I did. And you apparently do not want to clarify because it is 'clear' if we read the whole sentence. Except we did and we don't think it is clear. I guess you are telling us that it's our problem. Gotcha!

And I bolded what parts were missed in the first place. Or did you not notice that?

What in what I wrote implies there are no low income Republicans? Or that that there are more low income Democrats? Which is what beebrisk reduced my comment to... Seems there's part of the statement missing which is clearly written. But you two have a ball making up what I'm implying rather than comprehend what I wrote, and I'll just keep on laughing.

 

[luckystar112]

Date: 10/14/2008 5:03:32 PM
Author: MoonWater

Date: 10/14/2008 5:00:50 PM
Author: beebrisk

Date: 10/14/2008 4:54:21 PM
Author: MoonWater
I am amused by what you chose to put in bold. What I said is plainly clear. I think people are looking for argument where there is none.

Circular reasoning and a wee bit of double-talk here.
I think LuckyStar and I are probably capable of reading and understanding what you wrote.

That''s laughable since you dilberately keep reading it incorrectly. Perhaps if you say it outloud to yourself it will click. Leaving out part of what I said to suit your meaning doesn''t work.

Well then I''m reading it as low-income republicans don''t tend to live in the slums of the city! Do I get a cookie?
The other part about the targeted group being poor people doesn''t really add or take away from my interpretation...

 

[luckystar112]

Date: 10/14/2008 5:07:09 PM
Author: MoonWater

Date: 10/14/2008 5:02:56 PM
Author: luckystar112
....and I told you how I interpreted your sentence. The bold only highlights why I interpreted it the way I did. And you apparently do not want to clarify because it is 'clear' if we read the whole sentence. Except we did and we don't think it is clear. I guess you are telling us that it's our problem. Gotcha!

And I bolded what parts were missed in the first place. Or did you not notice that?

What in what I wrote implies there are no low income Republicans? Or that that there are more low income Democrats? Seems there's part of the statement missing which is clearly written. But you two have a ball making up what I'm implying rather than comprehend what I wrote, and I'll just keep on laughing.

I did see your highlighted part and so I wrote what I thought you meant...about no low income republicans living in the slums. But instead of saying "correct!" (if I indeed am, since you highlighted "more" and "living in the slums of the city") you decided to just keep dancing around the bush. If I'm wrong, why not just say what you meant? It's like a game to you...and I agree it's really quite amusing.

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 10/14/2008 5:10:42 PM
Author: luckystar112

Date: 10/14/2008 5:07:09 PM
Author: MoonWater

Date: 10/14/2008 5:02:56 PM
Author: luckystar112
....and I told you how I interpreted your sentence. The bold only highlights why I interpreted it the way I did. And you apparently do not want to clarify because it is ''clear'' if we read the whole sentence. Except we did and we don''t think it is clear. I guess you are telling us that it''s our problem. Gotcha!

And I bolded what parts were missed in the first place. Or did you not notice that?

What in what I wrote implies there are no low income Republicans? Or that that there are more low income Democrats? Seems there''s part of the statement missing which is clearly written. But you two have a ball making up what I''m implying rather than comprehend what I wrote, and I''ll just keep on laughing.

I did see your highlighted part and so I wrote what I thought you meant...about no low income republicans living in the slums. But instead of saying ''correct!'' (if I indeed am, since you highlighted ''more'' and ''living in the slums of the city'') you decided to just keep dancing around the bush. If I''m wrong, why not just say what you meant? It''s like a game to you...and I agree it''s really quite amusing.

When did I say no low income Republicans lived in the slums? It''s funny how people can change just one word to alter the meaning of a sentence. I like "dancing around the bush" because I am amazed at the need to alter an extremely simple sentence.

 

[luckystar112]

Okay moon, more low-income Democrats tend to live in the slums of the city than low-income Republicans. If more low-income Republicans lived in the slums of the city, then the voter registration would be more balanced.

ETA: How would you prove that, btw?

 

[beebrisk]

Date: 10/14/2008 5:03:32 PM
Author: MoonWater

Date: 10/14/2008 5:00:50 PM

Author: beebrisk

Date: 10/14/2008 4:54:21 PM

Author: MoonWater

I am amused by what you chose to put in bold. What I said is plainly clear. I think people are looking for argument where there is none.

Circular reasoning and a wee bit of double-talk here.

I think LuckyStar and I are probably capable of reading and understanding what you wrote.

That''s laughable since you dilberately keep reading it incorrectly. Perhaps if you say it outloud to yourself it will click. Leaving out part of what I said to suit your meaning doesn''t work.

Keep twisting...have fun. No point in in reasonable discourse with someone who can''t seem to be honest about what they''ve stated. I''ll leave that to someone who does find it amusing...

 

[MoonWater]

You missed one more word lucky! Oh and you guys can disprove it. I did my proving in this thread for the day. Off to catch up on the other threads.

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 10/14/2008 5:25:27 PM
Author: beebrisk

Date: 10/14/2008 5:03:32 PM
Author: MoonWater

Date: 10/14/2008 5:00:50 PM

Author: beebrisk

Date: 10/14/2008 4:54:21 PM

Author: MoonWater

I am amused by what you chose to put in bold. What I said is plainly clear. I think people are looking for argument where there is none.

Circular reasoning and a wee bit of double-talk here.

I think LuckyStar and I are probably capable of reading and understanding what you wrote.

That''s laughable since you dilberately keep reading it incorrectly. Perhaps if you say it outloud to yourself it will click. Leaving out part of what I said to suit your meaning doesn''t work.

Keep twisting...have fun. No point in in reasonable discourse with someone who can''t seem to be honest about what they''ve stated. I''ll leave that to someone who does find it amusing...

LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! toodles honey.