3 ms·

1. I didn't attack an entire group. I never said "everyone" or "no one". I said "a lot of". 2. I did make an assumption about you being emotionally charged due

1. I didn't attack an entire group. I never said "everyone" or "no one". I said "a lot of". 2. I did make an assumption about you being emotionally charged due to: - "your dutiful patrons of Reason and Logic (TM) " - "You try to illicit a veneer of servitude towards reason and logic" - "you can't help but be disingenuous about the subject you're discussing" You also brought in a number of points lacking citation that I could not find any evidence of occurring at the protest I was saying I saw footage of. I googled and found the source footage, the whole talk is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwdYpMS8s28 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwdYpMS8s28 I did not see any dogs, or anyone screaming about Micheal Brown or any of the other key points you mentioned. The whole talk is recorded including the kids trying to break the windows. Maybe I was wrong in assuming you where emotionally charged, and maybe you just have a naturally hostile-seeming way of expressing yourself including calling names and quoting and claiming without citation. If so I apologize for suggesting it was emotionally charged. 3. It literally spells out those three things in the amendment. Could you read through the amendment and explain how it does not describe what I said above? 4. I don't care if my post is flagged. I went through the due process of actually watching the clip to see if anything you claimed happened occurred which I did not. I believe you should be capable of doing the same. Don't try to witch hunt or bring on a tribal mob just to win an argument. Win it with your facts and logical process you claim to have but haven't yet expressed.

kadendogthing 8y ago
1. That's just being pedantic. Just stick with what you said instead of trying worm out of it. 2. There's nothing emotionally charged about any of that. It's a pretty satirical take on the reality you attempted to present in your first post. IF that makes you uncomfortable then fix your statements being easily satirized. 3. That's not how arguments work, or even how law gets interpreted. 4. You can't really attempt to weaponize HN guidelines when the evidence that you in fact were not following them is visible for everyone to see. You were not respectful to me, to the community (by lying), and certainly not to anyone else who you don't agree with. >Win it with your facts and logical process you claim to have but haven't yet expressed. I did. This is the veneer I was referencing. You were in fact the person to reference having superior reasoning skills, but did nothing to demonstrate their presence or even mastery.

kadendogthing 8y ago

1. That's just being pedantic. Just stick with what you said instead of trying worm out of it. 2. There's nothing emotionally charged about any of that. It's a pretty satirical take on the reality you attempted to present in your first post. IF that makes you uncomfortable then fix your statements being easily satirized. 3. That's not how arguments work, or even how law gets interpreted. 4. You can't really attempt to weaponize HN guidelines when the evidence that you in fact were not following them is visible for everyone to see. You were not respectful to me, to the community (by lying), and certainly not to anyone else who you don't agree with. >Win it with your facts and logical process you claim to have but haven't yet expressed. I did. This is the veneer I was referencing. You were in fact the person to reference having superior reasoning skills, but did nothing to demonstrate their presence or even mastery.