I daily thank sweet merciful Christ that this isn't reddit, but the more people like yourself I find here, the less I'm able to believe that. Being accused of b

I daily thank sweet merciful Christ that this isn't reddit, but the more people like yourself I find here, the less I'm able to believe that. Being accused of being a "one man downmod squad" as if I even remotely gave a shit about moderation is a big red flag. I care fuckall for a popularity contest, and I find it personally offensive that your argument has fallen to suggesting that I do. Additionally, you have no idea what my political affiliations are, and I'm not about to explain them, because I am not interested in having an argument over politics, just as you formerly claimed to be. To be clear: I may or may not have voted for Obama, I may or may not be of voting age, and I may or may not be a U.S. citizen. Personal attacks aside, you're still wrong. Of course my analogy is ridiculous. I thought the "lizard person" bit gave that away. The point was that your unorthodox interpretation of the original text is itself nearly as ridiculous in that it completely discards every other statement prior or subsequent in favor of a reading that while literally unambiguous in isolation, is very unlikely to be accurate. Consider this sentence: "All Jews will die." On the one hand, it's factually accurate. On the other, it can be read as a threat. Context is vital, and is not to be ignored. It is in fact most important when potential interpretations are most disagreeable. At no point did I deny that that the text formerly read as it did. What I deny is that your interpretation of that text accurately reflects the intent of the message. I've given reasons above and in my prior posts, none of which you have contradicted. That changes have been made is not in question, but as your point rests in the idea that "major, substantial" changes are being made, and your evidence for that substance is demonstrably flimsy, I don't see where you have done anything more than confirm the statement you were responding to in the first place. That, and insult me. (Incidentally, how do you know the site did not once unambiguously advocate euthanasia and consumption of the elderly? Isn't it central to your case that this is currently unknowable? Aren't you just making an assumption based on the improbability that Obama would suddenly make such a significant change to his agenda only to shortly thereafter remove it?)