@Noflaps said [^](/forum/redirect/post/kXVuw86E)
> That has nothing to do with the argument. It's just yet another distraction.
... the argument about why Republicans are distancing themselves from Trump? It totally *does* have relevance. Trump seems out of touch to the average voter, which is causing candidates to avoid mentioning him as an ally.
Most of your posts contain bunches of distracting, irrelevant information that is disguised as argument (such as any statement attacking Biden in this thread). Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
Stop trying to make me the subject, @clousems. Enough.
I have responded to a wide variety of arguments in this thread. I've even had to react to mischaracterizations of what I've written.
If something I've said is actually in error, you can make your case. You can address the point, substantively. There's no need to get personal, and it doesn't help.
But trying to paraphrase my arguments or reassure yourself and others that I'm "illogical" or make "irrelevant" points or don't understand mathematics, is just personally insulting, deflecting, and does nothing to advance whatever substantive point you think you can make.
That's turned into a disappointing trend. I'm done with this thread. Perhaps that's some sort of victory for any who hope (yet again) to score political points against Trump -- but I'm not going to beat several dead horses. Objective, careful readers can draw their own conclusions from what's already been written.
I hope the readers understand that any obviously political thread is going to inspire debate that is unlikely to remain narrow and one-sided unless the other side is cowed by insulting, discouraging responses or is unable to make a coherent argument. I'll let readers judge what is coherent and what is not. I just hope they'll read carefully, decide for themselves, and not just gleefully nod along with anyone without really reading carefully.
The subject of my prior post wasn’t you, @Noflaps . It was the post made by @JonSnow1998
I respond to posts when I have something to say. Your posts are often very long, and contain a good deal of flaws that inhibit healthy discussion, both in form and in content. You post a lot. This combination means that I often respond to you. The fact that you tend to post the same thing phrased differently means you often introduce similar flaws. The proper solution would be to prove your points instead of just asserting, and not repeating the same flawed points.
Again, though, it’s kind of moot since I made my post about @JonSnow1998 ‘s post
If you focused your points, halved the length of the post and doubled the amount of provided sources for your claims @Noflaps - we'd have a better debate. Well. 0 x 2 is still 0 but point is, hearsay and opinion, especially when derived from political pundits are not as important as statistics. It's hard to have a good discussion when the first sentence is on topic, but by the end it may as well be about zucchini bread
Fascinating, @clousems.
You start the post with my name, and quote me, and then ...
in the context of your previous statements about the logic and relevance of my arguments (or their lack of such), and my understanding of mathematics (or lack of understanding) ... you end your post by writing:
"Most of your posts contain bunches of distracting, irrelevant information that is disguised as argument (such as any statement attacking Biden in this thread)."
Since your post ONLY mentions me by name, the word "your" in what I quoted from that post seems clearly, to a reader, to be referring to me, not to somebody else.
But now you tell me that I wasn't the subject of your post? The post that came immediately after a post of mine and that mentioned only me?
You write that the subject of your post was actually JonSnow1998 -- whom your post did not expressly mention (i just reread it to check).
Oh. How was I or anyone else to know that easily, or at all? If subject of your post was somebody else, why bother to mention and quote me at all? And not mention that other person? And follow directly after my own, prior post?
I think I'm the one most entitled to use a "puzzled" emoji, bud.
Please save your unsolicited writing advice for another, @JonSnow1998 . As I reminded clousems, too, I am not the subject of the thread.
If you have something substantive to say -- something more substantive than, say, demeaning, gratuitous metaphorical references to zucchini bread -- I'm sure somebody can respond. I'm no longer interested in doing so.
And I'm not at all interested in getting your unsolicited advice about how better to write a post, or anything else. I believe I'm already sufficiently credentialed and experienced to get by without further instruction.
@Noflaps said [^](/forum/redirect/post/p63wTrfl)
> Please save your unsolicited writing advice for another, @JonSnow1998 . As I reminded clousems, too, I am not the subject of the thread.
>
> If you have something substantive to say -- something more substantive than, say, demeaning metaphorical references to zucchini bread -- I'm sure somebody can respond. I'm no longer interested in doing so.
>
> And I'm not at all interested in getting your unsol...
see, short and to the point - very effective
No detailed response was required. Flexibility is a virtue not a weakness.
It remains that the Iran war is illegal, unconstitutional, unjust, and not useful, and has driven oil prizes up.
Person A: makes a point that addresses the topic, albeit indirectly
Person B: that’s irrelevant, because [makes point that in no way addresses topic]
Person C: Actually, Person B, he did address the topic. On a related note, You have a tendency not to.
Person B: Stop making this about me!
Person C: I thought we were talking about person A’s post...
Person B [in a thread wherein person B has produced roughly half the text]: You mentioned me, though
This has become sheer idiocy, and I wash my hands of it for now. I will continue to make observations whenever relevant, should I see fit.