so you're complaining that people didn't know it was aged, and you're complaining that sam figured it out
giddy, I know this is a foriegn concept to you, given your history of posting wingnut chain emails, but most people in here take a little bit of care in insuring that the info they post isn't complete bs. basso, obviously does not. You seem to be hung up on the idea that people reading basso's post didn't immediately know that Sterns remarks were two years old and not a comment on current issues (healthcare etc.)before responding. I guess they should be faulted for giving basso any benefit of the doubt at all.
FAILED? I wasn't even talking about SF except to say that he is the one that uncovered the truth. It's all the others who mistakenly fell into the pile that Sam described who want to chortle about it now.
Not at all. No one, until Sam, knew it was erroneous. They just started demeaning Stern instead as an opinion that didn't matter. Then the truth came out and the piling on began.
Why don't I just stop and let you do what you do best in this thread - we all know what that is. My laundry is actually almost done and I'm going to open another beer and watch the rest of this tourney game. Meanwhile you can continue plugging away here and take this to its predictable outcome. After the gnashing of teeth and the rending of garments, you're about due to start up another "prayer request" thread over in the hangout, which will surely get you back in the good graces of all your dear warm colleagues on the BBS! I can't wait.
both things can and should happen. Stern is meaningless in the world of politics and weighty issues that actually matter. He should be mocked. That can happen now, in the future, or in the past. In addition it can also be true that basso tried to pass off old news as new news. IF someone posted something about Bush starting a war with Iraq, plenty of people would talk about what a stupid decision that was. It would also be stupid to try and pass it off as new. Both things and can should happen.
Typically, as usual, they just went after Stern as a source and then basso. They gave no one any benefit of the doubt; that's reconstructionist. I'm not hung up on it; I pointed out that it was funny... and then per usual I have to defend the simple, innocuous observation. Here's my post. Note the use of the word "laughable."
More meaningless than you or me or, by God, SamFisher? Does somebody have to agree with you to count?
It is true that people attacked Stern. So what. His opinion on political matters is meaningless. It was then and is now. basso posted 2 year old news as if it was new. HE should be called out on that too. Why are either of those amusing?
please point out the lie in either the thread title or the paraphrase: "i backed, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, but these guys are gangsters- communists..." TTIA. Spoiler i saw your earlier post on this subject, which just happens to be factually incorrect, leading one to believe you either didn't listen to it, or you're attempting to score points by dissuading others to listen for themselves.
I think that civilly calling someone out is fine, but someone called him a LIAR. This is the kind of confusion that my 8YO daughter exhibits. Being inaccurate is not the same as lying. I asked for proof of the lie and have been offered none. Who all is it that runs away?
was this actually said by Stern? "i backed, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, but these guys are gangsters- communists..."
To be fair to Giddyup, this actually might not be a case of Basso lying. He might have actually just fallen for the original posting of this on another forum. He passed on another person's deceit and got egg on his face for it. That is possible at least.
No. Not in a single sentence. I don't know if basso intentionally created the mis-represenation or got sucked into it like the first 6 or 7 posters here. :grin:
