RLENT
Veteran Expediter
LOL .... after looking back and discovering my error, I can imagine ....
Estab GOP Sees Writing On Wall - Decides To Go "3rd Party"
- Thread starter RLENT
- Start date
Of course you did. You questioned his interpretation of what was said in the article as being wrong.
Yes, I'm aware of that. It's why I addressed that very word in my reply.
And you did so by underlining in emphasis the word "campaign" to imply that the use of that word is incorrect and therefor is an inaccurate statement.
"Dave said that the campaign said that it couldn't control some of it's supporters ...."
So you took issue with the use of the word "campaign" and had no issues with the rest of his statement. At least that's what you have communicated.
Not necessarily. If your issue is with the use of the word "campaign" as being what makes the statement inaccurate, then who Jesse Benton works for and what his function is becomes not only relevant, but critical to Dave's interpretation, and to your assertion that his interpretation is incorrect.
If your issue is with can't "control it's supporters" as the part which is inaccurate, why did you underline "campaign" as being important? In Post #26 Dave even sought clarification to ensure it was Jesse Benton speaking on behalf of the campaign as being what you are claiming as being inaccurate. You didn't respond to his question, which makes his question rhetorical, tacitly answered in the affirmative.
Dave's full quote, which you assert is inaccurate, is "Paul's campaign also said they can't control some of the foolishness of its supporters and asking them to show some "decorum"." Yet if Jesse Benton is speaking for the campaign, and the campaign has asked its supporters to show some decorum due to them previously showing a lack of decorum, Dave's interpretation is correct and accurate on all counts. There is no reason to issue a strategy memo mentioning "respectful, and professional" and to later clarify that in a conference call as "emphasize decorum" unless it's a problem. And it's been a problem where some Paul supporters have been a little too enthusiastic to the point of not being respectful and professional and showing a lack of civil decorum.
In fact, it could be argued that that has happened in this very thread.
Inability to observe what is actually there ?
Hyper-partisan political "spin" ?
Just plain sloppiness ?
I don't know .... but it sure is interesting ....
Fact is, Ron Paul supporters have had instances where civility and decorum are in question. The fact that Jesse Benton is issuing strategy memos to remind them to be them to be respectful and professional is further indication that the campaign doesn't approve of some of the antics and is attempting to get them under control. That's accurate.
Tennesseahawk
Veteran Expediter
I'd like to know exactly what they're doing. Are they starting fist fights, like the RNC and Romney people are? Are they breaking RNC rules, like the RNC and Romney people are? I don't hear of that. Yes, Ron Paul people are rude and obnoxious, maybe. But they have to be, when they have to talk over others who are out of line, and who don't have the floor (only assuming, by what I've been told of the situation). Not to mention, they are right. Right by the rules of the RNC on how the caucuses, primaries, and conventions run. If there's anything else, then I'd like to know.
If you throw him any more rope Ken he is going to hang himself. I guess as a remedial course in reading comprehension and without sounding redundant, I'll refer Rlent to your last handful of posts as lesson #1 in this thread. Hopefully he reads them slowly so we don't have to explain it again for a third time.
When failing with the first argument I didn't see the point of coming back with a second that made even less sense than the first.
That's what happens when sometimes the typing is going much faster than the thinking. Don't see your need Rlent to go to such extremes to prove a point that you lose sight of what you are even arguing about.
I guess as a remedial course in reading comprehension and without sounding redundant, I'll refer Rlent to your last handful of posts as lesson #1 in this thread. Hopefully he reads them slowly so we don't have to explain it again for a third time.When failing with the first argument I didn't see the point of coming back with a second that made even less sense than the first.
That's what happens when sometimes the typing is going much faster than the thinking. Don't see your need Rlent to go to such extremes to prove a point that you lose sight of what you are even arguing about.
Probably radicals like this.
Top Paul Supporter Tells Delegates To Disrupt Convention
or
http://www.idahostatesman.com/2012/05/11/2111351/paul-condemns-assault-on-caucus.html
Last edited:
Tennesseahawk
Veteran Expediter
Oh ok. So there's one guy who is voicing discontent against the wishes of Ron Paul's campaign manager. Then there's another group who is trying to win Idaho for Ron Paul. Frankly, I don't see what the problem is. They are taking over counties and states within the rules. The campaign manager has to realize that Ron Paul unleashed a hellish fury upon the Republican party, that is probably not going away because Ron got a speaking engagement at the national convention. I hate to break it to his campaign manager, but these people were NOT fighting for talking minutes.
If you throw him any more rope Ken he is going to hang himself.
When failing with the first argument I didn't see the point of coming back with a second that made even less sense than the first.
That's what happens when sometimes the typing is going much faster than the thinking. Don't see your need Rlent to go to such extremes to prove a point that you lose sight of what you are even arguing about.
“It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.”
- Mark Twain
All because they think everyone else is ignorant and their guy should win.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using EO Forums
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
After looking back at this thread, I can see where the confusion is coming from. It stems from my failure to precisely quote the portion of Dave's comment that was incorrect and that I objected to. I included the entire sentence - rather than just the specific part I had a problem with:
What I should have quoted was:
Did anyone in Dr. Paul's campaign say "they can't control some of the foolishness of its supporters ...."
The answer to that is either a simple "yes" or "no" ....
Anyone who would care to answer the above question in the affirmative, please cite any media coverage you would care to, directly quoting someone from the campaign saying the above.
What I should have quoted was:
The issue is relatively simple - and is easily addressed by asking a simple question:
Did anyone in Dr. Paul's campaign say "they can't control some of the foolishness of its supporters ...."
The answer to that is either a simple "yes" or "no" ....
Anyone who would care to answer the above question in the affirmative, please cite any media coverage you would care to, directly quoting someone from the campaign saying the above.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
No, it would appear that it depends on what the meaning of "Paul's campaign also said ...." is ....
Evidently for some, this phrase means something entirely different than most of the folks I've ever run across think it means ....
Last edited:
You're trying to make a case, and win an argument, based on using precise language where precise language wasn't used. And you refuse to consider the informality of the venue as being acceptable for informal language and opinions.
You're coming off looking obsessed, as in not quite sane. When the words used are more important to you than the message being conveyed, especially when it's to the point where you cannot even accept the opinion being conveyed as valid, your own argument falls apart as being a red herring in and of itself. It effectively ends all reasonable discussion, because you've hijacked the debate to be about pedanticly precise language when that's not even remotely what this is all about.
Dave expressed a thought which accurately sums up what the campaign has said and done. He used euphemisms you don't like, but the.message he conveyed was a true and accurate one. His intention was to communicate a message, not to quote parts of the article. Believe it or not, that's how some people communicate with each other.
Have there been instances where Ron Paul supporters have been rude and unprofessional when they could have otherwise? Yes. Is it inaccurate to refer to that as foolishness? No. Why not? Because it's an opinion.
Please do not quote me and edit my text to appear that I said something I did not say. It's rude and unprofessional.
You're coming off looking obsessed, as in not quite sane. When the words used are more important to you than the message being conveyed, especially when it's to the point where you cannot even accept the opinion being conveyed as valid, your own argument falls apart as being a red herring in and of itself. It effectively ends all reasonable discussion, because you've hijacked the debate to be about pedanticly precise language when that's not even remotely what this is all about.
Dave expressed a thought which accurately sums up what the campaign has said and done. He used euphemisms you don't like, but the.message he conveyed was a true and accurate one. His intention was to communicate a message, not to quote parts of the article. Believe it or not, that's how some people communicate with each other.
Have there been instances where Ron Paul supporters have been rude and unprofessional when they could have otherwise? Yes. Is it inaccurate to refer to that as foolishness? No. Why not? Because it's an opinion.
Please do not quote me and edit my text to appear that I said something I did not say. It's rude and unprofessional.
Here's an idea. Why don't you tell us what you think it means.No, it would appear that it depends on what the meaning of "Paul's campaign also said ...." is ....
Evidently for some, this phrase means something entirely different than most of the folks I've ever run across think it means ....
Also, if you can, please tell us if you can see the difference between the following two sentences:
Paul's campaign also said, "They can't control some of the foolishness of its supporters and asking them to show some decorum."
Paul's campaign also said they can't control some of the foolishness of its supporters and asking them to show some "decorum".
The reason I ask is, based upon what you've posted here in this thread, you cannot tell the difference between those two sentences. One is a sentence Dave wrote, and the other is a sentence you are basing your entire argumentation upon.
"OMG" is right. I just think he just can't help himself. Good grief. A true sign of that is when wanting to be right so bad that you have to edit and repost another members message. As Turtle said, "it is rude and unprofessional" I would also add it is totally moronic and shows a distinct character weakness.
With that said, I thought after a third time you would have finally figured this out. As a courtesy to you, Turtle has provided you with lesson #2. It can be located at posts #55 & #56
Again I would recommend reading it slowly since it will take the simplest form of comprehension.
No need to be critical of others abilities at this point.
We have already seen how lesson one went.
Hint, hint, Turtle has provided the correct answer at the end of the exercise.
With that said, I thought after a third time you would have finally figured this out. As a courtesy to you, Turtle has provided you with lesson #2. It can be located at posts #55 & #56
Again I would recommend reading it slowly since it will take the simplest form of comprehension.
No need to be critical of others abilities at this point.
We have already seen how lesson one went.
Hint, hint, Turtle has provided the correct answer at the end of the exercise.
Last edited: