On Friday, December 9, 2016 at 11:37:10 AM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
On 12/9/2016 10:13 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Friday, December 9, 2016 at 11:00:25 AM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
On 12/9/2016 9:32 AM, trader_4 wrote:

Philo talkes a sentence out of context, claims there is nothing more,
its "standalone", when it was immediately preceded by another tweet
that set the context.

I'm sure he would have figured that out on his own.

ROFL.

Not only couldn't he figure it out on his own, he kept denying it,
claiming that the one tweet, was the whole ****ing thing, to use
his exact words.

He was angry at the time. People get tunnel vision when they're angry.
I stand by what I said.

So, it's my problem that other people get angry and have tunnel vision?
I should just role over and accept BS and then doubling down on BS?


The way you communicate is you have to jump on a particular issue where
you can win a point and you think that makes you superior, but you never
try to understand why people are upset or why they're saying what
they've said. It's always either black or white with you - never
anything in the middle.

There is no middle when you come in here and claim that what you posted
is the whole quote, it's "standalone", and then it turns out that it
was preceded by something that sets the context, puts it in an entirely
different light. It's not emotion, it's fact and facts matter.

The existence of other tweets doesn't change his anger at the tweet he
quoted. You feel you scored a point because you proved there were more
tweets in the series. It didn't change how he felt about the tweet he
posted.

I don't give a rat's ass what he "feels" buttercup. But I do care
when he comes in here making false claims, misrepresenting what was
tweeted, "that was the full ****ing quote". He's also wrong about
history, eg that the US *knew* an attack was coming.





Sure, there were 3 tweets, but even you got that wrong, initially,
because you said there were only 2.

Wrong again. I never said there were only two. I only said that the
one tweet was immediately preceded by another that set the context,
and I provided that tweet. And the third is largely irrelevant
because it doesn't change anything.

OK ... so I suppose that doesn't add up to you saying there were 2 tweets?

Bingo! Maybe there is hope for you yet?