And, again, if you bother to widen your narrow view to look at the next bit it says “b. A quarrel; a dispute.”

Got it? Not only do I know how to use a dictionary, unlike you I understand that words can have more than one specific meaning. You used one, I intentionally responded using another. But I expect you will continue to act like I’m the one who didn’t understand the full definition of the word, and you will never learn, you will never correct this flaw in your personality.

CSS: “I didn’t ignore his point. I just didn’t see a need to respond to it.”

…That’s beyond splitting hairs, that’s fucking lying.

First, maybe you should check your dictionary more often.
ignore – verb – refuse to acknowledge, fail to notice, give little or no attention to
None of which I did. I noticed his point, paid attention to it, considered it, determined it was valid. Letting him have the last word doesn’t mean I ignored his point.
lying – noun – the deliberate act of deviating from the truth
I didn’t ignore his point and I didn’t see a need to respond. No deviation from the truth, deliberate or otherwise. (Unless you are, once again, going to claim you know what I’m thinking better than I do.)

Second,
CSS: “Did she ask him not to mention it? Yes.”
No. No she did not. She said don’t bring it up
“Mention it” vs “bring it up”. Glad to see you don’t engange in splitting hairs or I’d have to say you’re fucking lying.

CSS: You repeated said that she told Obama not to mention the bracelet. From the only source we have, we know you are wrong. Yet you keep repeating it.

Let’s see, “from the only source we have” we get:
– “…she asked Obama not to mention the bracelet on the campaign trail.”
– “…she e-mailed the Obama campaign through its Web site asking that he not mention it during debates or speeches.”

Yup, I repeated that she told Obama not to mention the bracelet which is exactly what the source we have says she said. Yet somehow you declare me wrong.

You are clearly wrong, but you can’t admit it. You will continue to act like I’m the one with the problem, and you will never learn, you will never correct this flaw in your personality.

Look up the word ‘argument’ in a fucking dictionary. Then register as a Republican. You are too fucking stupid to be a Democrat.

Fuck it, I know you are too fucking stupid to work a dictionary, so I’ll do it for you…

Argument – Noun – a discussion in which reasons are advanced for and against some proposition or proposal

Got it? Anytime there is a discussion where people given reasons for their opinions, it is an argument.

Now that you have shown you don’t know what the word means, are you going to address my point?

“I didn’t ignore his point. I just didn’t see a need to respond to it.”

How do you not choke on your own tongue? Are you trying to make Jay and the rest of the Republican trolls on this site look smart? That’s beyond splitting hairs, that’s fucking lying.

“Show me, exactly, where I ever said that she wasn’t OK with his having brought it up once he had done so.”

What the fuck is wrong with you? Are you fucking illiterate? I think you are. That would explain so much.

I never made that claim. I said you were wrong about what she said. You’ve done it repeatedly, even after it was pointed out to you.

“But, in CSS-world someone must be right and someone must be wrong.”

That’s cause you are fucking wrong, Sean. This isn’t up for debate, this isn’t a gray zone, this isn’t open to interpretations. YOU ARE FUCKING WRONG

You repeated said that she told Obama not to mention the bracelet. From the only source we have, we know you are wrong. Yet you keep repeating it.

And that makes you a fucking liar!

This is just like the “Per 100,000″ debate and the “You can prove a negative” debate. You are clearly wrong, but you can’t admit it. You will continue to act like I’m the one with the problem, and you will never learn, you will never correct this flaw in your personality.

Yeah, there’s no point in you admitting you are fucking wrong, is there? Just slink away and pretend you were right the next debate.

Yeah, there’s no point in quoting any of the rest of what I said if it interferes with the argument you want to be able to make.

“essrog had a valid point and made it rather calmly. S/he acknowledges there is a gray area and that some splitting of hairs is going on depending on how one interprets the request that Obama not “mention it during debates or speeches”. Did she mean “ever” or “unless someone else mentions it first”?”

There is gray area, splitting of hairs, and it’s open to interpretation. And lacking any further info, under those conditions, nobody can really say who is right or wrong. But, in CSS-world someone must be right and someone must be wrong.

Oh, dear. My response wasn’t acceptable to CSS. Let me fret about that.

CSS: A comeback doesn’t mean an insult. It means a valid argument. You gave nothing.

A clear difference in how we view these things? In my view, not everything has to be an argument.

SDM: “essrog had a valid point and made it rather calmly.”
CSS: And you ignore it and chose to focus on a person’s name.

uh, did I ignore something or did I not? Nice mixing of two separate things there.
a) I didn’t ignore his point. I just didn’t see a need to respond to it. I thought it was a valid point and didn’t see a need to respond to it since I had no problem with what he said.
b) The post I did respond to was anonymous and directed at me. My reply that I sign all my comments was very much on point.

CSS: You repeatedly said that she said he wasn’t supposed to mention it.
In the fucking quote at the top, she made it clear responding to McCain was different than bringing it up.

Show me, exactly, where I ever said that she wasn’t OK with his having brought it up once he had done so. Was it where I said “but she ended up having no objection to him doing so”? Or “did she end up having an objection to it when he did? Clearly not.”? Or “[He spoke of it] But under condition which she ended up having no problem with.”?

.

The content of her original email was not specified, we don’t know exactly what she asked of him. All that is reported is that she asked him not to mention it on the campaign trail, not to mention it during debates or speeches. And based on that, I pointed out that when he did mention it during a debate he had gone against her wishes.

Clearly once he had she was OK with him doing so. But unless you want to invent some info which we don’t have (e.g., her request said “mention it during debates or speeches unless someone else mentions it first” I don’t see how you can say “clearly” she did not go against his wishes.

Yes. If you are going to response, you should have a response that is worth reading. Yours was not.

“Some of us don’t find it necessary to get validation by hurling unneccesary insults until the other side agrees to recognize our supposed superiority.”

A comeback doesn’t mean an insult. It means a valid argument. You gave nothing.

“essrog had a valid point and made it rather calmly.”

And you ignore it and chose to focus on a person’s name.

Tracy Jopek said Obama wasn’t supposed to bring it up.
You repeatedly said that she said he wasn’t supposed to mention it.
In the fucking quote at the top, she made it clear responding to McCain was different than bringing it up.
We’ve pointed this out, repeatedly.
You’ve ignored it, repeatedly.

“You OTOH, in usual black-and-white-I’m-right-you-are-wrong-and-you-have-to-admit-it fashion…”

That’s because I’m right, and you are wrong. Just like in the “Per 100,000″ debate, just like in the “You can prove a negative” debate, and like just as it will be in the next debate.

“There was no point in responding to you. And essrog made a balanced enough statemente that I didn’t see a need to post a ‘I get your point, fair enough, thanks for seeming to see where I’m coming from’.”

Yeah, there’s no point in you admitting you are fucking wrong, is there? Just slink away and pretend you were right the next debate.

Fucking idiot.

And you are so fucking stupid, you don’t realize it’s your fault.

And you can’t blame my attitude, but multiple people said the same.

Do I have to have a “comeback”? Some of us don’t find it necessary to get validation by hurling unneccesary insults until the other side agrees to recognize our supposed superiority.

essrog had a valid point and made it rather calmly. S/he acknowledges there is a gray area and that some splitting of hairs is going on depending on how one interprets the request that Obama not “mention it during debates or speeches”. Did she mean “ever” or “unless someone else mentions it first”?

You OTOH, in usual black-and-white-I’m-right-you-are-wrong-and-you-have-to-admit-it fashion, refused to acknowledge there is room for different interpretations particularly when the details of exactly what the original request was are unknown. Which is why I didn’t bother to reply.

There was no point in responding to you. And essrog made a balanced enough statemente that I didn’t see a need to post a “I get your point, fair enough, thanks for seeming to see where I’m coming from”.

BloggingDemocratic.blogspot.com

That’s it? That’s your comeback?

Several people point out that she asked he didn’t bring it up, not that he shouldn’t mention it if someone else does, which is exactly what happened.

We also point out that she was happy with his response.

But you still refuse to admit Obama did nothing wrong. In fact, it seems like you are refusing to admit you were wrong and instead want to play the name game.

Agree with me or not, at least I always sign my name to every comment I make.

Second, it’s too bad there’s nothing from her e-mail to quote from, but regarding her clear wishes, here’s something more from the article:

….

A few days after offering it to the Illinois Democrat, Jopek, of Merrill in north-central Wisconsin, had a change of heart. She realized it could be interpreted as a protest against the war, a statement that made her uncomfortable because other military families who suffered losses still supported the conflict.

….

So sure: “Clearly” she didn’t want the bracelet used in the context of an anti-war statement. If Obama had done so, then it would have gone against her wishes and she would have a problem. And then there would be a story.

But he didn’t use the bracelet in that context, so it didn’t go against her wishes and she had no problem.

Ok, I’ll allow that there’s a grey area, an unknown here, which is what her original e-mail said: for example, it would change matters if we know it said, “Under no circumstances …”; or, if we know it said “…don’t bring it up in debates and speeches to make an anti-war statement” or any number of degrees in between,

which is why I really have nothing further to add to this, and I am usually disinclined to split hairs this closely or comment at such length but I have to take exception to being called as “obtuse as Jay”

P.S. Relax you’ll live longer

In the quote in the main story. Did you not read it I’ll quote it below.

“Did she ask him not to mention it? Yes.”

No. No she did not. She said don’t bring it up, which he didn’t.
McCain brought it up, he responded.

And before you attack me for splitting hairs…

“His response in the debate was exactly that, a response, after John McCain put it out there first,” she said. “I think it was an appropriate response — he was just saying there’s another side to the story, there’s two different viewpoints.”

“Gods, I’m starting to understand some of CSS’s frustration some time.”

And it is your fault, just like it was in the “Per 100,000″ debate and the “You can prove a negative debate.”

“I’m not sure how much plainer it can be stated.

She made her wishes clear.
She asked him not to mention the bracelet during debates or speeches. He did so anyway.”

Wrong. She said don’t bring it up, not never mention it. McCain brought it up, Obama responded. There’s a difference. Obama knew there was a difference. Tracy Jopek knows there’s a difference. Anyone who understands English knows there’s a difference.

Why can’t you two figure out there’s a difference?

SHE SAID IT WAS AN APPROPRIATE RESPONSE AFTER MCCAIN BROUGHT IT UP FIRST!

She made her wishes clear.
She asked him not to mention the bracelet during debates or speeches. He did so anyway.

That after he did so she said she decided she didn’t have a problem with it doesn’t mean he didn’t act against her stated wishes. And to say “If she didn’t have a problem with it, I don’t see how it goes against her wishes.” is to say what she wanted is not what she said she wanted.

What seems more likely: that she had no problem with what Obama said, because it didn’t go against her wishes

or that she had no problem with what Obama said, despite it going against her wishes?

The latter seems to be your contention, and I’ve stated everything here without misrepresentation. So what’s being redefined? Wishes?

I love a guy who can be in the wrong with good grace.

Phrasing it a different way: if Obama had gone against her wishes, she would have had a problem with it.

Sure, let’s redefine our terms to prove our invalid point.

Phrasing it a different way: if Obama had gone against her wishes, she would have had a problem with it.

Further, Tracy Jopek e-mailed the campaign through the website. She didn’t hear back. It’s not unlikely that her message just never made it all the way up the chain