Left-Wing Mobs Shatter Windows, Assault Police Officer Outside Conservative Campus Speaker Event

Intentionally obtuse. No one is walking around the Mall except construction crews because they are still building it.

It's like dragging a three year old to their room who has gone all limp like a sack of potatos. Not interested in carrying you much longer.

 

I said I walked past it, not that I was walking through it. I'm sorry your argument failed. But, hey, you want us to believe the no one ever walks past construction sites and no Texans ever have bags of ice in the bed of their truck, so big surprise.

 

Non sequitur nonsense. As Kelso's article shows, when a case is actually dropped, that can be documented, and I will accept it, like anyone else would. That you would be supporting Wild Bill's patently false claim, though, that this article proves that the charges have been dropped on all of the many arrested, for illegal acts, alongside the BLM protests, is evidence that it is yourself, who is the robotic product, of fact-denying, "social engineering," if that's what you want to call, your consumption of so much propaganda, that you now believe the bullshit.

 

What excuse they give for their crimes, whether or not they believe their wholely unproven, delusional allegations, is irrelevant.

 

You love them commas, don't ya.

It's not an excuse; it's the reason. They believed (what you believe is irrelevant) the election was stolen. That doesn't give them an excuse to break the law, but your point was about disagreement and it was that that I was addressing.

 

I use them appropriately, as they are intended. For example, in the post eliciting this comment from you, I actually used only one single-comma, and one comma pair, which is a different mark of punctuation.

DEFinning said: ↑
What excuse they give for their crimes, whether or not they believe their wholely unproven, delusional allegations, is irrelevant.


The single comma, comes in between the words "unproven," and "delusional." It takes the place of the word "and." The pair of commas, sets apart the inner phrase of the sentence-- "whether or not they believe their wholely unproven, delusional allegations-- from the main thrust of the sentence: " what excuse they give for their crimes... is irrelevant."

I don't understand the amount of backlash I get, for perfectly correct writing. It is, however, mildly amusing. If you find a use of commas that goes beyond your own personal taste, to be entertaining, you should re-read the Declaration of Independence!

 

It's your style, but my preference is towards the economy of words. Why use a hundred words to make a point that can be made with ten? I'm pulling your chain, so don't take it seriously.

 

OH NO! They found Righties hurling baseless accusations and handed out fliers! Call out the National Guard!

 

Apparently you didnt see the military WEAPONS they were carrying…..

 

Sure, you did.

 

A comma, does not add to the word count. In fact, as commas often replace words, a greater usage of them, could only reduce the number of words, one uses-- my last comma, replaced the word "that;" the one before that, replaced "then." So your response is inapplicable to my point, that I use commas correctly, and justifiably.


On the subject of those who are bothered by this mark of punctuation, though, I am now starting to think it may be (at least in a good portion of cases) because those people do not understand how to read commas, correctly, as a direction, to clarify the writer's intent. For these, who are going to read things, the way they want to read them, regardless of punctuation, I suppose my commas could only be seen as obstructions, as speed bumps.

Our conversation is leading me to associate these comma-complainers, with those who demonstrate a laissez faire attitude towards avoiding misinterpretations, by writing posts largely devoid of any punctuation at all, even periods. They seem to assume that readers will know where one of their ideas ends, and the next one begins (obviously, I am not referring to you). Writing this way, to my mind, speaks only poorly about the writers. To what could we attribute it? Hubris, to believe their thoughts, and so their words, could only be understood, in whatever way they mean them? Laziness? Negligence? Disregard for their reader? I could go on, but, you know... word count.

 

It’s not nonsense at all. It’s not a false claim, and you wouldn’t accept any amount of evidence. You are projecting as this far it is you has demonstrated a tendency to believe propaganda and argue with yourself.

 

EXAMPLE?

Or is does conclusion of yours, come from your own, inner propagandist?

 

You believed Trump colluded with Russia to steal the election.

You believe j6 was an insurrection attempt.

You believe in white privilege.

You believed Jussie Smollett hoax.

And for arguing with yourself, you constantly interject your own words into mine and create an argument refuting things I have never said.

 

You misunderstood my inquiring for examples, to back up your assertion-- that is, that you know, I would reject all evidence you might produce, for your argument, which you use to justify your unwillingness, or inability, to provide any evidence, at all. I am, and I think we all are, aware of your ability to lodge false allegations. I had been asking, then, for you to provide examples, in my own, quoted posts.

If it weren't so obvious, that this is nothing but pathetic excuse-making, on your part, I could go on at length about how even these things you list, fall into one or more categories of being inaccurate, ill-defined, and/or invalid bases, for you to maintain they excuse your own, lack of evidence. That is, these are clearly part of your personal, fictional, inner narrative.


So, have a nice night.

 

It’s simply the truth, you have demonstrated this over your history here. All of my examples I posted are things you have believed despite a lack of evidence. There was nothing that could ever have convinced you otherwise. That’s not changing now. You can continue to believe whatever it is that you choose to as that is your right but it’s beyond obvious the standard of proof to change your mind, the mind of someone so certain they are correct so often despite not having evidence to back up their belief is so high as to be unobtainable.

I don’t bother myself with doing other peoples research for this for this reason. I’m ok with simply pointing out you are incorrect…which is true. You are.

 

I get the impression that was satire aimed at the numerous people on PF & elsewhere who have claimed (and in some cases still claim) that ANTIFA or some similar group was behind the Jan.6 riot/insurrection.

The problem here is that it is almost impossible to satirize people who make the sorts of claims right wingers regularly make here. No matter how absurd you make the claim, it looks like something someone might really believe.

 

No, that is simply false, which is why you cannot search to find posts of mine that would support your bogus narrative, that I am impervious to new, factual information.

Bullshit, which rests solely on the reliability of your own word-- something with a very low credibility, to those not supporting your position, for purely partisan purposes.

Now you not only understand my thinking, but can predict my reactions, in hypothetical situations? And this does not strike you as an, at all, fantastic claim, you are making?

You are now, talking about yourself-- which at least is a topic, about which, you should have some knowledge.

Supporting your contentions about another member, especially if they are going to include psychological evaluations, is not "doing other people's research."

 

Don't get me wrong, I can recognize good writing when I see it. Your style is impressive, but the wordiness is unnecessary (imho). The use of commas in a single sentence shouldn't be excessive and most of the time it includes information that isn't necessary to make your point. Most people, in my experience, lose interest when they look at a wall of words. That might be unfortunate if you have a good point to make which could have been expressed with fewer words. If you know the subject well enough you should be able to divulge that knowledge with fewer words.

 

To answer your question, despicable. But I am fairly certain this thread is not about J6!

These people deserve jail just as much as anyone that deserved it for their actions on J6.

 

It absolutely is true and your history demonstrates it. Your self perception is anything but accurate.

you are projecting.

it’s not fantastic at all as your history demonstrates it.

I will not do other peoples research for them, ever. It’s not worth my time. You are entitled to disagree and continue to be wrong. That’s on you.

 

There are two possibilities, for me to consider. First, is that you are God: infallible, and perfectly honest. Therefore, when you say something, offering no supporting evidence, your Word is sufficient. The other possibility, is just that you are some loser, who is on a debate website, without an argument, or w/out even knowing how to present one, other than by saying "I right. That is an objective fact."

I'll have to think about those two choices for a bit, and get back to you, once I decide which one makes more sense.

 

Why doesn't anyone ever sue the protestors:

 

REMEMBER WHEN HIGHER EDUCATION WAS SOLD AS PROMOTING FREE AND INDEPENDENT THOUGHT? Most college students won’t discuss controversial topics for fear of peer backlash: survey.

CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION: As number of women rises in higher ed, free speech declines on campuses: survey.

'a nationwide survey of faculty conducted by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, pointing out that compared to male counterparts, female scholars are more likely to agree with suppressing and punishing unpopular speech.'

“Fifty-one percent of women professors reported that they could envision shouting down a speaker to prevent them from speaking on campus as being acceptable, compared to just 39 percent of men,”

'For white male professors who refuse diversity training, almost half of female professors “believe their male counterparts should face some sort of sanction,”'



“Thirty percent of female professors believe [the male] professors should be removed from the classroom until they comply. Seventeen percent of female professors believe that these male professors should be suspended until they comply. Two percent of female faculty even believe that their white male counterparts should be fired,”

Not necessarily nice people, nor folks that value the rights of others to make up their own minds.

 

I wonder what percentage of female professors refused the same training.