kholt, we seem to have a serious communication problem.
Perhaps taking a look at the following might clear up why
that is so. Regarding your reply......
Message 20194120
I'm pretty sure you won't see the difference, but this was
just too obvious to pass up & it is a chronically recurring
problem on the PfP thread. You said the following.....
<font color=blue>
"I imagine, though, as you say, that if one gets all of
one's news from watching just the evening news on one of
the networks that there's a good chance to have missed the
gory details."<font color=black>
Here's what I actually said.....
<font color=blue>
"Why? Because it is rarely, if ever mentioned, let alone
fully discussed in the media. All they know is what the
media reports & that does not include the genuinely gory
details. For all the TV, reading & internet surfing I have
done, I cannot recall any major media outlet discussing the
details of partial birth abortions. And unlike you, many
millions of regular folks depend on the media for most
of their information on most subjects."
<font color=black>
Where did I limit these folks to exclusively watching "just
the evening news on one of the networks"? Do you honestly
think that most Americans only watch the evening news & get
no other information from any other media source?
FWIW Karen, you have a strange habit of dramatically
misinterpreting plainly spoken English quite frequently,
just as you have with my own words.
It ranks right up there with your use of unsupportable
absolutes (everyone, anyone, no one, always, never, ET AL)
& unsupportable assertions stated as fact. When challenged,
you prefer to change the parameters of the debate &/or make
more unsupportable assertions, again stating them as fact.
Your propensity to change the parameters of a debate &/or
claim that what you said wasn't what you really meant (as
you just did in your reply to me) is astonishing. For
example, you clearly misstated what I said about how some
folks get information from the media (above). Another prime
example from that same discussion is listed below.....
That is followed closely by your habit of inappropriately
labeling &/or denigrating certain groups of people sans
credible evidence, such as,
<font color=blue>
"I always get a kick out of how folks hereabouts react to
these things (initial unconfirmed incidents) like
1) they're obviously true and 2) this one's gonna finally
do Kerry in"....
"the victory dances that regularly occur here with the
slightest hint of some negative news about Kerry".....
"Sometimes I feel like this thread is the Twilight Zone."....
& (true believers, audacious/hypocritical media bashers,
folks getting excercised, spewing stereotypes, ET AL).<font color=black>
All of that is baseless bunk, but you repeat variations of
these & other discredited themes frequently, as though it
were rock solid fact.
Speaking of changing the parameters of a debate.... In your
reply above, you said.....
<font color=blue>
"Again, I'm talking about people who are interested."<font color=black>
Here's how you originally framed it....
<font color=blue>
"Everyone who is conscious and remotely interested in the
subject of abortion knows what the procedure is"<font color=black>
That is a huge difference between your first assertion &
your revised version after the original was appropriately
challenged IMO. And this is not an isolated incident, nor
am I the only person this happens with.
What's frustrating is that your misinterpretations,
revisionist history, changing the parameters of a debate,
baseless personal attacks, unsupportable beliefs stated as
fact, etc., become your reality that you assert regularly &
sometimes in a harshly critical manner. Making matters
worse, you continue this inappropriate behavior even after
it is discredited with credible evidence. Perhaps you don't
see how often you denigrate folks unfairly & do so with a
POV that often lacks a basis in fact or reality. Even
though you firmly believe everything you say, it often does
not jive with reality. |
