What you may or may not have said was external to my discussion. I did not engage you.
well, when you engage the thread
you engage everyone reading
if you make an argument, expect to be addressed by those who find it worthy on non-worthy on the merits.....
i've had the distinct displeasure of reading your nonsensical 'possible' argument wrt the crow statements that, quite IMO, fly in the face of the logical conclusion one would take upon reading the crow blog
only AFTER she was the object of public ridicule (gee reality BITES) did the 'it was a joke' excuse come into being...
a gullible, no strike that, disingenuous person like yourself might buy into that, if of course it fits your predetermined POV wrt her advocacy agenda...
i take her remarks as what they were at face value, i saw nothing in her original remarks to indicate she was joking
your willingness to accept the 'joking' defense comports with your reflexive and instinctive bias
that's your problem, not mine
i'm looking at what she actually said and drawing my conclusion
not what is merely "possible" (wow, gee isn't nearly ANYTHING possible? frankly i guess so, for *argument* sake.....i suppose *anything* is possible ergo, she was joking right?)
WRONG
look at her words, look at the context, look at her intensity of SUPPORT for the global warming meme
the answer is obvious
except to those like yourself who are unwilling to accept that a proponent of your bias could be so incredibly stupid....
iow....
birds of a feather????
mercy me! |
