My first post this morning was to bentway basically saying that I thought you had a point. My second post was to cj basically saying that I would not be comfortable asserting the charge that you were so upset that the media and the thread were making. The rest of my posts have been to you all basically complaining that you are misrepresenting me. This one follows suit.
Nothing ambiguous about it. If you flatly say, "I'm referring to group x but not group y" you cannot rightly infer that group y is included.
He did say it. And that's part of why I'm calling the overall speech ambiguous.
Unlike Trump, you can read me literally. I communicate in dictionary English with complete thoughts organized into sentences and paragraphs. If one parses what I write, my meaning will be clear almost all the time. If anyone finds it unclear, I am willing to rewrite.
Now, in the above transaction (see the blockquote) I differentiated between the sentence, and the overall bit of commentary, which I characterized as ambiguous. I did not claim that the sentence in question was anything but clear.
The other possible assertion is that he was lying, which there is absolutely no basis, whatsoever, for.
On the other hand, the individual statement you cling to could have been just another of Trump's going on 10K lies.
First of all, I did not make any such assertion, merely offered up a possibility. Given the guy's nearly 10K lies so far, that's always a possibility. You don't think that his history of prolific lying counts as reasonable basis for considering the possibility that any given statement is a lie? Not to mention the inconsistency of that statement in context with his other behaviors and statements.
If anyone around here is exhibiting XDS, it's you. |
