Latest comments:
-
I deleted your comment, GD, because you broke the rule regarding arguments about arguments/personal remarks/childish taunting
GuardDuck said... Well, we disagree on that.....
Now that you have been provided with the information, do you have any comment?
-
I'm not going to comment on a single source of information unless we're
talking about mere opinion. Since the article is presenting this stuff
as fact, I'd like to see some more sources that say the same thing...non
bubble sources.
My overall comment still stands....so what? Conservatives should be focusing on why their policies would be better for the country. Now why aren't they doing that?:)
-
I'm not going to comment on a single source of information unless we're
talking about mere opinion. Since the article is presenting this stuff
as fact, I'd like to see some more sources that say the same thing...non
bubble sources.
- This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
- (Here I explained to him that another source was not necessary as all he needed to do was read the link provided to find all the information neccesary to make a judgement.)
-
My overall comment still stands....so what? Conservatives should be
focusing on why their policies would be better for the country. Now why
aren't they doing that?:)
So it doesn't matter that she may have lied, committed crimes, leaked confidential information to foreign governments...or was just too monumentally stupid to know better - these things don't matter when discussing the potential next Democratic Presidential candidate.
What's really, really important is to turn the focus upon the Republicans......
-
You can't keep claiming that the piece is an opinion when everytime I show you that it isn't you delete my comment.
Further comments I will post here as comments.
-
So in response to the last, Mark deleted the comment and posted this:
ReplyDeleteMarkadelphia said...
That's because you continue to leave comments which contain personal remarks about me and are falling into the "arguments about arguments" category. You've also left some comments that are mis-characterizing what I am saying but since they are generally about Hillary Clinton and other politicians, I guess they are fine
Replied with:
GuardDuck said...
You asked me a question. I answered the question.
Perhaps you can explain to me how to answer a question from YOU addressed to ME without addressing it back to YOU?
That previous one you deleted was not in any way shape or form breaking the rules.
Previous comment deleted. Of course.
ReplyDeletePosted this:
Mark, you need to help me out here.
I do not see how these comments, that you keep deleting are violating the rules.
You asked a question, I answered it.
If answering your question is a violation of the rules then the very act of you asking it is a violation.
If you can't explain how the rule is violated - specifically - then your rules are arbitrary.
If they are arbitrary, fine - state so up front and cease the fiction that you are anything resembling fair.
Which was of course deleted...
ReplyDeleteThen he posted this:
Markadelphia said...
I've explained myself several times, GD. Arguing about arguments (you wrote this, I wrote that etc) and personal remarks are no longer allowed on this site. Even this comment is essentially doing that. Stick to comments about public figures, groups of people and leave me out of it.
Hmmm. Let's look at that.
How exactly does one answer a question without referring to the asking in doing so? Especially when the questioner refuses your answer and the reason they refuse to accept it is categorically incorrect?
Mark has set himself up in a situation where he can say "I reject your reality" and any thing you say to show him he is incorrect is 'against the rules' and gets deleted.
Figures. He can keep his facade going a bit longer
ReplyDeleteAll the while losing any lingering scrap of legitimacy.
ReplyDeleteWelcome to the blog 6Kings.
Comment all you want - no 'reasoned discourse' here.