No, Joe, I don't see what you mean when you say I might be loosing my grip on reality?



I have a good memory. You are reading meanings into my words that just aren't there. I guess I will have to remind you what I said, with an explaination of such, so you comprehend it better.



(I guess the media bias test wouldn't work well with you because you don't seem to be able to honestly assess things, seing as how you read meaning into things that just isn't there.)



I said the protesters were vomiting and defecating in the streets as part of their "respectful" peace protest.--I saw them myself, and I gave you a liberal newspaper article as evidence that is exactly what they were doing,- when you called me on it.



I also said they were bussed in.-I gave you evidence by quoting what the organizers of the protest said they had done in another protest and were going to do in S.F, -when you called me on it.



Then I said they "looked" like they were homeless---they were very dirty and had torn clothes and such. I don't know if they absolutely, positively were homeless. I just said that is how they "looked" to me.



I said there was "speculation" on them trying to start a lawsuit because so many of them had cameras and that they were filming the police during the protest. I said that because I heard it on the radio. Then, later that night, I was specifically looking for cameras and I noticed a lot of them on the television news clips--most of them did in fact have cameras and they did "look" horrible to me! I wouldn't want to meet one of them in a dark alley!



It's kind of odd. I make a number of statements. You come back with, "You are making it all up!" I then give you evidence by supplying source after source that confirms all the facts I have stated, and then you attack me because of something that I state was "speculated", "thought", "looked", "heard on the radio" etc. That is exactly what I was talking about when I said you needed to learn English better. Words like speculated, looked, etc. are just those words (by definition) because they are not absolute proof, that is why I used them! They are opinion, observation, or thought, nothing else. I'm sorry, that there is no proof for such things. If I could just go back in time, and bring my camera (observational proof) or record the "speculations" I heard on the TV and radio (thought proof), then maybe I could prove it to you. Just because I can't prove it, because I didn't record it at the time it was happening, and keep the tapes for eternity, doesn't mean it didn't happen. And the fact that I have given you references to everything else that is provable, should make you give me the benefit of the doubt on the things that aren't provable. I am surprised that you are able to overlook all the other evidence that you called me on, that I have since proved, and then make the conclusion that I am making it all up.



There is nothing wrong with making statements, or further speculation, based on some facts and thoughts. I never represented many of my speculative statements as fact, especially when I followed a lot of them with a question mark! Isn't that obvious to you, or anyone else who understands a fair amount of English?



(and the statements I made were directed at rearfang, who's statements, observations, and speculation about a current protest in Florida, coincided with what I saw quite a while ago in S.F., Ca.)



Rodney

[ Show Entire Thread ]