So if the GOP takes control of the house, what happens to the January 6th committee?

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Zzzzz

 

[ThisIsMe]

Zzzzz

Lol

 

[ThisIsMe]

Zzzzz

Look, I'm sorry, I don't mean to be rude, but I wanted to make a point. Sometimes, trying to converse with you is frustrating because you ignore large portions of what people say.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Look, I'm sorry, I don't mean to be rude, but I wanted to make a point. Sometimes, trying to converse with you is frustrating because you ignore large portions of what people say.

I read everything you say. I just do not respond to every word. Sorry. Nor will I ever. Do you think I have to spend time rebutting each and every claim you make? I don't. I don't misrepresent you. And I do not play the troll question game. Ever.

 

[ThisIsMe]

I read everything you say. I just do not respond to every word. Sorry. Nor will I ever. Do you think I have to spend time rebutting each and every claim you make? I don't. I don't misrepresent you. And I do not play the troll question game. Ever.

No, I wouldn't expect you to respond to everything, but you tend to omit a relevant stuff, and its almost like you intentionally cut people's posts in order to change the context. Even though they may post an entire paragraph of explanation and context, you'll delete all of it, and make a post to a specific thing that that they just got done explaining, bit you will make a response tailored to fit your own talking point.

I mean, I wouldn't expect you to respond to someone point by point, but I would hope youd at least read their post and respond in a manner that reflects the whole context of their post, not just a sliver that you choose to highlight.

I think you had a run in with another user just a couple weeks ago who pointed out the same thing I've noticed.

All I did was what you do. I ignored the overall tone of your post and just selectively responded to what I wanted, and as we see, it annoyed you. We'll, that's how other people feel when you do it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

but you tend to omit a relevant stuff

But respond directly to the statement you are supporting with the "relevant stuff", which makes me a better poster than 75% of the people here. That's all a person needs to do. I am making my points. You make yours, I make mine. So it goes.

 

[otto105]

I keep telling you those foil helmets don't really give you mind reading powers. Those thoughts you have are your own.

Sorry, don't get the attempted joke.

 

[ThisIsMe]

But respond directly to the statement you are supporting with the "relevant stuff", which makes me a better poster than 75% of the people here. That's all a person needs to do. I am making my points. You make yours, I make mine. So it goes.

OK. Post 104

I was responding to JimH52, and in that post, I explained that there have been allegations that Pelosi had some communication with the capitol police that might need to be looked into, and I also said that, in order to get to the truth, all allegations should be explored. I even said that it doesn't matter if you think it's fake news, in the interest of the truth, it should be investigated.

You responded to that post by deleting everything I said, with the exception of "dems might have some things to answer for" and responded with "no there has not. Pure cult fantasy".

So, here, you just ignored my entire post so you could single out one thing, even though I was talking about a complete investigation in the interest of truth, so you could call it a cult fantasy.

Post 106

I wrote a response to you about not being able to know trumps intent unless you can read his mind, and that the left wants to ignore "peacefully and patrioticallt" and substitute it with an insinuation of words he never said.

You're response ignored everything I said about why i said what I said, and you just posted your own narrative.

It was at this point I just started stripping your responses and selectively responding to you, because I could see what you were doing, as I saw the same thing with your interactions with that other user (was it grandpamurkedu?), and again in that thread a few weeks back where you and I had some dialogue.

At post 109, you simply respnded with an insult.

Post 112, I actually responded to a segment of your post with an on point response. Your response was essentially that, those of you on the left had common sense and could see what was going on, to which I responded "you're just going to assume?".

Look, if you want to talk to me, then please, at least include my whole context and explanation and reasoning into your response, rather than slicing it down to a single point that may have already had context and wxplanation assigned to it. When you cut it, and your response removes that context or reasoning, then it removes the point of my post.

I mean, if you are going to just ignore any explanation in my posts, and just take one single sentence, or snippit of a sentence and respond to that only, then don't bother responding to me at all, because i will just do the same thing, and our conversation will be nothing but sentence fragments with no overall context.

I don't mind discussing with you, but at least respond to MY post, don't create your own through it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I explained that there have been allegations that Pelosi had some communication with the capitol police that might need to be looked into

Yes I know. That is hot garbage. No, there are no allegations against democrats that need to be looked into. When you say there are, you are lying or mistaken. See? All that display by you, and we are exactly where we were anyway.

 

[ThisIsMe]

I read everything you say. I just do not respond to every word. Sorry. Nor will I ever. Do you think I have to spend time rebutting each and every claim you make? I don't. I don't misrepresent you. And I do not play the troll question game. Ever.

Actually, I've changed my mind on one thing. Yes, I do expect you to rebutt, or respond to individual points. This is because if someone makes points, it's likely in relation to the overall argument. If you choose to just brush them aside, and respond with a sentence of your choosing, then it completely negates the argument they were trying to make, at which point, what's the point of even responding, if you are just going to ignore their points?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yes, I do expect you to rebutt, or respond to individual points.

Well, you will be disappointed. No, there are no allegations against democrats that need to be looked into regarding the events of January 6th. No, I am not going to legitimize this laughable red herring by giving it any more time than it deserves, which is none. Sorry.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Yes I know. That is hot garbage. No, there are no allegations against democrats that need to be looked into. When you say there are, you are lying or mistaken. See? All that display by you, and we are exactly where we were anyway.

Aaaand you did it again.

You posted what YOU wanted to respond to, not the argument I was trying to make.

You ignored the rest of my sentence

and I also said that, in order to get to the truth, all allegations should be explored. I even said that it doesn't matter if you think it's fake news, in the interest of the truth, it should be investigated

My point, again, being that there are allegations out there, and if you wanted to get into the truth, you'd want to make sure those allegations are investigated. It doesn't matter that YOU think they are fake. Someone has accused Pelosi of not letting the law enforcement on the scene engage. That needs to be looked in to, right? That could be relevant. We'll need to see her emails and texts and call log to see what exactly transpired.

Anyway....

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You posted what YOU wanted to respond to, not the argument I was trying to make.

That's right. Because you tried to make a general argument of just "brushing things aside". Undefined, does not directly address a word I said. So I brought you back to earth by reminding you of the point on the table. I will always ignore these silly non sequitur arguments. They are weak appeals to emotion and designed to waste time.

So anyway, no, there are no allegations about democrats that need to be looked ino. Tha is desperate fantasy. Moving on...

 

[ThisIsMe]

No, there are no allegations against democrats that need to be looked into regarding the events of January 6th.

Yes, there are. Look at the news around that time. Accusations that help was requested, and was denied, and some say Pelosi, who, in part, controls the capitol police, who did not make a request to the national guard. Why? Why did the capitol police not make that request? Some believe she had something to do with that. Don't you think that should be looked into? Shouldn't her communications around that time be investigated in order to see what she was telling people?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yes, there are.

Nope.

Find someone else to peddle that nonsense to.

 

[ThisIsMe]

I will always ignore these silly non sequitur arguments.

So, you don't want to address the points of a post, you just want to insert your own.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Find someone else to peddle that nonsense to.

It's a valid argument. Just because you don't think it is doesn't mean it's not.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It's a valid argument. Just because you don't think it is doesn't mean it's not.

It's not even an argument. It's a series of desperate, baseless claims, strung out in a row. Utter nonsense. You aren't getting equal time or validation from me for this desperate nonsense. Give it up.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Well, you will be disappointed. No, there are no allegations against democrats that need to be looked into regarding the events of January 6th. No, I am not going to legitimize this laughable red herring by giving it any more time than it deserves, which is none. Sorry.

Ya know, this reply kind of proves my point. You are essentially saying "I have deemed that your argument is invalid and therefore I will simply not address it", and you do (or don't do) exactly that. You just ignore my argument.and just make a reply reinforcing your own argument.

If that is the way its going to be, if you're not going to address my arguments, then why even reply?

 

[ThisIsMe]

It's not even an argument.

Sure it is. Are there not allegations against pelosi?