If you take my posts at face value rather than skittering around like I’m going to trap you somehow, confusion will disappear.
That actually makes it more confusing. I took your posts at face value and that’s how I came to the conclusion that you’re fishing for a specific response with most of them.
Would it somehow seem less tricky if I phrased my post to Frink as, “what does that have to do with anything?” Or is that kind of response tricky?
That would’ve made a lot more sense, actually. It would feel like less of a “gotchya.”
Sometimes I may be seeking to make a point and maybe get someone to see a different perspective (oh, the horror). But I think my posts are straightforward. Often Frink seems to think I’m saying something I’m not and his disbelief is weird.
It isn’t that you’re trying to get people to see a different perspective, it’s that you (seem to be) trying to get people to say something or allude to something so that you can then point out their contradictions or their hypocrisy. I don’t know what you’re up to, but it seems like it’s something like that.
Here it was really just a reaction to Frink pulling out the, “but what about these guys I don’t like,” card.
I don’t think it was a card. I’d hate to presume to speak for someone else, but I doubt that Frink feels so strongly about the New York AG that he felt the need to redirect the attention toward someone else.