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.
This doesn’t make sense to me. If I’m not demanding a specific response, reading it that way isn’t taking it at face value.
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.”
I don’t see a gotcha in me stating I don’t think something is relevant. Posing something as a question seems a better way of setting up some kind of gotcha, but that sounds silly too. To the extent I was unclear, I stated again I don’t see the relevance. That’s straightforward.
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.
Firstly it’s weird to focus on me and my supposed motivations (perilously close to the attempts by some to psychoanalyze members). Where I think there is a contradiction in positions I may state it. Just as any number of people in these threads do. If you spot a contradiction in something I’ve said somewhere (which wouldn’t surprise me) I’d answer it rather than wonder what’s wrong with you.
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.
I thought it odd and stated so.
I’d expect someone to think it odd if I offered the same kind of nonsequitur. Maybe that person would state it doesn’t make sense, maybe they’d pose it as a question, maybe they’d jump to questioning my motives. My answer would probably be the same regardless, explaining why it makes sense. Then they could believe it or not.
I don’t see how it’s more complicated.