(08-23-2019 09:22 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-23-2019 09:00 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(08-23-2019 08:46 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  And this is what is so utterly amusing:

For people who are completely willing to misquote one person and thereafter characterize it as racist at the drop of the hat, with the proverbial speed of Marshall Matt Dillon getting rid of Dodge City's worst, the same people are utterly unable to make a rapid judgement about Kamala being a sugar baby, heck, let alone *any* judgement.

You mean like you misquoted my post above, completely taking it out of context to pretend that I agreed with you that Kamala was engaging in sexual quid-pro-quo? You mean like that?

Me: What would *you* term the sex for advancement quid pro quo that seemingly occurred with that?

You: You seem to be the one who is confident in Harris' intentions when it comes to dating Brown. I'm not and that's why I'm not putting a name on it. If you wanted me to put a name on that generic situation I certainly wouldn't use the term "slut". "Sexual quid pro quo" is pretty good though.

I took your word 'that' to mean the situation we were talking about: Harris and Brown.

As to the 'misquote' -- to be blunt it was your use of an indistinct word 'that' that led to a confusion.

I didnt misquote anybody, asshat.

Not my problem if *you* use an indistinct pronoun that can easily be taken as a reference to the generic situation between Brown and Harris

Pull your fing head out of your ass, sparkles.

Did I misinterpret *your* indistinct pronoun? Well yes I did. Mea culpa. I suggest you use less indistinct verbiage.

At least be fing bright enough to recognize your own fing words. I recognize my misinterpretation of your words. But no, I did not misquote them. At *best* your sentence is horribly indistinct in what you are calling out there.