(02-02-2021 02:12 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(02-02-2021 01:45 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Far be it from me to step in while you guys are taking full advantage of an opportunity to pile on Lad but I'm going to.

It is obvious that Lad knows that OO is not equivalent to AtEase when it comes to participating on this forum. Come on... for you guys to pretend that was the argument he was putting forth really invites disbelief. It is clear that he was specifically comparing OO's morning unvetted, non-commented-upon hyperlink posts to AtEase's previous similar ones.

But by all means do your thing.

If this gives Ham an additional chance to scold Lad then cool I guess?

No, but it does give me a chance to scold you.

I think you mean "Yes and now I will take the opportunity to scold you."

Quote:The complaints against AE from 'conservatives' (of which I am one and you are not) were NOT that at 630am, he had read the morning news feed and had the issues he wanted to talk about for that morning... but specifically what Lad said about OO and THEN ADMITTED was true... that it was (mostly) ALL of what his value to the forum was. There is a difference between something being a part of what you do, and being ALL of what you do. Lad made that claim about OO... and then admitted (at least) that it was MORE true about AE than OO.

I don't understand what you just wrote.

Quote:Really invited disbelief? Those are the words he used in the quotes I read... and nothing I deleted from those posts changes those words. It wasn't until after I pointed it out that he made it 'obvious' that he didn't mean what he said and that the comparison to AE was not a good one.

I don't read every post anyone writes, but I certainly read the ones that I read... and I read it correctly.

I wish some of you did the same. You take words like 'all' and claim they not only don't mean 'all', but don't even mean 'mostly' or even 'often'... it just means 'more often than I think you should, though admittedly less than someone the right complained about'. Then you take words people like ME write and add all sorts of things I never said or did or believed so you can argue with that.

PLEASE tell me where I sign up for this class in mind-reading that apparently you all have taken... and then the Masters class in telling people they're wrong when the words used say EXACTLY what they have been interpreted to mean... where words mean not what the speaker said, whether or not they meant it that way (we all mis-speak from time to time) but INSTEAD they mean what the reader is convinced the speaker meant, even over their objections, and even over the definitions of the words they used... or even a reasonable approximation of it.

I'm pretty lost TBH.