(11-14-2024 02:09 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  You said Lad and myself were in error in taking your comments in the manner that we did. You clarified. I know I simply went my merry way on that point, and from that point havent revisited that clarification issue.

Let's revisit that for some truth....

Post 1, I challenge the conclusion of this article that suggests that 55/53 represents a wide gender gap.

You and Lad misunderstand... I take blame... I clarify.

Post 25.... I think I make clear that the 55/53 comparison came from the media and that I called it intellectually lazy... so hardly an endorsement. i even made the same point you did later about all sorts of possible reasons.

Quote:The over-arching point is that there are potentially millions of reasons why people vote a certain way... or even simply turn out to vote... so to look at a 55/53 split and immediately jump to a conclusion about sexism is intellectual lazy (on the part of the media... USA Today and Chron.com in specific were MY sources... that supported this idea and those who didn't bother to look beyond the headline on social media) and unnecessarily divisive.

Post 26... you claim I am the one making the comparison and that you have never seen it from the media... so you read it, but you didn't accept it. In fact, you seem to suggest that I am making up the usage of the term

Quote:I think it hasnt made news because no one I have scene commenting on voting gaps based on sex has defined it in the manner that you speak.

Post 29... I don't get mad. I politely make it PERFECTLY clear it was the article making the comparison... and that I was actually agreeing with you

Quote:You're very close... though I am not the one making the claim that the stat plays a role. In fact, I am suggesting the opposite. It was the article suggesting that it played a role.... and like you are doing here... I challenged that.

Post 30... you ONCE AGAIN IGNORE that and claim that it is 'my' comparison. emphasis mine

Quote:I think the 55/53 comparison is useless. I have never seen that in the manner that has been brought up by you here

This isn't a matter of mind-reading as you imply. It is AT BEST a matter of NOT reading.

Post 31, I type in bold... wondering what the hell I have to say to make it clear that I got this from the article and am not making the claim myself and in fact, reject the claim, just as you do.

So you really didn't 'go about your merry way'. You repeated and attributed to me something that I was very clear did not come from me and that I took issue with three times.

Missing it in the OP?? My fault. I took blame.

Missing it in post 25? I put that mostly on you... but I'll still take a little. I'm still being polite, despite our history.

Missing it in post 29? 100%, absolutely squarely on you.

Post 31, you try and deflect... I said it was 'brought up by you'... and tell me to take a chill pill. You then claim innocence... 'I should have said 'if one'.... Feel better now? Again, chill out

Condescending and certainly not you taking responsibility for anything, but I STILL reply civilly.... though you've clearly tested my patience.

Post 34,

Quote:It's not about being 'bad' Tanq... It's about you missing the point.

I brought it up because this was the evidence the article used to support their claim. 55% of men broke for the man. That's PROOF of misogyny as far as that article was concerned.

Perhaps if I didn't have to quote back to you...
'I'm only responding to the exact words that you typed', this wouldn't be an issue. If you expect quarter, you should be willing to grant it FIRST.

I stand by that and the evidence is clear. You didn't remotely do as you claim and 'go on your merry way'. You Ignored my accepting responsibility for not being clear initially. You repeatedly assigned a belief to me over my direct, clear and specific objections and clarifications... and then when YOU made an error, you put the responsibility on ME to 'chill out'... despite the fact that I was responding DIRECTLY to the words that you used over and over.... something you do quite often to me.

Your attempts to gaslight me into forgetting that you made the same 'honest mistake' 3 times previously and ignored polite corrections, followed by at least two references to me agreeing with you that you now suddenly claim that YOU agree would be amusing in another context, but they aren't here.

I can't swear that it is intentional. It is insulting to your honor to assume it is and insulting to your intelligence to assume its not.... so I'll just say that it needs to stop... one way or another.

(11-14-2024 03:29 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(11-14-2024 02:09 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  You said Lad and myself were in error in taking your comments in the manner that we did. You clarified. I know I simply went my merry way on that point, and from that point havent revisited that clarification issue.

Let's revisit that for some truth....

Post 1, I challenge the conclusion of this article that suggests that 55/53 represents a wide gender gap.

You and Lad misunderstand... I take blame... I clarify.

Post 25.... I think I make clear that the 55/53 comparison came from the media and that I called it intellectually lazy... so hardly an endorsement. i even made the same point you did later about all sorts of possible reasons.

Quote:The over-arching point is that there are potentially millions of reasons why people vote a certain way... or even simply turn out to vote... so to look at a 55/53 split and immediately jump to a conclusion about sexism is intellectual lazy (on the part of the media... USA Today and Chron.com in specific were MY sources... that supported this idea and those who didn't bother to look beyond the headline on social media) and unnecessarily divisive.

Post 26... you claim I am the one making the comparison and that you have never seen it from the media... so you read it, but you didn't accept it. In fact, you seem to suggest that I am making up the usage of the term

Quote:I think it hasnt made news because no one I have scene commenting on voting gaps based on sex has defined it in the manner that you speak.

Post 29... I don't get mad. I politely make it PERFECTLY clear it was the article making the comparison... and that I was actually agreeing with you

Quote:You're very close... though I am not the one making the claim that the stat plays a role. In fact, I am suggesting the opposite. It was the article suggesting that it played a role.... and like you are doing here... I challenged that.

Post 30... you ONCE AGAIN IGNORE that and claim that it is 'my' comparison. emphasis mine

Quote:I think the 55/53 comparison is useless. I have never seen that in the manner that has been brought up by you here

This isn't a matter of mind-reading as you imply. It is AT BEST a matter of NOT reading.

Post 31, I type in bold... wondering what the hell I have to say to make it clear that I got this from the article and am not making the claim myself and in fact, reject the claim, just as you do.

So you really didn't 'go about your merry way'. You repeated and attributed to me something that I was very clear did not come from me and that I took issue with three times.

Missing it in the OP?? My fault. I took blame.

Missing it in post 25? I put that mostly on you... but I'll still take a little. I'm still being polite, despite our history.

Missing it in post 29? 100%, absolutely squarely on you.

Post 31, you try and deflect... I said it was 'brought up by you'... and tell me to take a chill pill. You then claim innocence... 'I should have said 'if one'.... Feel better now? Again, chill out

Condescending and certainly not you taking responsibility for anything, but I STILL reply civilly.... though you've clearly tested my patience.

Post 34,

Quote:It's not about being 'bad' Tanq... It's about you missing the point.

I brought it up because this was the evidence the article used to support their claim. 55% of men broke for the man. That's PROOF of misogyny as far as that article was concerned.

Perhaps if I didn't have to quote back to you...
'I'm only responding to the exact words that you typed', this wouldn't be an issue. If you expect quarter, you should be willing to grant it FIRST.

I stand by that and the evidence is clear. You didn't remotely do as you claim and 'go on your merry way'. You Ignored my accepting responsibility for not being clear initially. You repeatedly assigned a belief to me over my direct, clear and specific objections and clarifications... and then when YOU made an error, you put the responsibility on ME to 'chill out'... despite the fact that I was responding DIRECTLY to the words that you used over and over.... something you do quite often to me.

Your attempts to gaslight me into forgetting that you made the same 'honest mistake' 3 times previously and ignored polite corrections, followed by at least two references to me agreeing with you that you now suddenly claim that YOU agree would be amusing in another context, but they aren't here.

I can't swear that it is intentional. It is insulting to your honor to assume it is and insulting to your intelligence to assume its not.... so I'll just say that it needs to stop... one way or another.

Ham, the simple fact is that my comment was that it was the point that you brought into the discussion. And identifying it that particular point. Not stating that it was you making the comparison or subscribing to the comparison. Nowhere did I ever state the italicized previous. Ever. Period.

Per the comment from me : "You clarified/corrected, we understand. I have understood that initial confusion, and nary made a mention of it in the slightest. Chill out."

Ham, you are absolutely reading into the statement the comment that I am saying that you "subscribe to the statement", or are the one originating the position in the article, or are somehow advancing it. The statements simply do not.

The words are simply specifically identifying the issue. That is, 'I have never heard of the the issue that you introduced to us in the article'. I simply said 'that you [spoke] of', or 'I have never seen that in the manner that has been brought up by you here'.

If I thought that you were backing that thesis, or that you subscribe to that point of view, I would have said 'that point that you seem to backing', or 'the comparison that you are making' or 'the point that you back'. The words above DO NOT make that bolded comment that you are saying.

Last I saw there is a fundamental difference between the terms comprising 'what you spoke of' and 'that has been brought up by you here', and the phrases and ideas associated with the phrases 'that to which you back', and/or 'that which you make a comparison.' End of story.

As an absolutely trivial example -- Assume i say 'there are folks who think Trump is an actual cannibal' as a point I want to make fun of or simply shoot down. I dont think I would denote anyone saying 'that topic that you brought up about Trump being a cannibal' would in any way paint me as having that belief. It merely says that I brought it into the discussion. And it specifies the issue being discussed, Literally.

Quote:You repeatedly assigned a belief to me over my direct, clear and specific objections and clarifications

I said the 'that has been brought up by you here' and 'what you spoke of'. And I did say 'I have never seen it presented in the manner that you speak.' That is "assigning a belief to you?" To the above, no, they dont. They merely note that I was referring to the topic that you actually did to our attention.

You speak repeatedly of one needing to read the words. Here is picture perfect example of "reading the words', and making huge inferences into the words.

As to the one issue I did misspeak, and should have clarified -- I clarified. I should have used the term 'one' instead of 'you'. I will absolutely refrain from that colloquialism as much as I can. Trust me.

Of I thought you held the ideas, I would be far more blunt and explicit about it.

Quote: You repeatedly assigned a belief to me

Nope, I absolutely did not. If you do not distinguish a difference between 'what you brought up' and 'what you spoke of' on one hand, and 'YOU MADE UP THAT COMPARISON' on the other (which are pretty wide), I would say, well.... there are. So again -- take a chill pill.

Quote:despite the fact that I was responding DIRECTLY to the words that you used over and over.

You responded to your interpretation of my words, which simply didnt say what you claim. Again, 'that to which you brought up' <> 'you think that way' --- that is *your* construct of my words. My words are my words -- they simply are not what *you* claim them to be, that is apparently 'the thing you brought up' MEANS "*you* believe in that thing", or "you made that thing up", or "you did a comparison", or any other issue that implants any support of the idea to you.. Christ on a cracker.

Quote:"It is insulting to your honor to assume it is and insulting to your intelligence to assume its not"

"intellectualy dishonest"

Ham, if I wished to attribute an idea or backing of an ide to your, I sure as holy fk wouldnt say 'that thing you spoke of' or its equivalent. It is literally referring to 'what you brought up', 'what you spoke of', 'that thing that was introduced by you' -- not to whether that view is implanted in your psyche.

I am sorry you dont like how something is said. I am reminded of your lectures to me about how I should not read extra issues into your words, and yet here we are where you are claiming that 'what you brought up' is now saying "'YOU MADE UP THAT COMPARISON'" or "You believe in the issue" --- or something to that equivalent effect. Rather ironic I would say.

Feel free to refer to my 'Trump is a cannibal' as something I brought up.

Because, yes --- I. Brought. It. Up.
Albeit --- I. Dont. Subscribe. To. It.
And --- I. Dont. Believe. It.

And I am certainly not going to throw a tizzy if/when you say 'I brought Trump being a cannibal up.' Simply because of the three points above. And the last two most importantly.

As to the bolded -- I havent done anything in terms of insulting language. I would hope you could endeavor to that as well.

(11-11-2024 09:57 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  There was and is a difference between men and women voters. It is not rounding error. It is attributable to one issue—abortion.

The republican stand on abortion does not make men want to vote for republicans, but it does cause women to vote against them.

A competent woman candidate would be hard for republicans to beat until they modify their stance on abortion. Kamala the Slut was not a competent woman candidate.

What too many young women don’t yet know, because on the Left, there is no such thing as the truth anymore, is that those babies are never forgotten. They hover like ghosts. They come to you in your dreams. They are still part of you, even if they never had a chance to live. You know. Every woman knows when that little heart starts beating. Teaching them it doesn’t matter is teaching them to be sociopaths. Every single one of those babies matter, whether they are murdered and it is labelled 'abortion' or 'redundancy' or any other name...a rose is a rose no matter the nomenclature. Horton was right: a person is a person, no matter how small.

I'll just say it this way Tanq...

The LAST time you did it, it was clear. You did not say 'that you brought up' or anything like that. You've admitted that you mis-spoke.

The previous times, each time I POLITELY took exception to what I saw as a misunderstanding... in LARGE part because you clearly disagreed with the premise, just as I did from the OP... but you continued to adopt a 'contrary' position... and NOT ONCE did you clarify your position in light of my comments.

To quote you, I am not a mindreader. If you say something that comes across to me as suggesting we are on opposite sides of an issue... and I politely correct you and you continue to do it, that's a failure on your part to read and respond and correct.

Period.

And your final comment which you have admitted says exactly what I interpreted it to mean... and was precisely what you now claim I had previously misinterpreted... was just the last straw.

So rather than admit all that with the same politeness which I extended to you... you come back with your condescending.... 'feel better now'??

No. I'll feel better when you respond to 'quarter' with that of your own.... and not simply demand even more.

SO to sum it all up... though I obviously could have written the OP much better... we ALL seem to agree that both from a linguistic standpoint as well as from a practical one, the break in voting for the candidates does not appear in any way to be a matter of sexism... and is instead much more likely a matter of policy focus.... and media who portray it as such, especially while not looking beyond the headline numbers... are not acting as media, but as 'influencers'.... who have learned nothing from this election.

(11-17-2024 12:15 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I'll just say it this way Tanq...

The LAST time you did it, it was clear. You did not say 'that you brought up' or anything like that. You've admitted that you mis-spoke.

The previous times, each time I POLITELY took exception to what I saw as a misunderstanding... in LARGE part because you clearly disagreed with the premise, just as I did from the OP... but you continued to adopt a 'contrary' position... and NOT ONCE did you clarify your position in light of my comments.

To quote you, I am not a mindreader. If you say something that comes across to me as suggesting we are on opposite sides of an issue... and I politely correct you and you continue to do it, that's a failure on your part to read and respond and correct.

Period.

And your final comment which you have admitted says exactly what I interpreted it to mean... and was precisely what you now claim I had previously misinterpreted... was just the last straw.

So rather than admit all that with the same politeness which I extended to you... you come back with your condescending.... 'feel better now'??

No. I'll feel better when you respond to 'quarter' with that of your own.... and not simply demand even more.

SO to sum it all up... though I obviously could have written the OP much better... we ALL seem to agree that both from a linguistic standpoint as well as from a practical one, the break in voting for the candidates does not appear in any way to be a matter of sexism... and is instead much more likely a matter of policy focus.... and media who portray it as such, especially while not looking beyond the headline numbers... are not acting as media, but as 'influencers'.... who have learned nothing from this election.

Ham -- here is the series of comments:

Post 18 Me:

Quote:Lad, in defense of Ham, ascertaining the difference in how men and women broke is valid and does make sense. The comparison of that difference in voting based on sex is a valid question

Ham bringing it up comparing 55 one polarity and saying there is a rounding error based on an opposite polarity metric is confusing.

Post 25 You

Quote:Again, if you read in context... relative to the 'talk' that it was 'some sort of extreme spread'... 55/53 is IMO a rounding error.... especially given the very clear policy focus which I neglected to mention, thinking it was obvious.

You don't have to agree with my comparison... but really... what is the point in arguing about whether or not it is according to Hoyle a 'rounding error'

Post 26 Me

Quote:Ive never seen a comparison in the media that you note above. They all concentrate on the 'gap' being the 6% gap in women voters, or the 10% break in the opposite polarity for men voters, or the overall 16% gap between gender outcomes when the outcome result is normalized.

That is why I was confused about your comments on the 'rounding error' referring to '53% or women voted for Harris and 55% of men voted for Trump' comment.

Now that you have clarified that the intent was really to compare 'a sex voting for their own sex' gap - I see your rounding error.

Post 27 Me -- speaking to Lad

Quote:Ham is talking about same gender voter / same gender candidate. A statistic that is, when you think about, quite new. We've only had 2 elections in which that is even a viable reality to consider. Im not surprised that that isnt the rage of the talking point in the news.
.....
Ham is literally talking literally about a fundamentally new metric, call it the 'vote for the same gender as oneself' gap.

I dont see where the stat Ham details plays a role with 'misogyny'.

Post 28 You

Quote:You're very close... though I am not the one making the claim that the stat plays a role. In fact, I am suggesting the opposite. It was the article suggesting that it played a role.... and like you are doing here... I challenged that.

Post 30:

Quote: [iI think the 55/53 comparison is useless. I have never seen that in the manner that has been brought up by you here. And never have I seen the commonly used term 'gender gap' describe that. [/i]

{infamous admitted malapropism about colloquial 'you' being used instead of 'one'}

Post 31 you

Quote:{italicized above being quoted}
Let me say this again.... because it's obviously not reaching you.

I DID NOT MAKE UP THAT COMPARISON.

(infamous admitted malapropism about colloquial 'you' being used instead of 'one' being quoted)
I'm sorry... what part of 'I DID NOT MAKE AND AM ACTUALLY FIGHTING THIS CLAIM' have I not made clear??

Now :

Quote:and NOT ONCE did you clarify your position in light of my comments.

I think you absolutely and fundamentallly mis-read most of my comments Ham. End of story.

And most of your issues simply dont jive with the record 'the accursed "your words" '.

Each of the several times I said 'brought up by Ham' is valid and true -- and none of them try to paint you with a point of view as you complain vociferously about, and mangle the record above to try and assuage yourself.

Again --

Quote:Feel free to refer to my 'Trump is a cannibal' as something I brought up.

Because, yes --- I. Brought. It. Up.
Albeit --- I. Dont. Subscribe. To. It.
And --- I. Dont. Believe. It.

I am truly sorry that you think that 'you brought up', 'you mentioned, 'as was mentioned by you', 'the thing you brought up', etc etc etc etc somehow TO YOU denote and MEANS "*you* believe in that thing", or "you made that thing up", or "you did a comparison", or any other issue that implants any support of the idea to you.

That is *your* misunderstanding of 'what you brought' being 'what you ostensibly believe'. Distinguishing the issue from one that I had originally thought was being referred to seemed to be important to make sure that the issue wasnt muddled.

And even *when* you referred to it as 'your comparison' (bolded above), I still didnt attribute belief in the issue to you -- instead choosing to distinguish the issue with the method of 'which you brought up' and the like.

To the one malapropism I did engage in-- when noted I immediately retracted, and clarified. End of story.

To the malapropism on using 'you' instead of 'one', thats on me. I clarified. You choose to make it a continued issue.

And I am sorry that you are mad that I did not backtrack or seek to correct the language in 'that which you brought up' etc etc etc etc. Simply because 'that which you brought up' didnt rise to 'that which you believe'. And still does not.

I absolutely *do* acknowledge the noted malapropism above, and in fact did so immediately after you noted it, and retracted that and clarified that at that immediate point.

Edited for clarity

Quote:To the malapropism on using 'you' instead of 'one', thats on me. I clarified. You choose to make it a continued issue.

I do, because you're not credible. Even your 'clarification' is 'perhaps'. You won't even fully take blame for that.

More though, Tanq... you're ignoring the connection and the responses. Your 'example' back ignores three key flaws in your argument.

1) read post 11. If post 1 wasn't clear, post 11 I think was. I got on lad a bit for adding in numbers that I didn't refer to and weren't in the article... but if you weren't lad, the post should have been clear.

2) you made at least 3 and really more like 5 references to 'the point Ham brings up' or other obtuse references to me, but despite polite clarifications to the contrary, not ONCE prior to my admonishment of you, even and especially in your comment to Lad did you admit that we were in agreement that the article's argument was flawed.... which was precisely what the OP/Post 11 was asking for.

3) Until you LITERALLY wrote exactly what I have been correcting you on... where you undeniably attributed it to ME, I was not the least bit rude to you. The ONE TIME that I took issue with you, which you admit was entirely your fault, you turn pissy... and demand that I 'chill out' and accept your 'perhaps' correction.

It was just 'magically coincidental' that what you made a mistake on was precisely what I had politely made sure you understood was not correct numerous times... that you STILL had not acknowledged.

You couldn't even agree that 'the data does not support that conclusion'. You had to mince words with that and say 'inconclusive'.... lol. Which of course ignores that the whole point was that the author of the article claimed a conclusion... which we all agreed, the data they presented on its own does not support.... and is only inconclusive because we can't think of ANY conclusion that it supports.

And what got you pissy was capital letters. Not harsh words. CERTAINLY not the 'maybe I should have.... feel better?? chill out' BS that you pulled out. Apparently you consider 'perhaps' and 'maybe' to be 'owning up' to your mistakes... lol.

Again, if you expect quarter for people responding to precisely what you write, then you need to grant it. If you expect people to presume you mean pedantic specificity in your language then don't act pissy when they take you at your literal word. If they repeat the same thing 3 times without you acknowledging it, the 4th time it may be in capital letters to make sure you understand... because NOTHING in your comments prior to then made it remotely clear that you understood that I agreed with you that THEIR argument was flawed.

(11-18-2024 11:49 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Edited for clarity

Quote:To the malapropism on using 'you' instead of 'one', thats on me. I clarified. You choose to make it a continued issue.

I do, because you're not credible. Even your 'clarification' is 'perhaps'. You won't even fully take blame for that.

So you are pissy because of the word 'perhaps' now. Duly noted.

Quote:More though, Tanq... you're ignoring the connection and the responses. Your 'example' back ignores three key flaws in your argument.

1) read post 11. If post 1 wasn't clear, post 11 I think was. I got on lad a bit for adding in numbers that I didn't refer to and weren't in the article... but if you weren't lad, the post should have been clear.

And after a back and forth I said: "Now that you have clarified that the intent was really to compare 'a sex voting for their own sex' gap - I see your rounding error."

And to be blunt, you titled the thread "gender gap", and brought up issues that didnt address what is commonly referred to in 'gender gap' terms. Both he and I were confused about the 55/53 comparison. And after explanation and clarification were on board with that.

Quote:2) you made at least 3 and really more like 5 references to 'the point Ham brings up' or other obtuse references to me, but despite polite clarifications to the contrary, not ONCE prior to my admonishment of you, even and especially in your comment to Lad did you admit that we were in agreement that the article's argument was flawed.... which was precisely what the OP/Post 11 was asking for.

bull**** Ham. See my quote directly above, the second bolded above. Post 26. In response to your clarification, mind you. That is when you changed your original wording of
(paraphrase) "55% of men voted for Trump and 53% of women voted for Harris"

to

(direct quote) "I said 55% of men voted for a man and 53% of women voted for a woman."

Quote:3) Until you LITERALLY wrote exactly what I have been correcting you on... where you undeniably attributed it to ME, I was not the least bit rude to you. The ONE TIME that I took issue with you, which you admit was entirely your fault, you turn pissy... and demand that I 'chill out' and accept your 'perhaps' correction.

Yes, the one time I was absolutely incorrect in my choice of words to that point. Bummer.

Quote:It was just 'magically coincidental' that what you made a mistake on was precisely what I had politely made sure you understood was not correct numerous times... that you STILL had not acknowledged.

I discounted your angst about 'the issue of which you speak' directly translates in *your mind* to "Ham absolutely believes in the issue'." *That* translation that *you* made is kind of far-fetched.

Quote:You couldn't even agree that 'the data does not support that conclusion'. You had to mince words with that and say 'inconclusive'.... lol. Which of course ignores that the whole point was that the author of the article claimed a conclusion... which we all agreed, the data they presented on its own does not support.... and is only inconclusive because we can't think of ANY conclusion that it supports.

The two instances neither support, nor discount the issue. You are mad about that issue now?

Quote:And what got you pissy was capital letters. Not harsh words. CERTAINLY not the 'maybe I should have.... feel better?? chill out' BS that you pulled out. Apparently you consider 'perhaps' and 'maybe' to be 'owning up' to your mistakes... lol.

Quote:
Again, if you expect quarter for people responding to precisely what you write, then you need to grant it.

Which I absolutely did in this thread Ham. Please cry me a river.

If I hadnt, I would have jumped down your succeeding words owning up to "You don't have to agree with my comparison", mind you. So go jump in river on that above.

Quote:If you expect people to presume you mean pedantic specificity in your language then don't act pissy when they take you at your literal word. If they repeat the same thing 3 times without you acknowledging it, the 4th time it may be in capital letters to make sure you understand... because NOTHING in your comments prior to then made it remotely clear that you understood that I agreed with you that THEIR argument was flawed.

Yes repeating 'I dont believe that' in response to 'that issue that Ham brought up' (as opposed to further confusing it with the issues that I and Lad originally thought you were denoting') doesnt warrant much an issue to me.

As I said, feel free to denote whenever you wish 'That issue that Tanq brought up about Trump being a cannibal' -- again, for the third time: Feel free to say that I 'brought it up', or was 'that which I spoke of' -- simply:

1. Because, yes --- I. Brought. It. Up.
2. Albeit --- I. Dont. Subscribe. To. It.
3. And --- I. Dont. Believe. It.

I can read the English in there plainly enough not to magically ascribe the inverses of 2) and 3) from those words.

As for your original clarification -- I explicitly accepted it. Well before this going down the **** road. I explicitly accepted it *even after* you mistakenly seemingly referred to it as '[Ham's] comparison' -- since I can discern that the comparison was published here by Ham, yet still accept your explicit clarification that it isnt an issue that you accept as supporting.

In that sense I am kind of gobsmacked about *your* rips on me for referring to it as 'that idea you spoke of', then dont seem to really worry when you actually referred to it in the same way. In my mind -- what a nothing burger. he said it was 'his comparison', and I didnt understand the vitriol you approached when I referred to it in the same effective manner.

And, for the fourth time, in my single malapropism -- I immediately noted it, clarified it, and moved away from it. Literally immediately. Period. Something that seems to escape you and actually cuts against your ranting about 'quarter' above. But I see your are irate about another word used in 'perhaps', and now that I had the temerity to say 'inconclusive'. I am shivering in anticipation of the next word foul you choose to highlight here.

Have a great day Ham.