i'm perfectly capable of having a conversation with anyone who has them in good faith.
I'll wait until I see it. In your history in PR&S, I have yet to see you have an honest conversation with anyone who disagrees with you.
nothing about my original statement was unclear, so stop with the aw-shucks-i-was-just-asking-a-question routine.
It wasn't unclear, it was just either horribly misguided or deliberately misleading. Whether or not you'll internalise anything that's been said to you is your prerogative (I'm not holding my breath), but at least judging by Dave's response I was able to make a point here for other readers. Anything that sets your narrative-crafting back in favour of an open discussion is a win in my book.
but hey at least you got to use it as a reason to call me stupid, too, so that's neat.
Please, after such gems as "I get my news from a legal research aggregator", "Russia is an ally of the United States" or "Qing didn't exist", nobody needs more reasons.
i answered your question very directly four separate times. in the context of actual things that actually happened: yes, i am surprised.
-Gary, do you like strawberry ice cream?
-Oh, let me tell you, I hate vanilla ice cream!
-Okay, but strawberry tho.
-Chocolate ice cream is GUUUUUUH-REAT!
-Right, but that doesn't answer my question
-wtf lmao I keep answering it, as I said plenty of times raspberry/strawberry ice cream isn't not un-terrible.
-You're coming across as very dishonest and obstructive right now.
-HAHA WHAT NONSENSE I AM OPEN TO DISCUSSION
10/10 would gary again. It's always hilarious to see you flounder when your narrative is questioned. Hell, it doesn't even need to be questioned, you just need to feel that it might get questioned any moment now to jump into this siege mentality.
i am surprised because one of them is not a threat. i am surprised that anyone believes anything even close to "james comey is a more urgent threat to national security than russian intelligence." i am surprised that the gop has the audacity to suggest that he is.
And that is the core of my message. You guys need to stop being surprised by it, acknowledge the elementary psychology behind it, and start doing something about it. Otherwise, you're going to continue acting against your own interest.
in the context of pretend things that didn't actually happen, like bizarre hypotheticals where dave mcsuperdave is gonna get shot during a chemical weapons attack or whatever, then i don't know or give a shit how some hypothetical americans may or may not estimate those make-believe threats.
No, it's just another simple rhetorical device that you chose to pretend not to understand.
are you fucking with me or something?
Sweetheart, not here. PM me and we'll get something going.
in case this isn't clear, i'm really only interested in talking about things that happened in reality. at least in this thread.
You have yet to demonstrate that. So far, you're only interested in turning yes/no questions into multi-page diatribes, and forcing debates on the very nature of human communication every moment someone calls you out on your shit.
the words that come after 'yes, i'm surprised' are the words that explain why i am surprised. again, with respect to reality.
-Is the idea that some people put peaches on pizza surprising to you?
-I am SO FUCKING SURPRISED that Belgian waffles even exists
-Okay but are you surprised by *this particular thing that I asked you about*
-I JUST TOLD YOU I'M SURPRISED WTF THE REST OF MY ANSWER WAS JUST A CLARIFICATION LOL
11/10 gary overload
next time just say this instead of asking uselessly vague questions and insisting that they not be answered in the context of what i was actually talking about.
I already explained this, but let me try again: I cannot magically figure out what you're saying when your initial statement is vague. Therefore, I asked you a follow-up question. If you threw me a bone and responded in max. 4 characters (including a full stop), we could have carried on with the conversation. But you knew exactly what was going on, so you tried to derail it instead.
also, i get that the gop is manufacturing the notion of comey being a national security risk because it benefits them politically. duh. that's what i'm criticizing them for.
"haha jokes on you i was only pretending"
on a totally tangential side note: no, i don't think proximity is a meaningful parameter for quantifying risk. probability, magnitude, and time-frame are what matter.
Since your most recent post suggests that I shouldn't ask questions and instead guess your position, I'll ignore the fact that you just said "risk" even though I was abundantly clear that I'm talking about urgency. In which case: Well, thank fuck you don't work in intelligence.