Re: CFB National title game...

iAtlantaRanger wrote:

"HC" <TheHCapper@xxxxxxx> wrote in message news:430ec85b-0a17-44d6-9167-1ee325929ad5@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jan 9, 12:39?pm, "YourAtlantaRanger" <arubbab...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

"Catron" <jthom20...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:9004e830-9684-4807-b77f-f2d02a129e3b@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


You're right, it was HC who should be ashamed to use the VT tragedy as
an excuse for the football team to lose..not you. My apologies. I
attributed his stupid ass post to you, it's easy to do as both of your
posts usually just agree with one another.

Then one should forgive the USC losses because of the wildfires.


You too, AR?


Go back and read what I wrote, you should know better than to just
take Catron's word on something.


I was not attributed any quote to anyone. I was only responding to a generic point that one could never weigh off-field events whatsoever and pointed up an if>then.

However, Mister Catron's misquote was the only time I've heard it brought up by anyone, anywhere, hence it was probably worth passing on.

I did not mean to imply I was accepting the accuracy of his attributions. Lord knows it's been a major pet peeve of mine when a small minority intentionally try to distort what someone says. I also believe the speaker has a right to clarify any ambiguities. He and only he knows what he meant.

Speaking in a broad sense, UNrelated to this specific topic,
but of course a speaker has "a right to clarify any ambiguities"

"He and only he knows what he meant"

I would argue that statement. If I state for example
that gary collard is gawdamn phucking LIAR & FRAUD
for going on the record asserting he "does not read
Brian's posts" then he's caught NUMEROUS different
times either directly replying to or referring
directly to the content of Brian's posts - which are
NOT shown in anyone else's replies - then eveyone
with an IQ above 100 knows exactly what I mean when
I correctly state that he is a LIAR & FRAUD.
Or if I posted that the score in the NBA game
last night between Boston and Charlotte was 95-83
for a Charlotte win, I believe there are others, if
not EVERYBODY, who knows precisely what I meant.
It would be folly to suggest that ONLY I know what I mean.
However, if an author fails to convey his meaning
as intended, usually through a poor choice of wording
and/or syntax, then it's understandable that others can
and will understand the script for a different meaning
than the one originally intended. However, merely
because someone misunderstands the meaning of a sentence,
paragraph, or full text posting, does not in itself
imply that the AUTHOR failed to properly convey his
meaning. The READER may well have made a mistake!
Then too, there are cases where an author might
LIE as he asserts his right to "clarify any ambiguities"
What he posts in rebuttal MAY be true or it MAY be
bogus...and in THAT regard ONLY the author would know
for certain if he's being untruthful/disingenuous or not,
although everyone else is entitled to their opinions.
Very often in these matters the integrity/history of
the author and his credibility is used in forming these
opinions. For example if for example one was to assert
a given nation was stockpiling WMD and posed a direct
and imminent threat to himself and other fellow citizens
and uses that to start a war, only to discover that the
whole precept was indeed BOGUS as so many were trying to
tell hiim beforehand, then understandably his "credibility"
is shot to hell and it would be difficult for others to
trust any future "claims" he made...

.

Loading