The Kavanaugh Battle Is The Culmination Of Unanswered Leftist Kulturkampf

[homersapien 11,498]

[DKW 86 7,479]

On 9/28/2018 at 9:26 AM, homersapien said:

David, you called me a liar for denying I said something I didn't say. 

You could not produce the quote - because it doesn't exist.   But you just couldn't bring yourself to retract the charge, which makes you a calculated and deliberate liar.

All the cute, oversize gifs you like so much don't change that.

 

No Sir, I produced YOUR quote the first time and every time. You are lying your ass off right now. 

Quote

 

8:42PM 7-15-17

Thread: 
Not news: Clinton campaign aided by Ukrainian government
Started by Auburnfan91, Wednesday at 07:41 PM

Unless you want to specify specific arguments being made by anyone on this forum - or even by someone else in the media - that's a straw man argument.

It's tiresome - the non-intellectual equivalent of watching someone masturbate.
And the Democrats can't demand impeachment all they want, they can't do it. It will be the Republicans who must decide to remove him from office, 
and I think it will happen.

 

1

Here is the thread. 

 

[homersapien 11,498]

10 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

No Sir, I produced YOUR quote the first time and every time. You are lying your ass off right now. 

 

But that's not what you claimed I said.  You are still lying.

I said the Republicans would impeach him - after all they would have to - but I never said it would be for Russian collusion as you specified in your accusation.  In fact, your accusation and the resulting dispute was oriented around the Russian collusion scandal.  Your specific accusation was I said Trump would be impeached over Russian collusion.  It wasn't about Republicans or Democrats doing the impeachment.   You know that's the case.

I have thought all along that messing with trade - such as the Trump tariff wars - will be what motivates them.  The specific excuse could be anything else, including the emoluments clause.

So, thanks for proving my case.   You are no different from Nola in misrepresenting the actual record.  It's just another form of lying.

[DKW 86 7,479]

Wrong. That was taken from a thread about...wait for it...Russian Collusion. 

I even asked you in the thread if you were real about it and you stated you were. And that was when I told you I was saving it. You are now trying to weasel out of it like always. 

[homersapien 11,498]

1 hour ago, DKW 86 said:

Wrong. That was taken from a thread about...wait for it...Russian Collusion. 

I even asked you in the thread if you were real about it and you stated you were. And that was when I told you I was saving it. You are now trying to weasel out of it like always.

OK, you finally caused me to go back and look it up.

First, it happened much earlier than the so called "evidence" you produced above.  Sometime before March in fact.

Here's a post I made to NOLA on March 2 explaining the dispute to him. 

Posted March 2 (edited)

On 3/2/2018 at 1:59 PM, NolaAuTiger said:

Why do you bring up @DKW 86?

He called me a liar for correcting a false inference he had of my position.  Specifically, he claimed I stated Trump would be impeached specifically for colluding with the Russians.  I asked him to produce that statement, which of course he could not, since I never said that.  

He then claimed I simply inferred by the total of my comments on the subject.   I think apologized for that incorrect inference as I never meant imply I believed that either.

So, he refused to accept my clarification and continued to insist I was lying about something I never said nor intended to even imply.

Think about that. 

Edited March 2 by homersapien

So, how is it you present one of my July posts as "proof" of a claim you made about me last winter?   Hmmmmm. How does that work exactly?

But we need to established exactly what you said, coming from you.  So I'll keep looking for the original exchange. It takes a lot of effort to nail down a weaseling liar.

[homersapien 11,498]

I created a long detailed response but the formatting went wacky.

I'll recreate it later, but it's from the following thread if you want to look for yourself:

https://www.aufamily.com/forums/topic/160930-book-excerpt-on-current-white-house/?page=6

 

[homersapien 11,498]

Here's a relevant thread in which I posted on 7-15-17 David.

https://www.aufamily.com/forums/topic/157510-whos-colluding-with-whom/?tab=comments#comment-2687749

 

Now find the post where I said Russian collusion would be the cause of Trump's impeachment.

[homersapien 11,498]

Here's another one from 7-15-17 in which I posted.  See if you can find it here:

https://www.aufamily.com/forums/topic/157473-not-news-clinton-campaign-aided-by-ukrainian-government/

 

[homersapien 11,498]

And here are the remaining threads in which I made a post on 7-15-17:

https://www.aufamily.com/forums/topic/157510-whos-colluding-with-whom/?tab=comments#comment-2687775

https://www.aufamily.com/forums/topic/157473-not-news-clinton-campaign-aided-by-ukrainian-government/

https://www.aufamily.com/forums/topic/157481-the-truth-is-that-republicans-failed-a-conservative-columnist-on-the-gops-capitulation-to-trump/?tab=comments#comment-2687809

https://www.aufamily.com/forums/topic/157513-where-do-those-trump-2020-donations-go/?tab=comments#comment-2687810

 

It's gotta be in there someplace.  After all, you couldn't possibly just dis-remember something like that could you?

I mean, you'd have to be pretty certain to keep doubling down on the liar accusation, right?.

[DKW 86 7,479]

The comment you made was in a thread about...Collusion. Quit trying to rewrite what you said. You are just weaseling like always. 

[homersapien 11,498]

2 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

The comment you made was in a thread about...Collusion. Quit trying to rewrite what you said. You are just weaseling like always. 

LOL!!!  Changing your claim now, huh?  And talk about weaseling at the same time!!

The subject of the thread doesn't matter. I never said Trump will be impeached for collusion as you kept insisting I did, even after I offered you an honorable way out. 

I'm not finished. Now that you've forced me to take the time to look them up (not easy),  I've got lot's of more posts to quote.

I may even start a dedicated thread on it.  

[DKW 86 7,479]

And folks...WEASELS WEASEL. 

Only a fool like you would even try to say that IN A THREAD DEDICATED TO RUSSIANS AND COLLUSION You werent talking about..Russians and Collusion.

So, your defense is: "I randomly and totally without reference changed the subject of the discourse for no particular reason and left the discussion for no particular reason to randomly make a statement about a topic no one was talking about." I would throw in a few more randoms but it wouldnt make the point any clearer for you. 

homey you are an incoherent scream sometimes with the tap dances you do to defend the indefensible and deny the undeniable. You said that the Republicans would impeach Trump for Collusion, and implied that the evidence would be so overwhelming they would have to do it.

Never mind that there hasnt been any evidence of any collusion learned by the FBI or Mueller in 1.5 years or more. In fact the entire results have been stated that "no proof that any American Citizen knowingly participated." Not only are you a delusional idiot about collusion that no one in the Democratic Leadership ever said they saw a scintilla of evidence for, you proclaimed that the evidence would be so overwhelming that Republicans would remove Trump. 

Want me to prove it to you and everyone else on the board? Watch this...

Lets see if homey makes any sense in his rhetoric:

Quote

And the Democrats can (sic) demand impeachment all they want, they can't do it. It will be the Republicans who must decide to remove him from office, and I think it will happen.

Homey, it has been so long now that we are about to finalize another Congress. The Dems may not even need Republicans at all if things well with the Blue Wave or BLUE TSUNAMI. SSSOOO... Remember YOU claimed the REPUBLICANS would do it. 

1) Just when exactly are the Republicans going to Impeach and Remove Trump? They may have less than 100 days to get the feat accomplished AS YOU PREDICTED.

2) What exactly are the Republicans going to remove Trump for in the next 100 days or so?

3) Be SPECIFIC, afterall this is YOUR PREDICTION.

Now, if you know anything about Homey, you KNOW that hes is never going to answer any question ever put to him. He just cant do it. He wont answer the these 3 questions because he never answers anything...EVER.

•  

Quote

 

•  THE WHOLE POST BY HOMEY......
  • Hell Homey you QUOTED AND ANSWERED 91 SPECIFICALLY ABOUT COLLUSION AND IMPEACHMENT FOR COLLUSION.
•  

Posted July 15, 2017 (edited)

  On 7/15/2017 at 8:10 PM, Auburnfan91 said:

Hey, I'm just using the standard that gets applied each and every time a Democrat or Clinton faces legal trouble. If it's ok for them to use that standard, then it's the standard that should be used for the GOP and Trump too. 

Now that there's an investigation of people in the Trump campaign, not Trump himself(at least not officially stated), Democrats want Trump charged with collusion and then impeached. It's hilarious to see Democrats applying different standards when it's a different party involved. They want common man standards where the lowest possible bar of guilt is set for every Republican and Trump; but Hilary, Bill, and every other Democrat get the legal definition standard which has to meet each and every criteria listed under the law in order for them to be guilty. And even then, if there's no "intent" to go along with the evidence, everything else gets voided and no charges are recommended. 

 

Unless you want to specify specific arguments being made by anyone on this forum - or even by someone else in the media - that's a straw man argument.

It's tiresome - the non-intellectual equivalent of watching someone masturbate.

And the Democrats can (sic) demand impeachment all they want, they can't do it. It will be the Republicans who must decide to remove him from office, and I think it will happen.

Edited July 15, 2017 by homersapien

 

 

[homersapien 11,498]

2 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

And folks...WEASELS WEASEL. 

Only a fool like you would even try to say that IN A THREAD DEDICATED TO RUSSIANS AND COLLUSION You werent talking about..Russians and Collusion.

So, your defense is: "I randomly and totally without reference changed the subject of the discourse for no particular reason and left the discussion for no particular reason to randomly make a statement about a topic no one was talking about."

No, DA.  My defense is that I never actually wrote what you claimed I did.  You know -  type those exact words.  And you are still lying about it.

From the beginning of this dispute, you were very, very specific about my saying those exact words.  If you recall, I sent you a PM and gave you the chance to admit you might be inferring something that I didn't actually type, but for some reason you wouldn't do that.  You kept insisting that's what I said and I kept challenging you to produce it, if so.  You couldn't, but you were willing to back off from accusing me as a liar.

It seemed more important to you to call me a liar instead of conceding you might be wrong or presenting the literal evidence upon which you based your case. 

I find that somewhat "weird" to say the least.  Especially coming from a fellow Auburn man.  You seem to harbor contempt or hatred for me that compelled you to keep calling me a liar.

And you continued to insist I was lying about not typing that particular sentence, even though you could not produce it. (For obvious reasons, since it didn't exist.)

Now you are trying to impose a different theory involving contextual evidence as an excuse for calling me a liar, apparently abandoning the literal standard insisted on earlier. This changing of the rules is an admission - by definition - that you were originally inferring my thinking instead of reading it.  Sorry but that ship has sailed.   You set the terms for the charge, I confirmed them, now you don't get to change them to save face.

And now you have the gall now to call me a weasel. 

I have said before you and I often agree in our political thinking.   But I have come to gradually believe you are a disturbed person who occasionally allows their emotions to completely dominate their rationality.   
One might make a similar claim about me regarding my unwillingness to let this go, but I'll be damned if I am going to allow someone call me a "liar" or weasel without a single solid shred of evidence simply because they are unwilling to back down.  

I am ready to start a dedicate thread on this and continue it till you own up to your error.  I can be just as nutzo on this as you, even though it takes more effort on my part. 

So FU.

[homersapien 11,498]

8 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

And folks...WEASELS WEASEL. 

Only a fool like you would even try to say that IN A THREAD DEDICATED TO RUSSIANS AND COLLUSION You werent talking about..Russians and Collusion.

So, your defense is: "I randomly and totally without reference changed the subject of the discourse for no particular reason and left the discussion for no particular reason to randomly make a statement about a topic no one was talking about." I would throw in a few more randoms but it wouldnt make the point any clearer for you. 

So it sounds like you are NOW making a contextual argument to IMPLY I meant what you claimed, if not actually wrote what you claimed. 

So are you now changing your basis of your argument  - I actually wrote "Republicans will impeach Trump because of Russian collusion"? 

That's a tacit admission you are wrong. If  I actually wrote what you claimed, it requires no context to begin with.

homey you are an incoherent scream sometimes with the tap dances you do to defend the indefensible and deny the undeniable. You said that the Republicans would impeach Trump for Collusion, and implied that the evidence would be so overwhelming they would have to do it.

Au contraire.  I am very precise. You are the one demonstrating irrationality and emotionalism  in your argument.

 From the very beginning I tried to get you to acknowledge the difference between the hard claim of what I acuatlly wrote, vs. what you think I meant. 

That's why I kept asking for the actual quote. 

That's why I sent you a personal email offering you the opportunity to back down from the hard and specific claim of what I wrote vs what you inferred.

Yet, you refused to do back down and continued to insist I specifically wrote it, and I am lying if I say I didn't.  Even though you couldn't produce it.  Even after offering you the chance to do so in a PM.

So that ship has sailed.

Never mind that there hasnt been any evidence of any collusion learned by the FBI or Mueller in 1.5 years or more. In fact the entire results have been stated that "no proof that any American Citizen knowingly participated." Not only are you a delusional idiot about collusion that no one in the Democratic Leadership ever said they saw a scintilla of evidence for, you proclaimed that the evidence would be so overwhelming that Republicans would remove Trump. 

Totally irrelevant to our argument.

 

Want me to prove it to you and everyone else on the board? Watch this...

Lets see if homey makes any sense in his rhetoric:

Homey, it has been so long now that we are about to finalize another Congress. The Dems may not even need Republicans at all if things well with the Blue Wave or BLUE TSUNAMI. SSSOOO... Remember YOU claimed the REPUBLICANS would do it. 

I DID say it would take the Republicans to impeach Trump (or something to that effect). That seemed obvious at the time and is obvious now.  

Please note that is NOT the same as saying the Republicans would do it because of Russian collusion. 

Russian collusion (conspiracy) would be too hard to prove IMO.  I think the Trump is still likely to be impeached, but it will be based on far more provable transgressions.)  

That is precisely why I didn't actually write what you claim I did. 

Too bad you inferred it.  Had you approached it from that point from the start, I guess we'd be arguing over what I actually think, huh? 

1) Just when exactly are the Republicans going to Impeach and Remove Trump? They may have less than 100 days to get the feat accomplished AS YOU PREDICTED.

I don't recall exactly what I predicted on timing but I suspect I said after the mid-terms.  That's because I don't think Republicans will impeach Trump until after they stop fearing him.  A "blue wave" would probably alleviate a lot of that fear, which is based on Trump's political power in 2018 and 2020.

But the greater point is this "timing" train of argument is IRRELEVANT to the actual argument - what I specifically wrote.

 

Quote

2) What exactly are the Republicans going to remove Trump for in the next 100 days or so?

3) Be SPECIFIC, afterall this is YOUR PREDICTION.

Irrelevant and Irrelevant. 

(Nice obfuscation though, sounds like you and Brett studied from the same weasel. 

Now, if you know anything about Homey, you KNOW that hes is never going to answer any question ever put to him. LIE  He just cant do it. Another LIE He wont answer the these 3 questions because he never answers anything...EVER.  DEMONSTRATED LIE

•  

 

As much as I hate to borrow from you, this just seems ironically appropriate:

I'll admit to being a little strange myself, but never to the extent of doubling down on such a weird compulsion to brand a fellow Auburn man a liar. 

But I will admit that I am strange or weird enough to consider it important enough to refute for as long as you call he a liar/weasel about it.  So get used to posts like this. 

[DKW 86 7,479]

And you didnt answer the questions...about your own prediction. Homey you are too funny, we need you on the board just for the ludicrous sanctimony. 

 

In a thread about Russians and Collusion you said that the Republicans would remove Trump (for Collusion) but we will go ahead and pretend <frickin eyeroll here> that you didnt mean that at the time. You still didnt answer the question about how and why the Republicans are going to remove Trump in the next three months or so.

So, one more time: Why will the Reps remove Trump on their own, if it wasnt for collusion, in the next three months.

Remember this is your prediction, not mine. 

[SaltyTiger 7,899]

15 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

 

In a thread about Russians and Collusion you said that the Republicans would remove Trump (for Collusion) but we will go ahead and pretend <frickin eyeroll here> that you didnt mean that at the time. You still didnt answer the question about how and why the Republicans are going to remove Trump in the next three months or so.

Is Mueller still working? The Kavanaugh stuff is refreshing in a way around here. @homersapien has not mentioned Russia in a while.

[homersapien 11,498]

2 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

And you didnt answer the questions...about your own prediction. Homey you are too funny, we need you on the board just for the ludicrous sanctimony. 

Please stop trying to divert the discussion by bringing up irrelevent topics.  I already commented on my "prediction". If you want a discussion on that, then start another thread and quote me.  I'll be glad to explain.

 

In a thread about Russians and Collusion you said that the Republicans would remove Trump (for Collusion) but we will go ahead and pretend <frickin eyeroll here> that you didnt mean that at the time.

What's with the parenthesis around the word collusion.  Are you getting ready to admit I didn't write that?

 

 

You still didnt answer the question about how and why the Republicans are going to remove Trump in the next three months or so. So, one more time: Why will the Reps remove Trump on their own, if it wasnt for collusion, in the next three months. Remember this is your prediction, not mine. 

I've already explained - more than once - why it will be the Republicans who will remove Trump as well as why this won't occur until sometime in the second term.  (How about quoting me on this.  I don't trust you to be honest in your paraphrasing)

Do I really need to repeat it again?  

And what does any of this have to do with the reason you claimed as proof for my "lying"?

 

 

 

 

 

[homersapien 11,498]

1 hour ago, SaltyTiger said:

Is Mueller still working? The Kavanaugh stuff is refreshing in a way around here. @homersapien has not mentioned Russia in a while.

Careful about mentioning the word "Russia" around David.

It has roughly the same effect on him as the words "Niagra Falls" in that 3 Stooges skit:

 

[DKW 86 7,479]

6 hours ago, homersapien said:

Careful about mentioning the word "Russia" around David.

It has roughly the same effect on him as the words "Niagra Falls" in that 3 Stooges skit:

 

You are the guy telling people nonsense about that cannot and will not ever come true in some crazy way because you cannot admit the obvious. 

In a thread about Russian Collusion, you even quoted a poster about Russian Collusion, you now bogusly claim that what was "intuitively obvious to the most casual observer"  was not only NOT implied/inferred in your post, but quite the opposite. <FER> You say that in the middle of a mildly-heated discussion you randomly and without any acknowledgment changed the topic to an unknown topic that you yourself cannot define and then resumed talking about Russians and Collusion for another page and a half. When asked direct questions about it you go into normal 24/7/365 homey form and wont answer any questions. 

Or FAR MORE LIKELY, You got in a mildly-heated debate and said something stupid that you honestly regret but are now not mature enough to acknowledge. Instead, you would rather make post after post about your perfect flawless nature and how you can never be wrong (in your eyes) and that the rest of the world is wrong. 

Example, In my question to you i stated that the Dems may well be in control of the Senate and HOR soon and not need the Republicans in any way. You still cant admit that that might be true.

Homey, you are a truly sad lil man and you have had my pity for years. 

I stand by my quote of yours, IN CONTEXT. You stated that Trump would be removed for Collusion. I am not backing down on this and told you so the day you went off the rails and made that statement. 

You from that thread:

Quote

 

"Collusion" is not a legal term.   It's a subjective - political - term.

Regardless, Donald Trump Jr. is guilty of it.

 

Quote

 

Fascinating.

That sounds exactly like the sort of arguments the Clinton's used to make. 

Russians offered Jr info on Hillary

Jr says great, even better if you can time it for late summer.

Legal definitions and/or requirements aside, to an ordinary layman, that sounds like actual collusion whether or not it reaches a given legal threshold or not.   

You sound like Bill equivocating about what "sex" is.

 

 

Quote

 

homersapien

• Seamster
•  
• 
• Verified Member
• 
•  2,816
• 33,724 posts
• Gender:Male

• Report post
•  
•  

Posted July 15, 2017 (edited)

  On 7/15/2017 at 9:08 PM, Auburnfan91 said:

I guess I should have said layman and not common man, maybe then it would pass your "straw man"  test.

So do you think Trump is guilty of collusion by layman standards?

At an absolute minimum, I think Trump Jr. is, as well as Trump's campaign manager at the time, as well as his son-in-law.   Presumably, that translates to the "Trump campaign".

As for Trump himself, he claims he didn't know anything about it. 

 

Quote

 

You don't think what Trump Jr. openly admitted isn't collusion?

Paraphrase:

Russians: We have info for you.

Trump Jr.: Great! Even better if we can set the optimal timing.

 

So, What's your rationale for saying that's not collusion?  (Please try to be brief.)

 

I could go on and on. All you are talking about in the thread is.....COLLUSION. 

Everything in the thread I stated has come true. Mueller hasnt said bumpkis about Collusion or Russians in months. The FBI has stated over and over again that "NO AMERICAN CITIZEN KNOWINGLY PARTICIPATED IN COLLUSION." The Collusion Story is now essentially dead, just as the rational people here predicted.

1) You were the one going crazy with predictions that havent come true. Trump is still an idiot but we are nowhere near removing him from office.
2) We will "give it more time" but we all know the handwriting is on the wall. Just as DF, MW, VJ  et al stated so many times, there was no real evidence for Collusion. 
3) The Democratic Party quit losing elections and started winning when they left this Russians & Collusion craziness and started talking about everyday issues again. JUST AS I AND JUSTICE DEMOCRATS WERE POINTING OUT.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

On 9/29/2018 at 10:50 AM, homersapien said:

I stated Trump would be impeached specifically for colluding with the Russians

Wait, you have said that before though..... 

I know for a fact, at minimum, you insinuated as much. 

@DKW 86 was not incorrect

[homersapien 11,498]

10 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Wait, you have said that before though..... 

I know for a fact, at minimum, you insinuated as much. 

@DKW 86 was not incorrect

Insinuated? maybe.  Quote me.

Said?  Never.

I've already explained why I don't think Trump will ever be impeached for "collusion".  It would be too hard to prove.

Where you been Nola?  David seriously needs some counsel. 

[homersapien 11,498]

1 hour ago, DKW 86 said:

You are the guy telling people nonsense about that cannot and will not ever come true in some crazy way because you cannot admit the obvious. 

In a thread about Russian Collusion, you even quoted a poster about Russian Collusion, you now bogusly claim that what was "intuitively obvious to the most casual observer"  was not only NOT implied/inferred in your post, but quite the opposite. <FER> You say that in the middle of a mildly-heated discussion you randomly and without any acknowledgment changed the topic to an unknown topic that you yourself cannot define and then resumed talking about Russians and Collusion for another page and a half. When asked direct questions about it you go into normal 24/7/365 homey form and wont answer any questions. 

Or FAR MORE LIKELY, You got in a mildly-heated debate and said something stupid that you honestly regret but are now not mature enough to acknowledge. Instead, you would rather make post after post about your perfect flawless nature and how you can never be wrong (in your eyes) and that the rest of the world is wrong. 

Example, In my question to you i stated that the Dems may well be in control of the Senate and HOR soon and not need the Republicans in any way. You still cant admit that that might be true.

Homey, you are a truly sad lil man and you have had my pity for years. 

I stand by my quote of yours, IN CONTEXT. You stated that Trump would be removed for Collusion. I am not backing down on this and told you so the day you went off the rails and made that statement. 

You from that thread:

 

I could go on and on. All you are talking about in the thread is.....COLLUSION. 

But the issue is whether or not I wrote what you said I did. 

Keep on track.

 

Everything in the thread I stated has come true. Mueller hasnt said bumpkis about Collusion or Russians in months. The FBI has stated over and over again that "NO AMERICAN CITIZEN KNOWINGLY PARTICIPATED IN COLLUSION." The Collusion Story is now essentially dead, just as the rational people here predicted.

1) You were the one going crazy with predictions that havent come true. Trump is still an idiot but we are nowhere near removing him from office.
2) We will "give it more time" but we all know the handwriting is on the wall. Just as DF, MW, VJ  et al stated so many times, there was no real evidence for Collusion. 
3) The Democratic Party quit losing elections and started winning when they left this Russians & Collusion craziness and started talking about everyday issues again. JUST AS I AND JUSTICE DEMOCRATS WERE POINTING OUT.

Again, the issue is did I ever write what you said I did. (No)  But you called me a "liar" for saying I didn't.

You are just prevaricating now. 

Apologize for calling me a liar brother.

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

26 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Insinuated? maybe.  Quote me.

Said?  Never.

I've already explained why I don't think Trump will ever be impeached for "collusion".  It would be too hard to prove.

Where you been Nola?  David seriously needs some counsel. 

He caught you in a corner and you cannot stand it. Admit your mistake and move on. 

[homersapien 11,498]

1 hour ago, DKW 86 said:

I stand by my quote of yours, IN CONTEXT. You stated that Trump would be removed for Collusion. I am not backing down on this and told you so the day you went off the rails and made that statement. 

 

David, a quote is a quote.

No "context" is needed for you to provide a quote.  Context is only needed for inferences. 

It sounds like you are getting closer to admitting you inferred what you thought I meant instead of insisting I actually wrote it.  Is that true?

 

 

[homersapien 11,498]

26 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

He caught you in a corner and you cannot stand it. Admit your mistake and move on. 

You are a bigger weasel than he is.  You want an example to prove it?  Surely you haven't already forgotten.

Either do your homework on this or butt out.