Originally Posted by
Latrinsorm
You guys do this weird thing where a person says something and you read the opposite. For example, Bill Maher said Franken deserved universal condemnation, which Terry read as Bill Maher not finding those accusations credible. I say Terry succeeded at his goal and congratulate him on it, and you imply I did the opposite, moving the goalposts.
I mean, I guess I get it? You're manifestly wrong, so it's easier on your ego to pretend you aren't. I feel like it would be even easier for you to just stop being wrong, but apparently not.Obviously that has nothing to do with what I said. I asked you who said the accusations against Senator Franken weren't credible, and now we have the answer: some random blogger nobody ever heard of. We did it! The system works! I don't get why we're not high fiving about this.