You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #35: Lol [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-10-10 10:29 PM
Response to Reply #34
35. Lol
I'm well aware of all of that

If you post that it's daytime in NY and I correct you that it's nightime... how much traction do you expect to get from "I'm well aware of that" ??? You said that my post was a diversion... when it was directly related to what the person I replied to was trying to get at (as you can see from his/her later reply). You said that I replied to you when I didn't. You said that the thread wasn't about DU when it clearly is.

if you don't mind me asking, are you so upset about the fact that I informed you of what my reply to the OP was about

I'm not upset at all. I'm lmao watching you spin. You didn't "inform me of what your reply was about"... you told me that my posts were off topic and an intentional diversion... when they neither replied to you nor were off topic. The content of your post wasn't relevant to my correction of the poster (who was, btw very much in tune with the OP's point. The OP was wrong... as was the poster I replied to... but it was your attempt to shift the subject from claimed uranium exposure issues to insisting that nobody could talk about anything until they admitted that no nuclear bomb had actually been dropped (when nobody claimed that one had).

I don't get your anger at me over the topic I initiated in this subthread.

You replied to the OP with one point of view (that the OP was actually talking about nuclear bombs rather than other claimed WMD) and Bobbieo replied maintaining the perspective of the OP that uranium exposure was causing mass casualties as a de-facto WMD (IOW, (s)he was more on topic than you were and it was your post that was the diversion). I corrected Bobbie (as I had the OP)... in context with the claims of the OP.

but it's not what I arguing with the poster about.

That's fine... and I'm allowed to argue with the poster on errors that (s)he makes. I'm not constrained to follow what you (mistakenly) insist the conversation is really about. You really aren't in a position to dictate what anyone else can say to that poster any more than the person who began the thread can decide whether or not you're allowed to make your own point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC