I said it was simple. Why do you assume what else I must have also meant and then also expect me to answer for your imagination?
I donât think you understand what cherry picking is. You quote two paragraphs, I quote four. I emphasise words using bold because youâve obviously missed them if you think the WaPo article proves your point.
The state department spokeswoman is, irrespective of whether you believe it or not, stating fact. It is fact that when something changes in the political landscape, foreign relations departments of countries the world round start having discussion about who is involved and who to support in order to best suit their interests. Thatâs why governments have foreign relation departments. She is stating that it shouldnât be any surprise. You seem surprised by it, for someone who likes the facts speaking for themselves.
PS: so itâs this option then?
or you feel like youâve dug in this far and would like to continue responding to me in the hope I lose interest in making an example of your foolishness.
@Peacen1k No, I dismissed your irrelevant original snark which was stated as if you have all the answers. When I pressed you for answers, you found a WaPo article that contained exactly two paragraphs that support your argument that the US is somehow pulling the strings in Ukraine. The thing is that these paragraphs only make that suggestion if you take them out of context of the whole article, as you dishonestly did. You are the one who is incorrectly presenting the significance of this phone conversation and youâre simply repeating the accusations as made by RT and pro Russian media.
Finite is only so finite peaced1k. I find it amusing that you accuse me of digging a hole as I did you. This seems to be a running theme with you. You cherry pick, suddenly Iâm cherry picking (words, no less). Youâre digging yourself a hole, suddenly Iâm digging myself a hole, despite the fact that youâd rather make this personal instead of responding to my criticism of your argument. Iâm happy to let the readers decide whose argument holds water.
Unfortunately for you the facts speak for themselves. You originally dismissed these as propaganda, but had to admit your ignorance only to try and save face with your delusional comments to The Washington Post article, highlighted by your appeal to the authority of a government spokesperson as some source of final closure.
This, together with your juvenile miss-spelling of my forum nick, and your inability to understand a conversation between two adults really defines you as a person. Iâm sure that, given more time, the hole you dug for yourself would only get deeper, so I suppose the finite time given for this thread is your one small consolation.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
