Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
But surely you can also understand how one could get the impression that your post might just be about deflection?
It was simply an observation, as CLEARLY stated.
Sure. But the observation primarily served the purpose of deflecting the criticism away from Clinton without actually addressing it.
Quote:
Here, let me hold your hand; just replace "AMC Pacer" with candidate" and "bad paint job" with "personality quirk":
gbaji: My friends' dad owned an 1976 AMC Pacer and it had a terrible paint job that peeled within a year
me: My mom's 1975 Pacer peeled like that, too. I wonder if that's why Pacers were not popular?
Except that you didn't do this. This would be equivalent to saying "Yeah, Clinton had the same problem the last time she ran in a primary, so maybe she'll have a problem this time around as well". Comparing one model year to another of
the same car would be equivalent to comparing two different years of campaigning
by the same person. You didn't do that.
What you did was more equivalent to a conversation about a new Chevy coming out, and known Ford guy mentions a possible problem with it, and your response is to point out that there was a Ford that had the same problem once. Not talk about whether the problem exists, or how much of a problem it might be, or how it might affect sales of the actual car in question, but just out of the blue say that a Ford had that problem. I don't think it's unreasonable at all to assume that the person who did that was a Chevy guy and was deflecting discussion of a possible problem with the Chevy by attacking Ford. The clear purpose is to push the criticism back at the Ford guy, right? Everyone would get that.
Hence my response. You didn't engage in any kind of discussion about Clinton, but shifted it to a conversation about Romney.
Quote:
It was an observation about a possible shared trait as compared between two humans.
And the purpose of making the observation was? Did you have a point? A little self examination might be in order here.
I get it. I also get that when people verbalize/write observations there's always a reason for doing so. Otherwise it's just random words.