In the very short description that the blogger gave for his blog entry, he said:
Why GOP won't challenge Voter Fraud.
It's not my fault that the blogger misrepresented his blog entry. The consent decree doesn't keep the GOP from challenging voter fraud. It doesn't even keep them from pursuing it.
I based my comments on what the blogger excerpted, since the excerpt should contain the meat of the article.
Having wasted my time reading the blog, I found nothing to change my opinion about what the blog was trying unsuccessfully to argue.
I don't care if people pimp blogs. I don't have to click the link, and I rarely do if they excerpt. And if they aren't smart enough to put good excerpt information in their threads, that's their loss when I comment on what they excerpted.
If the blogger wants me to comment on his entire thought, he can post it here.
“In the very short description that the blotter gave...he said: ‘Why GOP won’t challenge voter fraud.’”
Which is what the article was about, only before or during, not after elections.
“It’s not my fault that the blotter misrepresented his blog entry”
Not misrepresented, just incompletely explained. But then headlines never tell everything. You say it’s misleading because you got the wrong idea. I did not share your experience. If the blog pimp is at fault, at least you can admit your fault was not reading the article and commenting on it anyway. Which doesn’t necessarily matter unless you guess wrong.
“I found nothing to change my opinion about what the blog was trying to argue.”
But at least now you know what it was arguing.