I asked a polite question, you explained, and we can proceed.
I may (and in this specific case, do disagree) with your perception of my statement because a core belief of mine is the exact opposite-I believe it isn't even a contest in which Leftists and Conservatives inhabit the same universe simply because we look at money differently than they do.
But if we have this kind of exchange, at least I understand which specific concept or statement is in question and can counter with a polite clarification.
I simply fail to see why that kind of exchange would be so difficult.
In this case, someone might reasonably ask why I should introduce the statement about conservatives at all, and I would say that in the free flow of discussion, it was in response to a specific poster upthread who mentioned Conservatives in California, and him being an actor, to me his politics were unknown...which I regard as a positive thing in general from Hollywood. But as I said, if he were a conservative, that wouldn't make him immune to poor money management because as you also said, anyone can be prone to poor money management. The obverse (in my case, unstated) side of that is that non-Conservatives, especially of the kind that inhabit Hollywood, don't know their ass from their elbow when it comes to economic policy or money management.
One can rationally make the case I didn't spell something out explicitly enough in the give ebb and flow of ideas in a thread where one reads a post by one person and responds to another by expanding on a salient point made by someone else in the thread, but I would then ask how often is that actually explicitly done unless one is pointing out a specific statement?
And someone could respond "You should be more explicit because..." which in this case, would be in response to an absolutely polite question.
And so on.
And in the end, you may STILL disagree, but that is likely the worst outcome. And that isn't so bad.
And that is what was at issue in this case: The exchange never became real discourse where two people could agree or disagree on substance.
This negativity and bad blood could be avoided it people actually engaged in discussion rather than getting their rocks off by calling something "ridiculous", "stupid" or simply resorting to an ad hominem attack which is all too common from all sides, particularly on Ukraine threads where, depending on a given stance, one is either a "Putin Stooge" or a "Globo-Homo Supporter".
I really hate seeing that kind of thing, but there it is.
In any case, I thank you, I mean it, and here's why:
The answer you gave is what should have followed my explanatory response to the other person's question at #13 where I was asked "What kind of statement is this?"which I believe I answered rationally, politely, and to the point, ending with "What did you think I meant?".
That would be an example of how to engage in civil discourse.
Succinctly, i agree.