The only thing I see that you’re bringing up is (1) the 9 days versus 78 days before the election ... and ... (2) voting the straight party-line ticket (or not).
The original thing that started this conversation for me was whether Jim Robinson changed his mind. It was either he did change his mind about voting for Romney - or he didn’t.
It’s already been shown that he did change his mind about voting for Romney - so that settles what started this particular conversation for me
NOW ... if you want to start up some more issues about (1) 9 days or 78 days before - and - (2) straight party-line or not party-line ... well ... have at it.
I personally don’t care — as I already got my original issue solved - as to whether Jim Robinson changed his mind about voting for Romney — he did change his mind.
Now you are playing an obama... You are misstating your original intent on entering this discussion. Your original intent had nothing to do with whether JR changed or did not change his mind. Your original entry to this thread at Post 33 and the following four posts was to claim that there was nothing wrong with WikiP.D.A. or the article about FR. Here are quotes from the mentioned posts:
I didn’t see too much that was wrong with it and found out some other interesting details.
In general, I don’t think anyone should find any real big issue with the article.(33)
As far as the names and dates and items being described, it seems to be fairly accurate. I don’t see any major problems with it.<34)
What is it, in particular, that needs fixing in that article? I read it and it seemed to be generally right on...it should be easy enough to document the mistaken info, and actually correct it yourself, on the Wikipedia entry. All you would need is the supporting documentation to correct it.(35)
The article was fairly “right on” I thought. And it seemed to be accurate for dates and issues that happened.(37)
Then you began suggesting that YOU would magnanimously edit the WikiP.D.A. for us if we gave you the information.
And ... heck ... if you don’t know how to do it, just give me the citation, and I’ll get it on there for you ..(82)
give me the citation ... and ... I’ll show you .(85)
including your 'reasoning' as to why no one edited it before..
if I were to guess as to why that change has not been made on Wikipedia — it’s because no one can come up with the citation — and THAT would explain a lot, right there..(94)
And you continued with the statement implying that YOU would correct a WikiP.D.A. article if YOU knew it was faulty..
I don’t think it’s a waste of time to correct an error like that on Wikipedia. If one allows an error to stay then don’t complain about the error in the first place. I don’t take that position.
My position is that one acts to correct it - which is why I said I would do it, if you didn’t think it could be done. HOWEVER ... it takes a citation to that fact, to correct it.(99)
Along the line both I (post 86) and ansel12 (post 106) pointed out to you the false attribution by nonexistent link of the WikiP.D.A. article, thereby presenting an error that you had just stated YOU would correct if it was up to you. You then proceded to spend the next forty or so posts pretending that the WikiP.D.A. error was not all that bad, alluding to a document that 'they' have, and other misdirections. When presented in post 149 with the logical support of 'our' as opposed to 'your' comments you pretend that you cannot read with comprehension words in English, redirect to items that never were in the discussion, and then proclaim that you had no interest in anything you had been previously arguing by inventing an "original interest" that you never posted ("I personally don’t care — as I already got my original issue solved - as to whether Jim Robinson changed his mind about voting for Romney ") as a means to remove yourself from the discussion.
Referring again to post 149 please read the following:
"OUR original premise has been proved. I suggest that you get on the line promptly with your TBL buddies and dig up the proper information. It might after all be out there, but either way, WikiP.D.A. is in error. Unless and until you find 'their' post - which by implication you do not have access to - from FR on Oct. 27 or thereabouts and undertake to correct the WikiP.D.A. account, YOUR braggadocio of being able to edit with ease a WikiP.D.A. article will be regarded as torofeces. Unless and until you perform the above, and supply such information, no further communication will be necessary. "
You have been provided with sufficient information that no matter what information you may eventually come up with, the current information you have been presented with and now possess (irrespective of future discoveries) requires by your own words in post 99 that YOU now edit the faulty article.
You have provided none of the prerequisite information or actions that enable further conversation. You have however proven to be a misdirecting disruptor who prefers to embroil argument rather than engage logic.
No further communication is warranted.
Ansel12, I pinged you out of courtesy since I mentioned you. If you would prefer I not do so let me know. I will try to remember - even though my brain leaks more now than it did 30 years ago.. ;-)