No, you didn’t. Further, you put more words into my mouth to fit your paranoid self righteousness. Actually, I don’t even think you are trying any more.
Figures you’d be a lawyer. That entire profession is unable to read anything except through the obtuse world of left brained, type B, bureaucratic filters to the point that the gist is always missed. So I’ll amend 8th grade comp and change it to hyper literalism to the point of misconstruction and non sequential interpretation. When this mixes with your paranoia and your self righteouness, your fantasies include all kinds of evil subversive imaginations that have no root in reality.
Example. My agreement with Beck was only around the edges, on the strategy, and even that was circumspect. But the bureaucrat in you saw “agree with Beck” and went off the friggin deep end.
Actually, I did.
Further, you put more words into my mouth to fit your paranoid self righteousness.
No you said you agreed with Beck and I basically paraphrased Beck's position and indicated that to me your agreement with Beck meant that you agreed with his sentiment as expressed in the article. You never bothered to actually clarify what it was that Beck said that you agreed with, so I was left with the conclusion that you believed, like him that the GOP and conservatives need to embrace homosexual marriage rather than continue to fight against it.
Figures you’d be a lawyer. That entire profession is unable to read anything except through the obtuse world of left brained, type B, bureaucratic filters to the point that the gist is always missed.
The entire profession, huh? Pretty broad generalization there Chuck.
So I’ll amend 8th grade comp and change it to hyper literalism to the point of misconstruction and non sequential interpretation.
So it looks like the problem is not with my reading comprehension skills so it must lie somewhere else. Perhaps the reason you are misunderstood is not because us common folk freepers are having reading comprehension problems. Indeed we saw what you wrote and we comprehended EXACTLY what it was you said. But now you are complaining that we should not have taken your words so literally and instead we should have somehow been able to glean some unexpressed thoughts from your own words and to gather from the pneumbras of your explicit statement that "I agree with Beck" and come to some other conclusion other than that "you agreed with Beck." Perhaps the problem is not my reading comprehension skills, but it may lie instead in your deficient writing and composition skills. Perhaps if you took the time to tell us what it was that you meant when you said "I agree with Beck" that we might have been able to draw some other conclusion other than the logical conclusion that you must "Agree with Beck."
Example. My agreement with Beck was only around the edges, on the strategy, and even that was circumspect. But the bureaucrat in you saw “agree with Beck” and went off the friggin deep end.
That is what I am saying. I didn't know that when the brilliant wordsmith C. Edmund Wright, says "I agree with Beck" that us lowly uneducated dolts who hang around Free Republic and trade ideas should have the good sense to understand that what you REALLY meant was that this should be interpreted as being agreement "only around the edges, on the strategy" and that C. Edmund Wright should not be taken literally because everyone can tell that C. Edmund Wright was just being "circumspect."
I think I get it now.
I'd ask you what you mean by "only around the edges, on the strategy" but seeing as how I only have a Juris Doctorate degree I'm sure I would not be able to properly interpret the esoteric circumspection that would accompany any simple answer and I might actually commit the sin of literally taking you at your word.
Merry Christmas.
Marlowe