Oh, please.
There's clearly a conjunction in that sentence, isn't there, meaning that there are, um, TWO separate sentences connected by the word "and."
I was clearly addressing the first sentence, which stands on its own. Which is what the conjunction "and" indicates.
The first sentence does attempt to speak for me, for the reasons I have already set out. That is all.
In fact, in my original reply to onyx, I only copied the first sentence as the quote to which I was responding. So please don't try to spin my objection to her statement into something else. I wasn't objecting to her "complete statement." I was objecting to one, stand-alone sentence, which I made clear by quoting back to her only that one, stand-alone sentence.
What I objected to was the blanket statement that "Free Republic is supporting Newt Gingrich," and I clearly stated that that was the sentence, and the only sentence, I found unfounded.
Then you posted something that you now explain goes to the SECOND sentence. You completely ignored the distinction I was drawing between "not letting posters tear Gingrich down" and "Free Republic supports Newt Gingrich."
Saying "Free Republic supports Newt Gingrich" obviously is an attempt, and a wrong one, to speak for me. Please don't.
If you'd like to discuss what it means to "tear down Newt," -- a separate issue from "Free Republic supports Newt" -- then let's do so. That's why I asked you, for example, your definition of "trashing" a candidate. I asked, for example, are you claiming one can only praise Newt Gingrich?
You didn't answer.
I'm officially endorsing Newt Gingrich for President today.
I asked, for example, are you claiming one can only praise Newt Gingrich?
You didn't answer.
I most certainly did. I gave you the owners quote. You have a problem with it, address him.
Why are you arguing about semantics.
The statement that "Free Republic supports Newt Gingrich" could mean that the ownership of Free Republic supports Newt.