[nathanbedford]

I posted what was "written" by you.

Indeed you did but that has absolutely nothing to do with your misreading. I said, "you misread what was never written nor intended," and indeed you have. How have you misread what I wrote?

I said it is Matt Gaetz who "might be" frustrated", "Rather it might well be Matt Gatez' frustration…."

You distorted this to become not Gaetz' but my frustration: "Not sure what your frustration is with it…." Worse, you then proceeded to compound your distortion by accusing me being "cynical:" To suggest cynical intent by Gaetz… ..". Of course, I made no such suggestion-your suggestion is as misplaced as your distortion.

Having compounded distortion with false accusation, you then asked me to explain myself: "The floor is yours to explain what you "meant".

I am ever willing to defend what I said but I feel no obligation whatsoever to defend what I did not say nor to defend a false proposition advanced by someone else wrongly attributed to me.

Finally, what is "not convincing" (your words) is a mode of argument that first quotes someone but then proceeds to distort and fabricate.

[FreeReign]

You distorted this to become not Gaetz' but my frustration:

You're the one who first thought Gaetz' actions "might" be due to his frustration instead of him actually taking action because he believes in the issue.

I disagree with that assessment. I think it's an unfair assessment.

I believe Gaetz took a strong stand on the issue because it's the right thing to do. Not because he was frustrated because he didn't gain a leadership role, which would be a cynical thing for HIM to do.

Worse, you then proceeded to compound your distortion by accusing me being "cynical:"

That's your misread and fabrication.

I did not accuse you of being cynical. I said your comment was "unfortunate and not convincing".