Is there such a thing as unforcible rape?

[sirs]

Yea, absolutely, because that's of course what I wanted to talk about....dogs 

[BT]

Obviously

the endgame is obviously to talk about dogs on car roofs, ridiculous rape issues,
birth control, anything to shift the focus while the country's economy is going in
the crapper and gas prices are sky-high!

Carry On!

[sirs]

yeah. I was wondering why Sirs started the thread.

One has to wonder what your end game is, Bt     

[BT]

What do you think it is, if I even have one?

[sirs]

I asked first, given your latest misrepresentation effort

[BT]

Carry On Sirs.

[sirs]

So, it's just a random going-out-of-your-way effort.  Ummm  oooookaaaaay

[BT]

Well no.

You didn't ask me what my end game was, you were one who wondered what my end game was.

I really don't have an end game, nor do i have the energy or time to waste dealing with your absurd sense of persecution.

BTW, what was my misrepresentation?

[sirs]

That the point of starting the thread was to discuss dogs on roofs.   "yeah. I was wondering why Sirs started the thread", in responding to what Cu4 posted, which incidentally was a nice tweak on what his point was as well.  Nice double take

[BT]

I never claimed you started the thread to talk about dogs. If you think I did, please post a link to the post where i said exactly that.

[sirs]

already did......put it in quotes, and everything.....repeated it in the post you just responded to.  It included dogs on roofs, among other deflective efforts DWS was pulling.  oy

[BT]

So there is not a post where i claimed you wanted to post about dogs on car roofs? That was you assignment, was it not?

Accuse someone of misrepresenting your posts, you should be able to back it up, shouldn't you?

[sirs]

There IS a post where you referenced.....oh hell everyone can read for comprehension. (cues Xo to come up with his idiotic snark now)  This isn't a court of law, Bt.  I'm not required to demonstrate VERBATIM your confession.  I merely need to reference what you said.   Cu4 was trying to make a point of the deflective effort DWS, and you had to take a crack as to , oh that must be sirs' reason, when I already gave you my answer     

[BT]

So you come up empty handed when asked to provide proof of my misrepresentation.

Cu pointed out correctly that pretty much anything DWS says is a deflection away from the economy.

I was simply unclear as to whether you were helping her or not. No mention of dogs on a roof in any of my posts, because there was no mention of dogs in your original post.

[sirs]

And you do that again, and again, and again, demading a verbatim posting of your confession, when I've demonstrated again, and again, and again, what you were referencing.  Not a damn court of law, Bt.  Simply reading comprehension.  I had MADE my point clearly before Cu even posted.  HIS reference had the dog on the roof, and YOUR response was clearly bypassing what I had said, in answering your question, and implying what Cu said, which included dogs on roofs, was my reason for posting, "yeah. I was wondering why Sirs started the thread".

Why do you do this??  Why can't you simply respond to my posts with out some nefarious redirection of what I've said, or trying to seek out what my nefarious attempt supposedly is.  Be clear, if you're not sure, and leave the erroneous implications for someone else who has far more patience

OR

If you think I'm reading you wrong, speak up and make it clear.  Say something along the lines of "Sirs, sorry if you're reading me wrong.  I didn't mean to imply you were ....insert whatever the confusion is here.......  If you didn't mean "x", what did you mean?"

Let's try to debate issues, rather than throw rocks at each other