<<So, you used my words . . . >>
Yes, I did.
<< . . . and reinvented them to apply to your way of thinking. >>
Uh, reinvented? I gave them their ordinary English meaning.
<<Your words have fluctuation as in"basically" . . . >>
Really? How did "basically" change the meaning of what I said? That shouldn't be a hard question to answer. My original post in its exact words was this:
<<I am merely suggesting what seems to be the obvious, that any British government support for any Muslim organization is the "kiss of death" for it in the eyes of any Muslims who are not already moderates. >>
Then, when I inserted the word "basically" into a reprise of my original quotation, the line read like this (again, my exact words):
<<So, basically, I had said that - - apart from Muslims who were already "moderates" - - any Muslim who wasn't a "moderate" would be offended by Brown's support of a "good Muslim" organization.>>
So, where is the "fluctuation" that you pretend to see in my words?
<< while mine [my words] have this supposed concreteness to them. >>
You'll have to explain that one to me. Who's doing the supposing? You or I?
<<It couldn't possibly have been that I actually meant what I actually said. >>
Anything's possible. Usually, I think you mean whatever stupid thing you happen to be uttering at the time, till the total absurdity of it is painfully exposed, at which point you start to back-track frantically, as you are doing here - - "I didn't say this, you didn't say that, I said X, you said Y" in some kind of pathetic kerfuffle, trying to becloud the issues and even the sequences of the thread itself, hoping desperately that nobody will take the trouble to trace back through the thread to see who actually said what.
<<Pretty much what I thought. >>
Funny, you and thinking don't seem to go together very naturally.
<< Next time, try to use a quote that can actually demonstrate what you say I say, like ......oh perhaps this quote "Actually, any muslim who practices the act of targeting and killing innocent women & children, including blowing up mosques, and those who advocates/supports such are terrorists or radical muslims. A distinct difference, I'm afraid to say". >>
Actually, I'll use the quote that best illustrates your narrow-minded either-or way of thinking, and that's the one I already used. The quote that you'd like me to use is way off the mark, because my original remarks did not refer to "terrorists" or their supporters but clearly on their face, to anyone familiar with the English language, referred to Muslims who were not moderates - - again, in my exact words, since you seem to have trouble remembering what they are, reproduced here, "any Muslims who are not already moderates," or as I rephrased them, "basically . . . apart from Muslims who were already "moderates" - - any Muslim who wasn't a "moderate."
So it should be clear from everything I wrote in this thread that Brown's actions would succeed only in pissing off any Muslims who weren't already "moderates" - - clearly, this would include Muslims who were "terrorists" and radicals, as well as Muslims who were neither "terrorists" nor radicals but at the same time were not "moderates" either.
Now, how did you respond to my claim that Brown was pissing off those Muslims? In your own words,
<<You mean Islamic terrorists or radical muslims might be offended?? >>
Very simply, sirs, you responded to my claim that Brown would offend any Muslim who was not a "moderate" with the clear and unmistakeable inference that any Muslim who is not a "moderate" has to be either a "radical Muslim" or a "terrorist." Clearly a ridiculous and untenable allegation, from which you are now back-pedalling madly.
<<That way, you won't look so feebly desperate>>
Uhh, yeah. Thank you for your concern, sirs, but I am not the one who is looking feeble and desperate here.