Trying to understand Liberals

[Plane]

You are making no sense at all.

Did it make sense for you to say "I am not a fetus"?

You have been a fetus it is just a life stage.

Haveing no respect for human life is a bad thing.
But you can compartmentalise people into those who are persons and those who are non persons, then your disrespect for the non persons doesn't threaten your own ilk.

However, it no longer makes sense for you to criticise Natzis of 1935 Germany or Confederates of  1866 America for doing precicely the same .

[sirs]

No, I wasn't wrong, if you demonstrated that you appeared to not get it either.

Did i demonstrate that? If so where?

The where is in exactly how I referenced it.  Instead of letting Xo in on the pun, you're out there inquiring why hasn't sirs, as if you had no idea, either.  I've been in many a debate, where if a poster was "questioning" something, and another poster knew, or at least had an idea what the answer was, they'd post it for assistance to the person asking.  You didn't do that, did you.  Ergo, you made it appear that you didn't get it either,

What you could have done is to enlighten Xo as to what you believed the pun to be about, but instead you played the ignorant roll in this little tangential thread to nowhere.

No. I asked if you were deflecting his question.

Which would be the response if you didn't know what the pun was, and thought I didn't either. I then made it clear that I wasn't

As far as pointing it out to xo, it was so transparent as to what the pun was, I really didn't think it needed an arrow.

But yet he asked, and you deflected

NO, since a deflection is a response when one doesn't have an answer, or can't answer, or is embarrased by the truth of the answer.  I both knew and had no problem with posting it.  You then asked if it was some form of deflection, which I made clear how it wasn't 

You're starting to move into the misrepresentation phase again, with this completely irrelevent tangent.  WHY?  I had such great respect for you Bt, and you're pulling this crap again??

Me i was more curious about the need to deflect.

That credibility meter just keeps going down and down.  I feel for yas.  And thanks again for taking all this time and energy to take stabs at my non-deflection, while Xo's stupidity comments aimed at me continue to get a pass from you.

[Xavier_Onassis]

There was no pun.

I was a fetus but I am not a fetus any longer. It lakes prefect sense to state that I am not a fetus. It is the absolute truth. I am not an egg, a sperm or a zygote, either.

And no, I will give the job of respecting fetuses to the only person responsible: the woman who has one inside. It is not my business to respect any damn fetus.

[BT]

The where is in exactly how I referenced it.  Instead of letting Xo in on the pun, you're out there inquiring why hasn't sirs, as if you had no idea, either.  I've been in many a debate, where if a poster was "questioning" something, and another poster knew, or at least had an idea what the answer was, they'd post it for assistance to the person asking.  You didn't do that, did you.  Ergo, you made it appear that you didn't get it either,

Nice attempt at minimizing, but your original charge that i didn't get it didn't contain the wiggle word appear that appeared afterwards.

Ya know, I'm not sure what is more disconcerting......that a language professor couldn't grasp the "dead" pun, or that Bt couldn't     

And it really is not my job to explain your puns. But one won't think that if after being asked three times the same question, the question would be answered.

as  for the deflection:

NO, since a deflection is a response when one doesn't have an answer, or can't answer, or is embarrased by the truth of the answer.

Interesting definition. Would it be embarrassing to get caught doing the same thing you accuse others of doing? For example:

and again with the DEFLECTION of trying to claim false accusation, or that a songwriter is an an accomplice to the murder, if they glorify them in song.  You best stop while you're........oh, too late.

or this one:

Wow...a hard core liberal not grasping how to understand liberals??        Notice also yet ANOTHER example of the deflection master, implying the piece is about liberals wanting to confiscate 100% of everything rich, and give that 100% to everything not rich

[sirs]

The where is in exactly how I referenced it.  Instead of letting Xo in on the pun, you're out there inquiring why hasn't sirs, as if you had no idea, either.  I've been in many a debate, where if a poster was "questioning" something, and another poster knew, or at least had an idea what the answer was, they'd post it for assistance to the person asking.  You didn't do that, did you.  Ergo, you made it appear that you didn't get it either

Nice attempt at minimizing, but your original charge that i didn't get it didn't contain the wiggle word appear that appeared afterwards.

Wrong again, since appeared was used in how I came to my conclusion, when you "asked".  It wasn't necessary in the very 1st response. 

And it really is not my job to explain your puns.

No, of course not.  I wasn't asking...XO was.  It was pretty transparent, that apparently even you got it.  But the language professor apparently couldn't 

The fact you had to spend all this ridiculous time with your erroneous claims of deflection, punctuated now by the SOP of misrepresentation, all the while Xo's much more blatant stupidity barbs, remain unmentioned, dare I say, "speaks volumes". 

But its ok, I think the pattern has been established now.  Your "inquiry" as to "is that a deflection" was never serious.  You (erroneously) decided it was.  And despite overwehlming facts and explanations to the contrary, you're going to rationalize what ever you need to, in order to justify your original erroroneus conclusion (the stepping into the misrperesentation phase of this ridicuous tangent the thread has taken)

as  for the deflection:

NO, since a deflection is a response when one doesn't have an answer, or can't answer, or is embarrased by the truth of the answer.

Interesting definition. Would it be embarrassing to get caught doing the same thing you accuse others of doing?

and again with the DEFLECTION of trying to claim false accusation, or that a songwriter is an an accomplice to the murder, if they glorify them in song.  You best stop while you're........oh, too late. 

or this one:

Wow...a hard core liberal not grasping how to understand liberals??        Notice also yet ANOTHER example of the deflection master, implying the piece is about liberals wanting to confiscate 100% of everything rich, and give that 100% to everything not rich

Only if they were inaacurate references.  Since they weren't, they too are not deflection efforts.  But keep up the hard work.  Misrepresenting sirs appears to have become a devoted hobby of yours.   

[BT]

It wasn't necessary in the very 1st response. 

Sure it was, that was where you leveled your accusation.

[sirs]

It wasn't an accusation, it was an observation, so no, it wasn't.  When asked, I then provided you the necessary clarity which brought about the observation.

I think we're done here, unless your hobby hasn't met its quota for the day

[BT]

You sure do cut and run a lot.


of course that is just an observation.

Just as i observed that you were deflecting XO's queries in the pun thread. Not matter your protestations.

Geez i used to respect you Sirs, always trying to be polite and objective, but now all you do is misrepresent, deflect and hit enter and declare victory.

Of course that is also just an observation.

[Xavier_Onassis]

sirs should identify what he calls a "pun"

He cannot, alas, for there is no pun. sirs might not know what a pun is.

[BT]

sirs should identify what he calls a "pun"

He cannot, alas, for there is no pun. sirs might not know what a pun is.

One would think he would have answered the question at least after the third request instead of making snarky observations about your credentials, and as adverse as he is to deflection, but alas he did not see the need.

or so i observed.

[Xavier_Onassis]

He has not, because he cannot.

There is no pun.

[sirs]

You sure do cut and run a lot.

If most all readers have noted, there are copious amounts of my posting, on this and other subjects.  Many of which find me saying the same thing over and over again, in trying to redirect these deflection and misrepresentation efforts, which pretty much debunks the idea of "cut & running".  But alas, let me not get in the way of your mandated quota of misrepresentating sirs.   By all means, continue.  Your continued defending of Xo and pass of his stupidity references is also duly noted

[BT]

STILL WAITING......Debate forurm.......questions posed.......still waiting for responses to those specific questions       

The irony.

[sirs]

Indeed.  Let us know when you plan to address those questions

[Xavier_Onassis]

However, it no longer makes sense for you to criticise Natzis of 1935 Germany or Confederates of  1866 America for doing precicely the same .
====================================================================
Did they say that a woman has a right to determine the fate of her fetus? That is my position.

I believe that this was not what they were condemned for.

The Nazis were condemned for exterminating human beings, not fetuses.

By 1866, the Confederates did not need condemnation. Someone might have told them "We told you so", about the profound unwisdom of secession and then firing on Ft. Sumter.