You didn't read the original post then, did you. *He* made the focus of the sale "the week before the election".
Because I didn't see the focus as being on "the week before the election". That just happened to be when it happened. Like I said already, if it had happened a month before the election, he could have asked the same rhetorical question (with the date changed) with no effect on the point being made. I think you are grossly over emphasizing the wrong part of the post is all.
His point was about someone wanting to make the sale before the 1st of next year, not about wanting to make it before the election. You ignored that point and zeroed in on the whole "week before the election" part. I point this out only because I think it's bizarre to intentionally interpret something someone says in a way that makes no sense, and then attack that persons statement because it makes no sense. You're intentionally ignoring the part where he explains why the date is relevant (it falls before the first of next year), and pretend that it's relevant for some other reason. Then you declare that since there is no other reason why it's relevant, he must be wrong or something. That makes no damn sense at all.
There is no other significance to the date other than that it falls before the first of next year. He never claimed there was any other significance to that date. Yet your entire response assumes that there must be, apparently solely so that you can refute that very claim. You can then declare yourself "right" (and him wrong) because you are correct that there's no other significance. Um... That's the argumental equivalent of a circle jerk. Was that really the best you could do? Edited, Nov 5th 2012 7:40pm by gbaji