Friar Bijou wrote:
Provide 5 different links to where I have done the bolded and I'll agree with your above statements. Don't provide them and, I dunno, fuck off?
Don't feel like digging too much, but this thread itself contains the example we just talked about. To be fair, it was Tricky who initially misstated my earlier post, but you chose to pick up that torch and carry it (not even sure why given I'd already pointed out his mistake prior to you getting involved). Um... There's
this thread, which is the one I was most directly thinking about. You did it, not once, but
twice. Ironically, like in two posts in a row:
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
Did you forget you wrote that part?
Actually, Smash wrote it originally. But I do agree that private industry accepts government funding/assistance/favorable regulations as a means to increase revenue and/or decrease costs. Which results in higher profits.
You took what I quoted from Smash, attributed it to me, and then completely missed what my point was at the time and assumed I was saying it was good for government to subsidize businesses to help them pad profits (um... which wasn't remotely close).
You then, in the very next post, quoted and bolded the second paragraph of that post thusly:
gbaji wrote:
And, as I pointed out just a bit ago, I'm far less concerned about someone pursuing a profit motive than a control motive. One enriches someone, which may or may not benefit or harm me at all. The other grants someone else control over me. Which always harms me.
Later in the thread, we had this exchange:
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
You wrote that if a government subsidy increases profit to a business that does not harm you.
Sigh. I said it may or may not harm me. You even bolded it when responding the first time. Do people just not freaking read?
This being in reference to the earlier quote by you, of me, where you could not have missed that I said it "may or may not benefit or harm me at all" in specific reference to businesses gaining/padding profits as a result of government subsidies. So yeah. You absolutely suck, both at reading what people write *and* following context. BTW, this is the thread where it occurred to me that you do this a lot.
Then, there's
this thread. Don't feel like quoting the whole exchange, but post #297 is a good central point. You missed entirely the context of my tazer comment (which you admittedly acknowledged when I pointed it out), but then you also accused me of changing Smash's comparison criteria when it was actually Smash who had changed mine (a couple times). Then, when I pointed this out, you basically went off on some tangent trying to claim that it was bad logic when trying to determine if race is a determining factor to create a comparison case in which only the race of the person is changed, but good logic to change the size, weight, and se.x of the person as well.
So we've got you failing to follow context, accusing me of doing what Smash had actually done, but then trying to defend that with what has to be one of the most bizarre arguments I've seen on this forum.
That's not five, but that's four in just the last month and a half. I'm reasonably certain that, barring some very unlikely posting change by you very recently, there are probably a ton of other examples if we were to take the time to examine your entire posting history. And look, I'm not saying that we all haven't done this. I know for a fact that I have too. Sometimes I mix up who said what, or in what order, or just plain misread what someone wrote. But it just seems like you do this at a higher rate than others (or maybe I'm just noticing it a lot recently). Honestly, it just really stuck out in my head in that thread about the police shooting/choking, and when you did it again (even more blatantly) in the Comcast thread, it was reinforced even more, so that when you again launched into an argument with me in this thread based entirely on a misreading of something I'd written, I decided to comment on it.
It just seems like an abnormally high percentage of your posts directed at me involve you failing to correctly read something I wrote earlier. Not all, of course (and you're certainly not the only poster who does this), but I've just noticed it a lot recently. And to be perfectly honest, this is a pet peeve of mine, but it's something that seems to happen a lot here. I'm reasonably certain that some posters (like Lolgaxe and probably Smash) do it intentionally, so I ignore them. But I don't think you do, which is probably why I commented.
Oh. And I think I was also probably annoyed by the whole "You keep tossing out facts like they mean something" bit you threw at me a couple days ago. That one's at least as annoying as the "I don't get my news from anywhere" joke. And in both cases, it's entirely about ignoring the context of the statements I made. So it's possible I was already primed to be irritated at you because of that.