My Blogosphere Comments and Writing

Mark-John K: "Pitiful Spin. I was referring to Congress, her co-horts, and Madame Speaker. I'm letting you know that there was nothing to BE "cleared up." Now, get back to class.

Ritchie: "Oh yeah! Why I outta..."

Now THAT'S how to make a whack-back comment without content or calories.

You don't have to demonstrate any rational, reasoning, logical, rhetorical skills to post or comment on Gather. However, you might want to look at this list of logical fallacies, and these suggestions for establishing arguments. Unless your nose is held so high it is impossible for you to read this, in which case, NEVERMIND.

By the way, here's what you wrote: "I believe Pelosi is at about 16%, and that is generous."

Here's your "revised" claim: "I was referring to Congress, her co-horts, and Madame Speaker."

Notice that your first statement makes no reference to Congress or co-horts. Your revised statement incorporates my facts. Now, if you were to revise that, one more time, and say:

"Congress has an approval rating of about 16%."

THEN you would have said something that is true. What do we call the thing that somebody says that isn't true?

You remind me of The Daily Show when they play video of some big shot saying one thing followed by a video of them saying something very different--or even the opposite.

This remark tells me you understand exactly what needs to be cleared up: "I'm letting you know that there was nothing to BE "cleared up."

Often people revise their argument to avoid embarassment.

Mark-John K: "Now, get back to class."

That makes you sound like an authoritarian parent.

The ease of responding to your comment reminded me of my days on the farm in Wyoming and gutting a deer.