Why did you respond to my post like this? Did it somehow upset you?
I separated the paragraphs because they were two completely different ideas. In the first paragraph I suggested that there may be some people who don't want to have someone "get in their face". Generally you can't get into someone's face unless you are face to face. Obama has suggested that his supporters use this technique. There may be some people who do not wish for this to happen. That was the first idea.
To start a completely different idea, I used a completely different paragraph. (It's been a long time since I was in school, but that is the way that we were taught many years ago to separate ideas) In that second paragraph I described a telephone call that I received from a very nice and polite Obama supporter. (I am almost certain that she doesn't post on this board). I told her that I was undecided because I didn't want to upset her - not because I thought she would "get in my face", but because I had empathy for her as a human being and did not want to make her sad.
>>So you think the election will be decided by people who secretly like McCain but are so swayed by peer pressure that they tell the pollsters who call them that they like Obama so the pollsters will think they are cool?<<
You responded that they might have been concerned that someone would be "in their face" or argue with them. As I had mentioned only people being called by pollsters, I assumed "they" in a sentence responded to my post actually referred to the same folks I was talking about.
When you were in school, they didn't teach you need to indicate who your pronouns refer to? As you did not indicate that "they" meant anyone different or new, the assumption that you were referring to the only group who'd actually been mentioned, those receving calls from pollsters, was the only possible logical choice.
>>"Well...how encouraging, truly an example of how impressive a government of the people can be."<<
>>They may have been concerned that someone would "get in their face" and "argue with them".<<
Despite the fact it was a new paragraph I was still talking about "the people" who had been lying to pollsters so as to appear cool. Who were you talking about?
angry? Nope, entirely amused waching your footwork!
I suppose I should warn you that, according to TPTB, sarcasm will not be tolerated amongst posters of good faith here at the "clean, well-lighted place" for run-of-the-mill opinions.
Unless you're a Republican, of course. Then it's OK - hence the term "IOKIYAR."
Pages
Why did you respond to my post like this? Did it somehow upset you?
I separated the paragraphs because they were two completely different ideas. In the first paragraph I suggested that there may be some people who don't want to have someone "get in their face". Generally you can't get into someone's face unless you are face to face. Obama has suggested that his supporters use this technique. There may be some people who do not wish for this to happen. That was the first idea.
To start a completely different idea, I used a completely different paragraph. (It's been a long time since I was in school, but that is the way that we were taught many years ago to separate ideas) In that second paragraph I described a telephone call that I received from a very nice and polite Obama supporter. (I am almost certain that she doesn't post on this board). I told her that I was undecided because I didn't want to upset her - not because I thought she would "get in my face", but because I had empathy for her as a human being and did not want to make her sad.
The JFK Nixon election was very very close, and Illinois determined the out come of that election.
Here is my post, the one you responded to:
>>So you think the election will be decided by people who secretly like McCain but are so swayed by peer pressure that they tell the pollsters who call them that they like Obama so the pollsters will think they are cool?<<
You responded that they might have been concerned that someone would be "in their face" or argue with them. As I had mentioned only people being called by pollsters, I assumed "they" in a sentence responded to my post actually referred to the same folks I was talking about.
When you were in school, they didn't teach you need to indicate who your pronouns refer to? As you did not indicate that "they" meant anyone different or new, the assumption that you were referring to the only group who'd actually been mentioned, those receving calls from pollsters, was the only possible logical choice.
Did you forget that you said, ""Well...how encouraging, truly an example of how impressive a government of the people can be."
This is what prompted me to comment on Obama's "Get in their faces" suggestion.
And I do not understand all of the apparent anger. Are you feeling edgy after seeing today's polls?
NO, like others said most people don't want in your face arguments.
The JFK Nixon election was very very close, and Illinois determined the out come of that election.
dablacksox
Cynic: a blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.---Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary.
>>"Well...how encouraging, truly an example of how impressive a government of the people can be."<<
>>They may have been concerned that someone would "get in their face" and "argue with them".<<
Despite the fact it was a new paragraph I was still talking about "the people" who had been lying to pollsters so as to appear cool. Who were you talking about?
angry? Nope, entirely amused waching your footwork!
I suppose I should warn you that, according to TPTB, sarcasm will not be tolerated amongst posters of good faith here at the "clean, well-lighted place" for run-of-the-mill opinions.
Unless you're a Republican, of course. Then it's OK - hence the term "IOKIYAR."
McCain LOST???
Not so fast melanie230......below is from CNN tonight.
Pages