Oh I get it now. You are reading words that I'm not typing. Did I say anything even remotely similar to what you are accusing me of? Your answer is in the rest of the sentence you cropped. And that seems odd coming from someone who accuses me of cherry picking and misrepping since the part you cropped removes the actual context.Spoiler alert, it's pretty easy to spot!In post 297, Squirrel Girl wrote:Admitting that what you're doing is scummy and that I was right does NOT preclude that it was scummy and I am right.
Again, your answer is in the rest of the sentence you cropped. I'll include that here with bolded words for easy reading.In post 298, Squirrel Girl wrote:Here is Yates other reply about the cherry picking. He admits to no cherry picking at all and is DEFENDING that his "out the gate" deal qualifies them as valid quotes.
If your argument was "Pidgey and Yates are null" we wouldn't have had a problem. But that wasn't your argument, was it? You said Pidgey is Town because he did X and Yates is not Town because he didn't do X. I look at the ISO and see that - gee, Pidgey doesn't seem to be doing X at all and I *know* that I *am* doing X so where is this coming from? I ask you about it. And now we have like 4 pages of back and forth because you faked reads and won't own up to it despite being given every opportunity to recognize either your mistake or misunderstanding of what was being said and done. Mistakes happen. Misreads happen. Stubborn refusal to yield to facts? Scum.In post 299, Squirrel Girl wrote:my arguemnet was - Pidgey and Yates are null.
VOTE: Squirrel Girl
I will ask you again - what
What
Why haven't you asked