Please settle a debate

[Master Mason]

It's a pretty good representation of the campaign itself. To give you the background: Mason picked apart a sentence of mine (the one in message #1 in this thread) and refused to acknowledge that it means what I (its author) said it means (also as indicated in message #1 in this thread). He even went so far to create a poll (just like this one) trying to get people to agree with his interpretation (without including the alternative interpretation -- the one he had been told by the author was the correct interpretation). This was after being given "the last word" in the original thread. Evidently, he wants the last word and the one after that and the one after that until he gets to impose his personal views of what I said on me.

And Bicker refuses to believe that he said that He would vote for McCain over Obama if it was just a choice between the two, which was his original statement that is quoted above.

 

[legalsea]

Hmmm. The only reasonable interpretation is that if McCain had not selected Palin as his running mate, then the poster would have cast his vote for McCain.

In other words, the poster does not like Palin and is not voting for McCain solely because Palin is on the ticket.

 

[damo]

It depends on if you view Palin as a religious zealot.

 

[Buckalew11]

As I've said many times before, if it was just McCain versus Obama, i.e., McCain never selected a religious zealot as his VP, then I'd have voted for McCain.


To me, it clearly says that if Palin weren't in the picture, the person would vote for McCain.

Since Palin is in the picture, the person has to vote for Obama.

The person first choice is McCain.

This is the way I read it. I have no idea what you all are talking about but I am guessing this happened somewhere here. When I read the statement, I think it is saying that if Palin had not been chosen VP that McCain would have the vote. I'm not sure how it could mean otherwise.

If it is meant in another way, please fill me in because this is like one of the brainteasers to me. I'm working late tonight so I will not be around but someone fill me in, ok?

 

[tlens]

And I agree with this interpitation, which was what I was trying to convince him of in the other thread.

This is the only thing it can mean. ANything is else is weird.

 

[bicker]

More precisely (and preciseness matters) because McCain put Palin on the ticket.

 

[bicker]

It depends on if you view Palin as a religious zealot.

I think that may be the real problem: He doesn't want to attack the premise, because I can simply state that it is my personal belief that she's a religious zealot. Dead end. So he's looking for any way he can sneak some kind of rebuttal to what I said.

 

[bicker]

Cool. My poll is winning! :yea!:

 

[Aisling]

Even after being told by the author that your interpretation was wrong?

Just checking...

No "interpretation" was necessary. It was a a simple "if...,then" statement. I think the author needs to take another look at what he/she wrote, and be man/woman enough to admit it was improperly worded if the opposite conclusion was to be made by the readers, as per the authors' intentions in writing it.

It's no biggie to admit an oopsie.

 

[Buckalew11]

Oh my. OK, so I interrupted it wrong to what you were trying to say bicker. Would you fill me in on what you did mean? Like Master Mason, I read it differently that you must have meant it.

Honestly, at 1st I did not know it was written by you. I thought I knew what it meant--it seemed plain and clear, I could not imagine what or how someone misinterrupted it! LOL Now that I know you wrote it, I must know, LOL---cuase you tend to confuse people--but that one looked very clear!! LOL

 

[Aisling]

Hmmm. The only reasonable interpretation is that if McCain had not selected Palin as his running mate, then the poster would have cast his vote for McCain.

In other words, the poster does not like Palin and is not voting for McCain solely because Palin is on the ticket.

Exactly! How is an "interpretation" put into this? The quote was very clear!

 

[bicker]

And to be fair to you, you're getting it out of context. However, unlike Mason, you realized the truth: If you misunderstand something someone says, then say, "Ooops! What did you mean?"

The meaning is actually in the words: If McCain didn't pick Palin to be his VP, then I would have voted for McCain. It was his selection of Palin to be his VP that convinced me to vote against him. Poor judgment on McCain's part yield a vote for Obama.

And, again, thanks for asking what it meant.

 

[Buckalew11]

Ok, I thought I could omit the religious zealot part and still come up with the same meaning. A lot of people make accusations of people's religious views and turn it into more than it is.

I just kinda XXXXed that part out and figured he did not like Palin for whatever reason (religious or not) so McCain lost his vote.

 

[bicker]

Ok, I thought I could omit the religious zealot part and still come up with the same meaning. ... I just kinda XXXXed that part out

And you realize, it seems, that ignoring part of what someone says isn't a really good way of understanding what they say right? ... even if you don't agree with it.

 

[Master Mason]

And I feel that is naive to ingore the reality, that if based on your statement above, your picking the person you concider the second best based on a possiblity that the better might die. So, if you second best choice wins, you guarentee that the person you concider to be better for the job doesn't get it. That to me makes absolutly no sense.

If you think that by picking Palin, he suddenly became the second best, well then that's your choice, but I worry about who will be president, not who might be.

And to be fair to you, you're getting it out of context. However, unlike Mason, you realized the truth: If you misunderstand something someone says, then say, "Ooops! What did you mean?"

The meaning is actually in the words: If McCain didn't pick Palin to be his VP, then I would have voted for McCain. It was his selection of Palin to be his VP that convinced me to vote against him. Poor judgment on McCain's part yield a vote for Obama.

And, again, thanks for asking what it meant.

And how is that interpretation any different that what I originially posted above, to which you told me I was wrong?

 

[bicker]

You still don't see the difference. That's really said. Anyway. This is my thread. You go back over to your thread.

Seriously, I'm done with your inquisition. Go bother someone else.

 

[bicker]

Cool. My thread is still ahead!

 

[Master Mason]

You still don't see the difference. That's really said. Anyway. This is my thread. You go back over to your thread.

Seriously, I'm done with your inquisition. Go bother someone else.

Your thread??? Did you recently buy a controling interest in the Dis?

 

[bicker]

That part was a joke, son. That's what those smiley things are for.

 

[MushyMushy]

Mason, I don't get how you interpreted the statement. Could you please explain?

You two are amusing.