Please settle a debate

[Master Mason]

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

Sorry, your not my dad, so therefore I am not your son.

 

[Master Mason]

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

You two are amusing.

I interpreted it as it was stated. If it was between Obama and McCain only then he would have chosen McCain.

 

[Aisling]

Originally Posted by Aisling


I read the quote, and, as written, it says that the poster would vote for McCain if not for Palin being on the ticket.

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

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.

I wasn't asking what it meant, as it was clear. I also meant the "oopsie" to be used by the author of the original quote.

Bicker said: 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.

MasterMason and I said: I read the quote, and, as written, it says that the poster would vote for McCain if not for Palin being on the ticket.

Forgive me, but what's the difference?????

 

[Goofyluver]

Okay...this is fun.

I just wanna see where it goes.

For the record...I think that if I say something...I get to say what it means.

 

[Aisling]

I interpreted it as it was stated. If it was between Obama and McCain only then he would have chosen McCain.

This is fun! lol

 

[marlasmom]

If McCain haDn't picked Palin that person would have voted for him. I'm unhappy (to put it mildly) about Palin but I am voting for McCain (I guess as a vote against Obama).

 

[Aisling]

Okay...this is fun.

I just wanna see where it goes.

For the record...I think that if I say something...I get to say what it means.

Then all conversation wold be chaos! I prefer spaghetti if it had no sauce, so since it has sauce I will eat a bowl of cereal! But that doesn't mean I'd prefer spaghetti.

 

[Master Mason]

Okay...this is fun.

I just wanna see where it goes.

For the record...I think that if I say something...I get to say what it means.

But you don't get to say it means something other than what it means, otherwise you have to change what you said.

For example, if you said the sky is green, you can't then attempt to tell us that means you said the sky is blue. Words mean things, sentence structure tells us how to interpret those words, basic 3rd grade english stuff here.

 

[Jennasis]

I believe it means (IMHO), that due to McCain's poor judgement in picking Palin, he lost bicker's vote. Conversely, had McCain chosen somebody who wasn't a religious zealot, he would have voted for him.

Just my opinion, and if I'm misunderstanding you bicker, I apologize, cause ultimately things mean whatever the author says they mean. The internet does not allow for inflection and therefore many things typed wind up subject to the reader's interpretation even if it was not what the writer intended.

 

[Aisling]

Bicker made an oopsie!

 

[ChrizJen]

I read it to mean that McCain's choice of Palin as his running mate cost him the vote.

I think I see the difference.
To simply state that the OP prefers MCain over Obama is an oversight. You're ignoring the fact that McCain's choice of VP running mate is what made the OP question voting for McCain.

If I'm interpreting the interpretations correctly:
Here's my interpretation: (hee hee)

Master Mason sees it as a statement that bicker prefers McCain over Obama. Simply put.

But what bicker is actually trying to say is that at one time he would have voted for McCain. But his choice in VP running mate has led bicker to question McCain's credibility, and therefore has lost McCain bicker's vote.

Am I even close?

 

[corndog]

I read it to mean that McCain's choice of Palin as his running mate cost him the vote.

I think I see the difference.
To simply state that the OP prefers MCain over Obama is an oversight. You're ignoring the fact that McCain's choice of VP running mate is what made the OP question voting for McCain.

If I'm interpreting the interpretations correctly:
Here's my interpretation: (hee hee)

Master Mason sees it as a statement that bicker prefers McCain over Obama. Simply put.

But what bicker is actually trying to say is that at one time he would have voted for McCain. But his choice in VP running mate has led bicker to question McCain's credibility, and therefore has lost McCain bicker's vote.

Am I even close?

That's how I took it as well.

I guess the follow-up question for me would be is it possible to not be an atheist and to not be a religious zealot (in bicker's eyes)?

 

[Master Mason]

Master Mason sees it as a statement that bicker prefers McCain over Obama. Simply put.

But what bicker is actually trying to say is that at one time he would have voted for McCain. But his choice in VP running mate has led bicker to question McCain's credibility, and therefore has lost McCain bicker's vote.

Am I even close?

I agree with both of those statements, but they are not mutually exclusive, both can be and are correct.

But Bicker's futher statement in the second does not invalidate the first.

 

[Goofyluver]

Well, I went to the other room to get an iced tea to think about the things that other people say and the things I say...and this is what I say:

Only I get to say what I said. Because when you say what you said I said, that is you saying it, and not me saying it. And by saying what you said, you said it and it wasn't me saying it. For interpretation sakes, if you wanna know what I said, say that...don't say your interpretation of what I said. Because like I said, only I can say what I said I said. Know what I'm saying?

Anyway...that's all I have to say about that. And if you wanna say what I just said, please defer to what I said first. Because like I said, only I can say what I said I said.

 

[ChrizJen]

I agree with both of those statements, but they are not mutually exclusive, both can be and are correct.

But Bicker's futher statement in the second does not invalidate the first.

Both were true at one time. But to say (at this point in time) that Bicker prefers McCain over Obama would be incorrect. He did prefer McCain at one time. But McCain's choice of running mate changed the way Bicker looked at McCain. So at this point, the two interpretations are exclusive of one another.

 

[bicker]

I believe it means (IMHO), that due to McCain's poor judgement in picking Palin, he lost bicker's vote. Conversely, had McCain chosen somebody who wasn't a religious zealot, he would have voted for him.

Just my opinion, and if I'm misunderstanding you bicker, I apologize, cause ultimately things mean whatever the author says they mean.

Seriously, you're absolutely correct, just like 86% of everyone who reads the sentence. Those pesky 14%... who knows what they're thinking?

 

[bicker]

For the record...I think that if I say something...I get to say what it means.

No no! Sarah Palin gets to say what it means!!

 

[Master Mason]

Both were true at one time. But to say (at this point in time) that Bicker prefers McCain over Obama would be incorrect. He did prefer McCain at one time. But McCain's choice of running mate changed the way Bicker looked at McCain. So at this point, the two interpretations are exclusive of one another.

That was not the point I was making. The point I was making was that I vote for the person at the top, I do not worry about who is the 2nd person. Especially because I might be worried about the top person dieing. I also stated that if he felt the choice made him decide that McCain was now second best based on that choice, then that was his right and was fine.

He told me me that I was wrong, because that wasn't what he said, even though I had quoted him on exactly what he had said.

 

[bicker]

I read it to mean that McCain's choice of Palin as his running mate cost him the vote.

I think I see the difference.

And that's another good point: There is a difference between what I wrote and how some people decided to interpret it, so they'd have something easier to argue against.

To simply state that the OP prefers MCain over Obama is an oversight.

Just an oversight? Even after actively denying correction? I think you're very generous, but okay.

You're ignoring the fact that McCain's choice of VP running mate is what made the OP question voting for McCain.

Indeed that is what was adamently ignored.

But what bicker is actually trying to say is that at one time he would have voted for McCain. But his choice in VP running mate has led bicker to question McCain's credibility, and therefore has lost McCain bicker's vote.

Am I even close?

Absolutely, and it even goes deeper: I've made it clear already, several times, over the past few weeks, that if McCain chose Ridge, I would have voted for them, no questions asked. None. However, now, based on McCain's poor judgment, even if Palin dropped out and McCain tapped Ridge to replace her on the ticket, I still wouldn't vote for McCain. McCain demonstrated his willingness to betray his own beliefs to get votes. He deliberately kowtowed to religious zealots, and I don't want a man like that becoming President.

 

["Got Disney"]

never mind