Taking the Infrastructure Bill Hostage Didn't Work | RealClearPolitics

SFC Casey O'Mally - You did assume. You said "If you read the article....", which directly implies that I did not read the article. And, I didn't ignore the entire thrust of the article; I just view the set of circumstances through a completely different perspective. Hence, my points remain, whether or not you like them.

LTC Kevin B. Sir,

Do I really have to define "if?" If identifies a contingent unknown. As in I do not know if you have done a thing or not done a thing. As in I am making no statements about your activities or lack thereof.

You didn't ignore the thrust of the article... you just completely dismissed it as invalid without providing any reason for your dismissal. You did an "I reject your reality and insert my own," while giving no indication that we are now discussing your alternate reality rather than the reality discussed within the article.

So you didn't ignore the thrust of the article, it just LOOKS like you did. Got it.

And it is not whether or not I LIKE your points. I admit many truths I do not LIKE. It is that your points don't have a lot of merit.

I will agree that " 'No broader bill, no infrastructure bill' is still the current state." But for the progressives who NEED to pass the broader bill, this current state is NOT a win or even winNING.

SFC Casey O'Mally The simple fact that you had to include "if" is proof that you were questioning whether or not I read it. Otherwise, there would have been no need to include it as the very first thought in your entire post. Just admit that you were being snarky, which you're continuing to do now.

And, your comment "It is that your points don't have a lot of merit" is simply your opinion; it is definitely not an axiom, as your comment tries to infer. Don't overreach.

LTC Kevin B. - Sir,
Me: "If you read the article..."
You: "I did read that article, but thank you very much for making such a false assumption."
Me: "I assumed nothing. It is why I said "if."
You: "You did assume. You said "If you read the article....", which directly implies that I did not read the article."
Now you: ""if" is proof that you were questioning whether or not I read it."

So you admit, then, that I did not assume you had not read it? That I was merely unsure?

And I explained why I included it. I was referencing the article, and restating its thesis. And it appeared that either you had not read the article... or you were completely ignoring the information contained therein. So rather than assuming either factor, I used an "if" statement.

I was not trying to be snarky with my original comment. I will admit to snark in the subsequent ones. I apologize. I tend to get snarky when falsely accused of things - such as making assumptions.

I am a VERY literal person in online forums. If I say "It is possible that there is currently life on Mars, although science has not yet found any evidence to support that." What I mean is that we have no evidence of life on Mars, but we have also not been able to completely eliminate such a possibility. I am not saying "I think there is life on Mars," and I am *definitely* not saying "there is life on Mars, but science is too stupid to find it."

Yet time and time again on this site, I am consistently accuse of saying what other people read rather than what I ACTUALLY wrote. And when I get accused of it, I get snarky. Not the best response, bet better than some others, I suppose.

Again, I apologize for the snark. When I said "if" I legitimately meant "if," and was not implying anything at all.

And yes, "your points have little merit" is my opinion. And "your points have much merit" is your opinion. Both are opinions. I believe that so far there is a lot more evidence to support my opinion than there is to support yours. I have really seen you present *no* evidence to support your opinion. But both are opinions.

(But, at least in this instance, my opinions are right :-P )