When someone says, "Read this, it proves my point," I expect what they post to be immediately relevant to the subject. If you've ever done formal debate you're aware that time is limited and anything offered will be shredded.
I didn't offer anything as proof of point. I stated that the individual's reading comprehension was lacking and left it to him to figure it out.
*Edit: in recognition of your need for user-friendliness I will post my response in its entirety,
and in blue font so as to preclude any errors in interpretation:
My post below:
The wanton, and often convenient, absence of reading comprehension in this forum is frequently no less staggering.
My post above.
If you read carefully, this is not an offer of anything... certainly not "read this, it proves my point". I expect we are all (primarily) big kids on this forum and have the ability to (usually) figure things out without pictures.
This is a forum where assertions are documented for posterity, it is not timed debate (hence your ability to respond to it a week following its original posting). It was YOUR poor assessment of the situation that led you to indulge yourself erroneously. You are free to read; to study as well or as poorly as you choose, and respond accordingly. If you botch the job it is your problem, not mine. It is not up to me to lead you by the nose to a point of understanding. Learn some responsibility.
At least two of us, one a professional (Which I am, regardless of your attempted denigration of my profession) were not clear on what you were offering.
I wasn't offering anything other than the statement that the individual exhibited poor reading comprehension. You took it upon yourself to champion his cause, and also exhibited poor reading comprehension. Bigger men have committed greater errors... learn to live with it and move on.
There were two words different between the two paragraphs. The second paragraph appeared on presentation to be a repeat of the first, highlighted for emphasis. If you'd said, "Read paragraph two," I doubt the mistake would have been made.
Ok then. I guess it is *MY* fault that you did not read accurately and spouted off. Good heavens man... show some character. Rest assured, and as noted, I will do my best to compensate for your limited investment in the future.
You failed, by the way, to comment on Monsieur LeMieux's evidence that the Canadian government interviews former partners in regard to acquiring firearms, and that the State of IL has sent armed thugs after a woman whose family attested she was "unsound" without any supporting evidence. And her refusal to comply with their harassment was used against her.
???
And what of it???
I'm not sure what you wish to demonstrate in your presentation of Pierre Lemieux's article, but I can assure you, as a former Canadian, that the laws of this country, as well as the societal norms, are very considerably different than those of Canada.
You wish to be validated for your observation that governmental abuses can and will occur??? Well Bravo then! Keen eye!
Of course abuses occur. They always have and they always will. We have incarcerated wrongfully, undoubtedly executed wrongfully, persecuted and lauded wrongfully. And what??? We do not administrate the function of systems of social order, or the process and production of the underlying regulation and law, on the basis of obscure potentiality. Systems of order, and the general regulation thereof, encompass response to standard typology. If we were to limit all law and social regualtion on the basis of the worst case abuse scenario possible we would be unable to justify the continued support of law enforcement, police, child welfare, etc. That was, in fact, the basis of the original series of posts that you responded to.
He's right. You're wrong.