Stuff That (Increasingly Desperately Disillusioned) Obama Supporters Say

[Summer Hathaway]

314. Sorry, sabrina, but you're wrong

Go back and read our entire exchange.

At the outset, I stated: "I see that your opinion that the OP is "highly respected" here drew quite a few guffaws."

I did not place any particular importance on that; it was merely a statement of fact. I also said "a few" guffaws, which could hardly be read as "thinking that people's agreement or disagreement was extremely important."

I then stated: "The only reason the OP garners recs is because there are those here who will 'rec' anything that is anti-Obama, anti-Dem Party - and not due to his being 'highly respected'."

How you can equate that with my thinking that 'recs' are important is beyond me. I was clearly saying the opposite; that recs do not equal "respect", and are therefore NOT important when judging a poster's 'respectability' or lack thereof.

You then said: "'4 guffaws' from pretty predictable sources as opposed to 66 recs so far. But 66 - 4? The math supports my statement." Plainly it was you who brought up the 'importance' of recs as a measure to be used, not I.

I then reiterated that "the OP gets recs from those who will 'rec' anything that is anti-Obama/anti-Dem. And the math supports THAT statement - along with the "predictable" list of posters who consistently rec anything that puts Obama in a bad light, regardless of source."

Surely you would agree that the anti- and pro-Obama supporters here are well known to all. Those who will consistently rec anti-Obama posts and who will consistently rec pro-Obama posts is predictable as a result. (And if you honestly believe that using the feature that shows who rec'd a particular thread constitutes "investigation" - well, that is so outlandish a concept, I am left speechless.)

As for your statement, "Interesting that NOW you don't 'equate recs with being respected', considering it was YOU who brought that particular subject up," my opinion NOW is the same as it has been throughout our exchange. I stated several times that recs do not equal respect. It was you who kept bringing up how many recs this OP has, not me.

To state that I am "NOW" saying something different is a blatant mis-characterization, as it implies I said something at the outset and then changed my position. I have maintained the same position throughout: recs do not equal respect.

As to your statement: "People reading your comment to me, which was far from respectful, surely thought that recs WERE VERY important to you."

How could anyone reading my comments come to the conclusion that recs are VERY IMPORTANT to me? By saying that recs don't equal respect? By saying that recs on certain OPs, based on their anti- or pro-Obama content, are predictable as coming from the same people from both factions?

It seems clear I am saying the exact opposite of recs being important.

Our exchange is here for all to see - and if I said anywhere that recs are important, or that they are a measure of a poster being "highly respected", I invite you to point that out.