That proves the point, doesn't it? When you're criticized for obsessive legalism your recourse is to point at laws, ignoring that that was never the issue.
You're only picking out part of his defense and saying it's meaningless. You said nothing about his multi-paragraph post right before that. I've noticed that lots of people do that (pick out the weakest part of a multi-point argument and pretend like that invalidates the whole thing) and it's annoying.
And you're still not saying anything substantive. Let me break it down:
What it comes down to, basically, is the cult of legalism that North Carolina Yankee fostered.
Alright, you use language to make it sound like he's Jim Jones, but that's still not substantive.
It's not a surprise that public completely lost interest in the Senate during his long stranglehold over it
By what measure? Also, he was the PPT, not the PM--it's not like he had dictatorial power. I don't know if he even had a right-wing majority at any point, so your assertion that he had a "stranglehold" over the Senate is a hard sell.
compare his time as PPT to Verily's, when the Senate was vibrant and interest was high.
Yankee literally just did that. Maybe his numbers don't
decisively prove that his Senate was more active, but is there another way to measure Senate activity? Maybe you could go back and count the number of posts in debate threads, if you have the 146 consecutive hours it would take to do that.
Using the "oh, you're just obsessed with legalism" argument doesn't convince me. It's the same faulty argument some people make to say that sports statistics are meaningless. You need substance to prove a point like this, especially when substance is
disproving your point, and you're lacking that.
Yankee's response to this thread is again telling; he blames my failure to cast a vote concerning a constitutional amendment, as if the structure of the game is all that mattered.
Deconstructing one part of his defense doesn't help your offense.
My verdict on this thread still hasn't changed.
