What happened to this forum?

[CARLHAYDEN]

It may come as a suprise to you, but, Wyoming IS a real state!

No apologies from me are appropriate nor will they be offered.

Now, just what other states doesn't Gustaf consider to be real?

He was wrong, and you are wrong.

[Joe Republic]

So you're not going to even acknowledge your mistake here?:

So, Nevada, Alaska, Colorado, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota and Utah aren't "real" states?

Gustaf, you have really gone left wing!

Oh, and are Iowa, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Tennessee, West Virginia, Kansas and Louisiana also not "real" states in the Gustaf gazetteer?

I am truly shocked that I'm having to re-iterate the same point again, but few people consider Wyoming to have been a serious contest, given that none of the major candidates even visited it, and Mitt Romney himself even ignored the result.  Nobody is claiming that Wyoming isn't a real state - do not insult our intelligence on top of everything else you've done - but that a victory in the caucus could not really have been as significant for whoever had won it.

You've made at least two mis-apprehensions here, and have doled out insults to people based on those mis-apprehensions.  You're digging yourself even deeper into a hole.

[HardRCafé]

So, Nevada, Alaska, Colorado, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota and Utah aren't "real" states?

Aren't those almost all caucus states?  Romney's home states of Massachusetts and Utah aside.

[CARLHAYDEN]

So, Nevada, Alaska, Colorado, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota and Utah aren't "real" states?

Aren't those almost all caucus states?  Romney's home states of Massachusetts and Utah aside.

Yes, and they are "real," states. Gustaf and his cronies notwithstanding.

[CARLHAYDEN]

So you're not going to even acknowledge your mistake here?:

So, Nevada, Alaska, Colorado, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota and Utah aren't "real" states?

Gustaf, you have really gone left wing!

Oh, and are Iowa, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Tennessee, West Virginia, Kansas and Louisiana also not "real" states in the Gustaf gazetteer?

I am truly shocked that I'm having to re-iterate the same point again, but few people consider Wyoming to have been a serious contest, given that none of the major candidates even visited it, and Mitt Romney himself even ignored the result.  Nobody is claiming that Wyoming isn't a real state - do not insult our intelligence on top of everything else you've done - but that a victory in the caucus could not really have been as significant for whoever had won it.

You've made at least two mis-apprehensions here, and have doled out insults to people based on those mis-apprehensions.  You're digging yourself even deeper into a hole.

\
First, if you bothered to read Gustaf's assertion, its was that "the only real state that Romney has won is Michigan."

Now, at the time he posted his statement, Romney had won Wyoming.

Gustaf, and you, to the contrary, Wyoming is a real state.

I'm not suprised you are unable to understand this fact.

[HardRCafé]

Yes, and they are "real," states. Gustaf and his cronies notwithstanding.

I wish this were not a "real" thread.

[Joe Republic]

Gustaf, and you, to the contrary, Wyoming is a real state.

I'm not suprised you are unable to understand this fact.

Nobody is claiming that Wyoming isn't a real state - do not insult our intelligence on top of everything else you've done - but that a victory in the caucus could not really have been as significant for whoever had won it.

^ That is very clearly what Gustaf was (and I am) asserting.

You misinterpreted a fairly simple point in two ways; semantics and chronology.  You are quite arrogantly refusing to even acknowledge either of your mistakes, let alone apologize for insulting people after misunderstanding them.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Joe, I provided the exact quote from Gustaf.

He DID say that Wyoming was not a "real" state,

Stop trying to spin this.

[minionofmidas]

Arguing semantics with Carl Hayden. Boy have you guys had fun.

[Joe Republic]

Joe, I provided the exact quote from Gustaf.

He DID say that Wyoming was not a "real" state,

Stop trying to spin this.

The point he was making was obvious to anybody with a clear understanding of flexible semantics.  I understood his point quite easily, and I know full well that Wyoming is a real state, so why can't you?

You also haven't yet acknowledged that your original response to Gustaf was based on an assumption that he had posted after Super Tuesday.  I'll remind you of this again if you forget to do so.

[minionofmidas]

Joe, I provided the exact quote from Gustaf.

He DID say that Wyoming was not a "real" state,

Stop trying to spin this.

The point he was making was obvious to anybody with a clear understanding of flexible semantics.

That is to say, everybody capable of making sense otherwise except our favorite Arizona poster. It's a longstanding problem of his.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Joe,

I prefer to note what he actually said, not what you, with your "flexible semantics" interpret him to have meant.

Oh, and my point citing the other states was to ask if whether the criteria Gustaf was applying to Wyoming being not a "real" state applied to them as well.

That you are unable to understand this does not suprise me.

[Joe Republic]

I prefer to note what he actually said, not what you, with your "flexible semantics" interpret him to have meant.

Thus, you completely misunderstood his point.  As I already said, the point would have been clear to virtually anybody.  It was clear to me, so why have you spent all this time illustrating that you misinterpreted it?

If somebody says to you that "it's raining cats and dogs outside", would you reply by saying that since you can't see any cats and dogs falling from the sky that they are "far left wing"?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This clarification was certainly long overdue.  I only had to ask for it, what, four times?  Thank you.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Joe,

You assumed (I guess its all that "flexible semantics') that I was asserting that the states I listed had voted before Gustaf posted his statement.

Note, I asked if he considered those states to also be not "real," as opposed to assuming that was what he meant.

I wanted to see if anyone would bother to actually read what was posted rather than jumping to ill-founded conclusions.

Oh, and BTW, Gustaf has never bothered to answer the question.

Are you his spokesman?

If so, would you be so kind as to explain whether the states I listed are "real" states.

[Joe Republic]

You assumed (I guess its all that "flexible semantics') that I was asserting that the states I listed had voted before Gustaf posted his statement.

Note, I asked if he considered those states to also be not "real," as opposed to assuming that was what he meant.

I understood your last post.  No further clarification is necessary.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Never assume that people realize when their posts from nearly a month ago are being picked over.  I certainly don't check every single thread I've posted in in the last month.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You know full well that he is more than capable of defending himself, but given that thus far he hasn't, I've taken the liberty of helping you understand his original point.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Without the quotations, the answer is an obvious 'yes'.  But if we continue with the premise that a '"real" state' is one in which its primary/caucus result is seen as 'important' in the scheme of things, then that of course is the subject of the debate.  Gustaf was arguing that Wyoming was unimportant to the Republican race in general (I'm somewhat inclined to agree).  I expect you're aware of the arguments that various other states are similarly inconsequential, e.g. Michigan on the Democratic side, etc.

[Bacon King]

Carl, if you notice, Gustaf made that remark back before Super Tuesday and before the Nevada caucuses, when Romney had only won Wyoming and Michigan. I'm pretty sure the "real state" comment, he meant that the Wyoming state convention was pretty insignificant in the eyes of the media and wasn't even really reported as a victory, which is true.

Now, I have my share of disagreements with Gustaf, but you are being a bit obtuse here.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Carl, if you notice, Gustaf made that remark back before Super Tuesday and before the Nevada caucuses, when Romney had only won Wyoming and Michigan. I'm pretty sure the "real state" comment, he meant that the Wyoming state convention was pretty insignificant in the eyes of the media and wasn't even really reported as a victory, which is true.

Now, I have my share of disagreements with Gustaf, but you are being a bit obtuse here.

You really need to reread.

I did NOT allege that the states I cited had voted prior to Gustaf's comment, (as you seem to assume) but I did ask, since they seemed to share the characteristics of Wyoming, if they were not  "real" states in his definition.

While you may like to assume, as you incorrectly assumed I was asserting that the states I listed had voted prior to Gustaf's comment,  for me when a poster's comments are unclear, I seek clarification, hence my question.

[Joe Republic]

Isn't this argument merely based on semantics here?  I don't see the point of debating how someone said something that someone else didn't understand and needed clarification.  This all seems silly to me.

This, unfortunately, is the case in 90% of debates between CARLHAYDEN and anybody.  It's his favorite fall-back defense.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

The debates like the one between Joe and Carlhayden are what happened to this forum - who cares if somebody said something wasn't a real state - and who cares who owes somebody a freaking apology - get over it and discuss some real politics instead of a bunch of unimportant stuff like "what happened to the forum" - then we'll make the forum better.

[NDN]

Pretty much.

I think a large part of the problem is just the sheer amount of fluff threads here. That and the current site demographics actively work to make this place mostly a liberal echo chamber. We need more posters that aren't 13-23 year old straight white male suburbanites.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Pretty much.

I think a large part of the problem is just the sheer amount of fluff threads here. That and the current site demographics actively work to make this place mostly a liberal echo chamber. We need more posters that aren't 13-23 year old straight white male suburbanites.

Again again again again, it's NOT A LIBERAL ECHO CHAMBER!! CHAMBER!! CHAMBER!!

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Pretty much.

I think a large part of the problem is just the sheer amount of fluff threads here. That and the current site demographics actively work to make this place mostly a liberal echo chamber. We need more posters that aren't 13-23 year old straight white male suburbanites.

Again again again again, it's NOT A LIBERAL ECHO CHAMBER!! CHAMBER!! CHAMBER!!

Yes it is.

[Хahar 🤔]

Bolded describes me:

We need more posters that aren't 13-23 year old straight white male suburbanites.