← Back to context Comment by ethbr1 6 days ago If you have to spend that many words explaining how it doesn't disagree with you, it disagrees with you. 3 comments ethbr1 Reply johnnyanmac 6 days ago You'd make an awful lawyer with that mentality.Anyways, Trump removed all ambiguiti today saying the US is gonna run Venezuela. It invaded and took over. dpark 6 days ago You chose a definition that is not concise and then selectively misread it.I don’t know how to politely say that your misreading is why I needed so many words. ethbr1 6 days ago "Selectively misread" it? What are we calling having to deemphasize key components then? "Discriminately highlighting"?
johnnyanmac 6 days ago You'd make an awful lawyer with that mentality.Anyways, Trump removed all ambiguiti today saying the US is gonna run Venezuela. It invaded and took over.
dpark 6 days ago You chose a definition that is not concise and then selectively misread it.I don’t know how to politely say that your misreading is why I needed so many words. ethbr1 6 days ago "Selectively misread" it? What are we calling having to deemphasize key components then? "Discriminately highlighting"?
ethbr1 6 days ago "Selectively misread" it? What are we calling having to deemphasize key components then? "Discriminately highlighting"?
You'd make an awful lawyer with that mentality.
Anyways, Trump removed all ambiguiti today saying the US is gonna run Venezuela. It invaded and took over.
You chose a definition that is not concise and then selectively misread it.
I don’t know how to politely say that your misreading is why I needed so many words.
"Selectively misread" it? What are we calling having to deemphasize key components then? "Discriminately highlighting"?