re: #166 XopXproxyX

By the way, nice cherry pick of half of one of my sentences, omitting the portion that gives it a different angle entirely. What I actually wrote in #53 was:

I am sure it will go to some sort of charity, or possibly some political watchdog nonprofit or something like that.

Most people would conclude that I thought the charity option was more likely than the political group option. And that is what I think.

But here’s how you quoted me:

I know she didn’t mention ACORN, that’s why I said implied.
And here is what I am referring to:

re: #53 lurking faith

“I am sure it will go to … some political watchdog nonprofit or something like that.”

Nice. Just total focus in on politics and ignore the fact that I said “charity” first - or at all. And even delete the qualifier “possibly” that I attached to “some political watchdog,” just to distort it as much as possible.

Plus the tone of comment #30 was, quite frankly mean-spirted toward Obama. She’s free to be that way of course. But I don’t have to like it.

I don’t like Obama. But I don’t blame him for accepting the award, as I said in #30. Also I think he was gracious about it. My comment was intended to be mean-spirited toward the Nobel committee.

As for you, I think you are overly sensitive and put words into my mouth. You are free to be oversensitive, of course, but when you distort what I say by chopping up my quote, you are just being dishonest. That won’t earn you any credibility around here.