Banned on FB for a start...:D...


A large portion of the ones I know have been banned in the last few days on FB for a period of time. Wear it as a badge of honor!:rolleyes:

Sorry nailer, that does come off as a bit salty.

Ending your closing with "aspersions cast" in lieu of "aspersion cast" is a blue bias tell. Pointing out that BlueStreak incorrectly put his take on what grandma said in quotes is not questioning his credibility. Claiming the incident did not occur, which I did not do, would indeed be questioning said credibility. In the post you replied to I merely pointed out there were at least two other POV's to consider, both of which would vary from his.

I'm thinking you are the one casting aspersions. In addition, you appear to be defending blue hate, counselor.

Beer is an excellent companion for salty snacks.

Identifying an account as "highly biased" is most certainly questioning the credibility of the one reporting the incident. (A police officer accused of bias could lose his or her job.)The event reported was certainly dramatic, which would have a tendency to heighten one's attention to detail. It is merely an assumption on your part that the quotation marks were not appropriately used.

Moreover, there is a difference between hate and accurate reporting of unfavorable information. I doubt you want to identify yourself with the methodology of the departing president by suggesting that an accurate but unfavorable description of the conduct by a Trump supporter is fake news or "blue hate."

Or, saying "highly biased" is my dramatization of this dramatic incident, with "highly" being an opinion I've formed of BlueStreak over the years. (BTW, many police officers accused of bias aren't fired.) And you are correct in that when I see a quotation I assume it's word for word accurate. Pretty sure that's what those marks mean. Which is why I pointed out their incorrect usage. I'm okay with your claiming that's appropriate because there are no hard and fast rules in English grammar. (An English professor to us that.)

Now it's you assuming the reporting is accurate based on one eyewitness' account. I'm okay with this assumption given your positive bias towards BlueStreak. I did not suggest BlueStreak's story didn't happen, just that it's a biased account.

There's plenty of red and blue hate being put out there on this forum, although the reds aren't posting much right now. Having an apolitical soul, I enjoyed your 'using Trump's methodology' accusation. Your blue bias is showing. :cool:

Let's try - colorful.

An excellent suggestion. BlueStreak is indeed colorful. I enjoy his posts. :)

But I began with bias and must continue along this bias path even if I must fall on my bias sword.

Let me clarify. if one is quoting a statement, quotation marks are appropriate. You suggested that the use of quotation marks was, in essence, dishonest, and an expression of hate. You could not accept that his representation of the statement was accurate, therefore you deemed it "highly biased,"i.e. fake news. Or did I misquote you?

By the way, do you have an eyewitness account that contradicts the one reported here?

It appears so.