î am happy to be disagreed with on issues i actually believe in. but when someone says you must be a hard core trump supporter, because i have no faith in the so called intelligence agencies its funny as hell.
what i find weak, is quoting only a small part of my post, there by removing part of the context it was posted in, then proceed to tell me what i must be, based on your fantasy. it annoys me to be accused of something i didnt say. it's a weak rhetorical trick to take something out of it's context and subscribe meaning to it that was never part of it and not 1 posts later i add more context, which again you chose to ignore and pretend not to see or understand i guess.
when you quote and respond with only a partial quote, it looks shady. why cut off the rest of the context? respond how ever you like, but this business with pretending 1 sentence of my post was the whole of it is dishonest imo.
i'd never do that to anyone. i might break their post up to add my replies between paragraphs, but i'd never leave out parts of what someone says to respond to them.
why not just press quote and add your reply at the bottom? why would you go in and delete parts of it? thats the part i find strange.
