[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Well, that much is obvious.

But, as a refresher, you challenged this comment of mine below by highlighting it and replying to it :





You specifically and directly challenged the notion that Harper was "on his way to a majority" with a sidebar that the economy was to blame when that didn't happen (everyone has an opinion).

In turn, not only did I provide a link but pointed out your own link supported my point, then provided three other observations from both sides of the political spectrum, written at the time, plus the middle spectrum that also supported the observation that Harper in early to late September was "on his way to a majority."

I could probably generate dozens more of similar observations if necessary.

You're a bright guy so I don't know why you're trying to belabour this.

And no, I did not take this rigamarole personally and didn't think a "blah, blah, blah," well earned on your part by that point, would have you jumping up and down, holding your head in agony . . . . . you're a little sensitive. It's not like I called you a boob of some kind or any kind of name at all.

Anyway, as amusing as all this is, I'm off to see a client, then engaging in a sweaty run.

Have a pleasant afternoon. Sincerely.

Cowperson

So, let's review. I made a claim and provided evidence. You, without explanation, claimed that my evidence supported your point. You provided evidence of your claim, but evidence that was pretty clearly flawed.

I then provided more evidence, and an explanation of the available data, which you ignored. I also offered a critique of your evidence in some detail, which you described by saying "blah blah blah," but ignored its contents entirely.

Then you bailed out of the discussion entirely, pretending that you never cared all that much about any of this in the first place.

Uh.... you win?