hey you, that looks delicious, you. great cookin

wow yum nice yum wow.

did you make the glaze?

I appreciate it.

there's so much "I think I heard" in official White House press announcements and law enforcement documents that I feel like it's important to be as responsible as possible without our words.

I don't think anybody's arguing about the necesiity of due process here, what with it being the point of the post. not from the comments I read, anyway.

It's irresponsible to say "i think i read that he does have affiliation" when there is no documented evidence.

there's a big difference between a proven gang member and a random person wearing a hoodie, and your statement blurs those lines.

thanks for the link, I've read his report.

there is zero documented evidence even of gang affiliation, according to that FBI report.

that is very important to note.

clean record, no documented gang affiliation, wearing a hoodie, one CI allegedly said he has a nickname with no corroborating evidence.

his gang affiliation would mean something if he had a gang affiliation, which he does not.

it's only harmful to bring up an alleged affiliation when one does not exist.

can you provide a source for the affiliation?

his tattoos are of dice and Sigmund Freud by the way, notably not of MS-13, a group to what he has no established connection.

in case you don't know, there is the option under user settings to hide bots.

in about 3 weeks, he's actually going to shout this at somebody.

"a discussion"

whatever you have convinced yourself of, making things up and then asking misleading questions based on your imagination is not a discussion.

not nearly so much as you adore not asking questions and expecting answers.

"your silence is deafening."

I responded to every single comment, even your fabrications and extrapolations, correcting your mistakes every time.

I have no obligation to hold you by the hand here.

if you want an answer, stop whining about how difficult questions are to ask and stop fabricating things.

Respectfully and directly ask a question without misleading disclaimers or insults.

if you just want to keep insulting and attempting to mislead me and rewrite my comments, I'm happy to indefinitely correct you and play the game.

"Do you not have eyes?"

i do, I told you I just made sure the reasoning was still written out and publicly available, which it is.

"structurally identical..."

wow, your structures are identical with or without 20 disclaiming paragraphs of misattribution.

no wonder you have such difficulty asking direct questions.

"literally quoted every time you"

you certainly haven't.

" and you accused me of guessing. "

nobody "accused" you, you said "i have to guess".

and then you guessed.

I pointed out that there is no point in guessing when you can ask direct questions.

"no option but to guess again"

you are incorrect again, you should just try asking.

you got your first answer last time by asking a direct question.

"shouldn't be surprised"

I'm definitely not surprised.

"I go back to the fact that the only things you have mentioned is the fact that it's racist and that it shouldn't be used"

not a fact, although not using a racist cartoon in favor of a not racist cartoon is certainly good reasoning.

the full reasoning is explained above I think twice although I'm going check because it would be really - nope all the comments are still up there; for some reason you're pretending not to see them.

took you nine comments to get there, not three, but good work.

"is your complaint..."

nope, but that doesnt help.

"is this not direct enough"

disclaiming a question with 20 paragraphs of fabrication and misattribution is not "direct enough", no.

"Let me try to find your reasoning."

sure, why not keep guessing instead of asking directly?

working out well for you so far.

"So I see..."

you assume.

"if simply asking if your view is xyz"

you should try this!

maybe without all the misleading disclaimers.

good luck.

"I'm asking what your reasoning is beyond there being some racist episodes"

no you are not.

"so I have to resort to guessing"

no you don't, you can always ask directly rather than attempting to mislead the conversation and my reasoning first.

"hiding the reasoning"

my reasoning is very explicit, specific and publicly available above.

you want to pretend it is not, that's your problem.

"the record straight."

my reasoning is very explicit, specific and publicly available above.

your reading comprehension and fear of asking direct questions is your problem.

"me of making false accusations without actually setting me correct."

this is the proper way to deal with leading questions based on fabrications.

if you want to ask a serious, direct question, try it without fabricating beforehand and then asking leading questions.

dare ya.

"literally making the extrapolation in order to ask you if I understand correctly"

there is no reason for you to fabricate, assume or extrapolate in order to ask if you understand something correctly.

you are taking those extra steps so that you can repeat your false assumptions and extrapolations.

but again, the record is above.

"...trying to be charitable..."

no you are not, you are repeating a false accusation so that your false questions look valid, despite their lack of foundation in the material.

"trying to hear out your reasoning"

my reasoning is very clearly laid out in the above comments.

if there is something you genuinely don't understand, you can directly ask about those comments you don't understand without any attached assumptions or fabrications.

don't make things up, stop extrapolating on the things you make up and ask a direct question.

or take a hike.

"I'll lay it out..."

and then you literally repeat your false assumption and extrapolation.

again, not going to get you anywhere.

you are either not reading or ignoring my comments before responding to them. all you have to do is read what you are writing carefully and what I wrote to find 1) your fabrication or 2) my very clear explanation and OPs admission of the racism that he and others are not bothered by, while I am.

I'm not sure if you're looking for 1 or 2, although yes it does seem like you're just pretending not to understand either since both of them are written so clearly.

if you actually have such severe trouble with reading comprehension and can only fixate on single sentences taken out of context:

once you realize which part of your question you are fabricating that is not in my comments, as it is the foundation of your atgument, you'll notice how you're invalidating your own questions and argument.

"it doesn't logically follow...this frame..."

of course it doesn't, that's something you made up.

I don't need to clear anything up for your imaginary argument.

"how i am... considering this...racist".

very clearly laid out above, you're the only one pretending not to understand.

you can keep trying to change what I said, but the public record is above so it ain't gonna work, Jack.