Tuesday: From when Obama was campaigning

http://articles.cnn.com/2007-11-02/politics/obama.missed.votes_1_obama-spokesman-bill-burton-iranian-revolutionary-guard-rothenberg-political-report?_s=PM:POLITICS

Tuesday: You were trying to make one of your points, without taking into consideration that your golden boy was just as guilty. And of course you wouldn't have brought THAT up.

Tuesday: Who I vote for is between me and the booth, thank you.

rod03801: Can we also take into consideration that the article regarding Bachmann was for a period covering 4 YEARS, and the period in the article covering Obama was just 2 MONTHS.

Bachmann would seem to be a symptomatic vote skipper looking for votes and Obama's record a blip..N' as your article says...

"...Most of the votes Obama missed were for amendments to spending bills, when his vote would not have decided the outcome..."

(V): Hmm, guess you read differently than me.

"By the newspaper's calculation, that's 50 missed votes out of 135 taken by the House since Bachmann officially announced her candidacy June 27"

And the point is, really, that anyone who is in elected office who is running for presidency (regardless of party) is probably going to be slacking at their elected job. (Which, personally, I don't defend)

And of course, that wasn't going to be brought up by her, that the golden boy was just as bad.

Tuesday: "her" is not an insult. Unless you are just LOOKING for things to insult you. Typical of "politcally correct" libs who are offended over everything that can possibly be misconstrued as offensive.

And MY point was, you would NEVER have pointed that out about Obama 3 years ago. When "your" people do something, it's hunky dorry. When "the other ones" do the same thing, it's gotta be put out there as NOT ok.

When in reality, (as I've already said twice, I believe) I would imagine any person who currently holds office (of WHATEVER party), who is campaigning, probably misses more votes than they should. And as I also said, I don't defend that. They are ALL doing their constituents a disservice when this happens.

TuesdayThis is turning to a personal argument. Take it private. Thank you.

Tuesday: http://brainking.com/cz/Board?bc=158&plla=1122525

Pedro Martínez:

Pedro Martínez:
I fail to see the relevance. The point was that it is rude to refer to someone as "she" when that person is in the room, as if they are not there. As this "she" is presumably the lady who has died, she is not in a position to object.

Justaminute: Her point was clear: “You are supposed to use someone's name when referring to them in a conversation with someone else.” I fail to see any further specification there.

Justaminute: Who died?

Justaminute:
I guess it depends where you were brought up. If I referred to someone as "she" when I was growing up and they were in the room the response would be "who's she the cat's mother". Meaning you are being rude. It isn't rude to refer the same way about soeone who is not going to over hear the conversation.

Justaminute: This forum is an informal conversation "room." Jules was clearly referring to Tuesday in his rejoinder to Rod. Rod replied using the pronoun she that clearly referred back to Tuesday. In the context you are describing, you are correct. In the situation here, Jules and Tuesday are wrong. And they will fail at proving that because there is no such rule against such use of pronouns in a discussion forum.

Pedro Martínez: It's all hogwash that using a personal pronoun when referring back to someone is bad manners. It's done all the time in formal writing. And in casual conversations such as are done here, things are supposed to be more relaxed. Funny that the persons objecting to the use of personal pronouns have used those pronouns themselves. I counted over a hundred in a quick survey of posts by Jules. He'll have a hundred excuses for his use of the word "she" but still, he (opps) used the same word to which he is now objecting.

This is just another way the left attemps to avoid dealing with an issue where they are clearly wrong. They (opps) don't like their narrative interrupted and when they (dang it) are caught with their pants down (as you have shown in reference to Tuesday), they always go to chapter three: diverting attention away from the real point of an argument. I can't wait to see what they will twist next.

Artful Dodger: Right. By now, Tuesday has tried to teach the people on this forum how to use conjunctions (“don't you start a sentence with them!”), prepositions (“don't you end a sentence with them!”) and pronouns (“don't you use them to refer to people in conversations with someone else!”). I can't wait for the other word classes…

Pedro Martínez: Exactly. What's next? One can't use just a single word in as a complete sentence (since a subject/verb is needed). Silly!

Pedro Martínez: We also get lots of spell checking here. Taht's whi I alwaze check mi speling.

Artful Dodger: You better do that. When there's nothing of merit to argue against, typos are always a good reason for argument…

Pedro Martínez: I wonder if it's still proper to call them typos since a typo refers to the mistake one makes when hitting a wrong key on a typewriter. I'm using a keyboard so maybe my mistakes are actually keyos.

Artful Dodger: I stand corrected! … or actually I sit corrected… (and now I lie corrected)

Artful Dodger: When talking about someone in the room (or a poster here) "she" is considered rude and bad manners, the same rule does not apply when discussing someone as a topic.

Now you can twist that all you like, but it ain't gonna change 100's of years of English language use and the rules thereof.

(V): Nonsense. The antecedent was clear in the context of the discussion. Therefore the use of the word "she" was not only proper but its use is more common than is the restating of the antecedent. That's why we have rules for pronoun antecedent. When the antecedent is clear, the pronoun is almost always used.

But enlighten us, show us where this is the case and also defend your own use of the word "she" where several hundred times you yourself used that exact pronoun.

Artful Dodger: That you have a problem with English language use is your problem. Learn yourself.. I know I am right as anybody here in the UK will tell you whether Liberal/Conservative or Jedi Knight!!

(V): So what your saying is you can't actually prove what you are claiming. And also you have interviewed everyone in the UK and they all agree with you.

Artful Dodger: No.. I'm saying you just want to argue the point and I'm happy knowing I am right.

(V): Just prove your point by showing a link where that rule is stated (since it's been known for over 100 years).

Artful Dodger: *sigh*

Btw.. do you now want to make the statement that all terrorists are Muslim?

(V): And now ladies and gentlemen, since He (jules) cannot prove his point, he now utilizes chapter four: change the subject!!!

Artful Dodger: I don't think it'd be worthwhile going into what is good and bad etiquette with you.

(V): That could be taken as a flame. You know it's bad manners to flame even is it's a subtle one. Especially when someone isn't in the room. (I was offline when you posted that) tsk tsk

The fact is, you can't discuss it because we both know that you are wrong and are incapable of proving your point other than to keep restating it (which isn't proof you know). You made the claim, back it up (I won't hold my breath because I know you'll only try to weasel out of it as you can't prove you are right since you're not only wrong, but completely wrong.

rod03801: It is considered bad manners as in talking about someone who is there as if they are not there. It's considered a sign of anger or hate towards the person and just an attempt to disguise it.

rod03801: Guees I just read more and did some math on the dates.

ie Bachmann 4 years and 50 votes missed.... Obama 2 months and a number of votes in just that 2 month period missed.

It's Simple.. maybe it's just me from when I did Statistics and the matter of comparing 2 different time periods. As such the comparison is too dodgy to make any real sense comparing wise.

If the time period on Obama's missed votes was a year or longer then you'd get a fair and informative comparison.

(V): Um, it clearly says 50 missed votes out of 135, SINCE JUNE 27

Deal with it.

That does NOT take into consideration all votes since elected. Been more than that.

The comparison was that he slacked when campaigning too, as does about EVERYone, I'm sure. Gosh, you just argue for the sake of arguing.

rod03801: Yes.. I was not arguing that

I was just saying the comparison data is very vague in relation to time periods and votes missed.

Gosh.. is that to hard to understand, or is it just me 'A' level statistics training.

N' yes everyone misses votes, etc. Sometimes in the UK it's even prearranged, ie no/yes voters paired off.