You also don't read very carefully and make a lot of assumptions.

Like you obviously were unable to comprehend when I said:

You seem to be one of those guys who likes to hear himself talk and is incapable of listening to anyone else.

Show me where I said ONCE that the National Enquirer story was true.

If you cannot find a single instance in this thread then I expect an apology from you for consistently putting words in my mouth.

no need for all the caps and bold font. ; )

What else am I supposed to do for it to sink in for you? If there is a better way to communicate a simple concept with you, I'd appreciate the feedback.

So its OK for you to use caps and bold, but when I do it I am too emotional? suuuuuuure, ok. That makes sense! lol

We are communicating just fine. You take national enquirer stories and put stock into them on some level. I don't. Obviously we disagree.

Rich, flipper is obviously just trying to rattle you by pretending to not understand where you are coming from. Honestly, I think he got your hackles up pretty good. Don't waste time on people who are obviously just spoiling for a confrontation, he isn't interested in honest dialogue, just rattling your cage.

Maybe if I repeat it 5 times it will sink in.











You'd have to be pretty dumb not to get it after that.

My cage isn't rattled. I'm just allowing him to continue making more and more of a fool of himself.

And you're giving the guy WAAAAAAAY too much credit by saying he is pretending to not understand.

I'm not sure, but I think the first thing said in this thread by Rich himself was "It is the National Enquirer so take it for what it's worth."

Although I could be wrong....my reading skills have been lacking lately.

Also, did you guys know that the National Enquirer wrote this article? I mean, they believe a lot of stupid stuff, but they were right about the John Edwards thing...
Throw enough poop against the wall and maybe it'll stick, eh?

Yea I know, its almost like he put the disclaimer out there so that no one would get their pretty pink panties in a bunch over the source and assume that Rich actually was putting a lot of clout in the story or its source. Weird huh?
Of course no one would be so dumb that they would actually miss that right? I mean, assuming we read the same thing Iowa. My reading has been a bit lacking lately as well; perhaps we are wrong and he is actually saying that its the most credible source in the world and the story is factual. Who knows with such ambiguity running wild in Rich's posts.

I know what you said, no need to get all emotional over it. Relax just trying to have a discussion here.

But you posted about this story and thought it was somehow valid enough to post the link and start a discussion over it. And even insinuated that it "might" be true because they got 1 story (edwards) right in about 75 years. I believe nothing in those publications are true and your "take it for what its worth" disclaimer is laughable. Because everything in those publications are worth nothing! It's made up nonsense!

We obviously disagree. But I see you can't agree to disagree like an adult.

No more dishonest comment has ever been uttered on these forums.



I do fine with other adults. With children I get frustrated at their lack of comprehensive skills.

Yet you are the one throwing childish pot-shots.

Like I told you in a previous thread in which you became hysterical after I responded in the same manner as you, I'm just responding in kind.

what thread would that be? I haven't become hysterical once! You are the one who is always throwing the childish jabs and can't be civilized.

*yawn* This is getting boring.

Someone else want to slap him around for me?

See, that right there. The CHILDISH behavior you exhibit with your last comment just above.

This is boring. That we can agree on.

John Edwards is a politician. Barack Obama is a politician. The Enquirer did a story on Edwards cheating on his wife. The Enquirer did a story on Obama cheating.

Do you see the correlation? Could the Enquirer be wrong? Of course...hence the disclaimer. Could it be right? Well, as we saw with Edwards, surprisingly it can be. Now go to your room and think about what you've done.

Still want to drag this out I see. Unreal. So sad!

Flipper it's obvious you have it in for Rich. Your following him to other threads and nitpicking his posts in an attempt to get under his skin or prove some point. You might want to reconsider your course of action here. Other people have tried that on these threads and not just with Rich, sooner or later your going to get yourself in trouble or banned.
Its obvious to everyone else here what your doing. You've used up all your creditability already.

Oh my god, you people are losing it. Im not following anyone anywhere. I only have 100 posts and have been here a week, look up my history. The posts are all archived and won't lie. I have responded to a bunch of posts by various users. Look it up!!

He mentioned out one incorrect fact in another thread, I pointed it out. Didn't attack him or anythnig of that nature. Just corrected the fact and it was no big deal.

Now I'm being threatened with being banned? over what? You guys are all overreacting here a little.

And there is the prime example right there. No one threatened you with banning. Read what I said again. I'm not even a mod dude. Do you see moderator next to my name? Naaa

Haven't you learned by now?

What you said is irrelavent. What you meant to say is irrelavent.

What was interpretted is what matters.

You say I am following someone around the boards. Float the idea I will get banned for doing so. Then when the facts show I am not following anyone around, you say...I didn't say you were getting banned. I can't even ban anyone..... So why even bring "banning" up then?

This is insane. Some of you people need to chill out and relax. It's only a message board. Not to mention read what you are writing before you hit send. The double-talk is amazing.

He said to watch what you're doing as some have followed your trend and ended up banned. Then you say he threatened you, then he said he can't ban you, then you ask why he brought it up. Do you see the circle of confusion you've put upon yourself?

Practice what you preach.

WOW, see, it's not that hard for others to comprehend what I type.
Flipper just has reading comprehension issues. I guess that's all our fault somehow.

Hahahahah, down boys... down.... Hhahhaha

/me snickers and walks away.

Simple minds think alike I guess then! : )

It's great minds think alike. Simple minds get left behind. I see you in the rearview....

All right, all. Back on topic please.

Dang, I didn't mean to kill the thread;) LOL.

Ya know what's funny is how Obama opponents are often labeled as racists, but what about the Democrats who bitterly fought against Clarence Thomas' nomination to the Supreme Court? Little facts like that seem to get swept under the rug when it's not convenient to their cause. Not that conservatives can't be equally hypocritical, just sayin.