Woodruff wrote:perhaps you can specifically point out where I have "twisted" his words.
For starters, Viper's original post that you took issue with specifically cited a news story about how Ron Paul & Dennis Kucinich were supporting efforts to end military involvement in Afghanistan & Pakistan by the end of the year.
Here's the complete quote:
Which you selectively quoted and conveniently omitted the part about how Paul would not preserve life, one of the 3 pillars of our independence that our founders wrote about.
Woodruff's selective quoting method:
ViperOverLord wrote:RP's winning the poll. That's just libs being mad that there is no Obama wins option lol. Again, RP has no spine. He'd be a great economic president but he'd just let the terrorism garden grow.
As opposed to sowing the seeds of terrorism in the garden like we have been for quite some time now?
Notice the omission of the story, providing context for Viper's critique of Paul. This is then followed up by a very general assertion that the terrorism garden has had the seeds sown for quite some time now. He doesn't define this length of time, which administration or administrations it could be, other U.S. allied governments that could have aided in this "sowing", or other defective policies.
Viper then tries to bring back the original context to U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan since the 9/11 attacks, because that was the context of the news story cited. This is because the original story cited showed that Paul was one of two representatives who believe that our presence in Afghanistan increased the threat of terrorism. Viper points out that he doesn't remember our soldiers being in Afghanistan when 9/11 hit. In Viper's view, this means that a non-presence of American forces did not prevent the terrorist attacks.
ViperOverLord wrote:Excuse me but I don't remeber any American soldiers being in Afghanistan when 911 hit. That's just some weak sauce guy.
Which Woodruff then goes on to "twist" or add to Viper's argument words which he (Viper) never asserted. He (Woodruff) then proceeds to insert a 2nd question based on his own conviction that Viper's view is that terrorism was only based on one act - the 9/11 attack, and insinuates that Viper's position is that the 9/11 attack was the "sum total". Viper never said this, insinuated this, or came close to this claim. It was Woodruff inserting that as his position. I've bolded it in red.
Woodruff wrote:So all of terrorism lies within that one act? That's is the sum total of terrorism in your view? THAT is some "weak sauce", though it would explain a lot.
Viper once again tries to bring the debate back to the original context of Afghanistan, and U.S. military presence there fostering and inciting terrorism. This was, after all, part of the original news story that Viper had cited:
ViperOverLord wrote:You're presumption was that an American presence in Afghanistan fosters terrorism. I pointed out that they were not there when 911 hit. Try to keep up.
And here's the sneaky part. Woodruff replies by saying all the presumption lied with Viper. After all, "I never mentioned Afghanistan". Of course Woodruff didn't mention Afghanistan. That's because Viper did since he was trying to bring the discussion back to the original context of the news story, which Woodruff purposely omitted. This is followed by another sarcastic and condescending statement from Woodruff about "lapping him" (in fairness Viper started this with talking about "weak sauce" and "try to keep up"), and then trying to get Viper distracted with a question about his age, and how that is relevant. This is a typical Woodruff tactic of asking a totally different question than what was originally being discussed to frustrate the other person.
Woodruff wrote:All "presumption" here lies with you. Where did I mention Afghanistan? Try again...this time without the presumption. I'm about to lap you...that must be why you think I'm not keeping up.
Serious question here...how old are you? Yes, I do believe that's a relevant question.
Viper finally catches on to Woodruff's technique of twisting and has had enough:
ViperOverLord wrote:Can you debate my points rather than twist them. I will not be responding to you much longer if you insist on continually putting words in my mouth as a tactic to ignore what was just spoken.
In fairness, Viper did go down the sarcasm route as well. The bottom line though is Woodruff has a habit of doing this. It gets people frustrated, and perhaps secretly Woodruff just gets pleasure out of aggravating other people with this method. I don't know.