Yes, I can see the logic of your position. I am sure you have only made the one mistake. It would be churlish of someone to point out that the one mistake you made was also the basis for you calling another poster a name. So I won't do that of course. (Although I did notice that even before that post you were calling that same poster another name. )But of course we have already established that you are justified in doing so because of the number of comments you have found to be erroneous. The only concern I would have is what if another individual comes along who hasn't even made the one "honest mistake" that you have made and because of that sits in judgement of you and decides to call you a name. Not that that will ever happen of course.
1.It reads like you're still trolling, or perhaps just trying to be funny. It's hard to tell given that you are so not funny. In fact, you're painfully unfunny.
2.I wonder if you'd mind the fact checking if NR wasn't a New Democrat who you agree with. Do you have a problem with me, or with the fact that I point out his cheerleading for the NDP is often based on B.S? Or more accurately, his cheerleading for anybody but the Liberals, including, it seems, the Conservatives.
3.Given that I've already told you (and him) to see if you can find any other factual mistakes or 'right wing' comments in my posts, I think it's pretty clear that I have no problem with anybody 'sitting in judgement' of me.
I await your findings.
BTW, I believe the next college semester starts in September. I really highly recommend you take a course in logic.
[/quote]
Well of course I am still trolling after all your original description was accurate. And you are right I am painfully unfunny except for my troll ears which are extremely funny. The "agree with" problem I am not so sure about. I am sure I could find lots of areas that I agree with NR and many areas I probably disagree with him about. Actually I didn't think there was lots of good news for Mulcair in this poll. I thought it was a mixed bag.There was some but of course he is going to interpret it in a way that fits his prejudices. It's cognitive dissonance. In much the same way you tried to draw a difference between your factual error and his questionable interpretation of the poll results. You have resorted to saying he does it all the time but I have only done it once even though yours is the more flagrant error and his is the more debatable one.
As for having a "problem" with you, please banish the thought. You have given me suggestions about how I can improve my cognitive ability. How thoughtful of you. You sound like wonderful human being and a great person to know.