What does the OK bill do?

Why would the DarkStar jump on me? Why would there be a “celestial light show”?

What is really going on here? I don’t mind being attacked for actual comments, but now I’m being attacked for non-comments?

Okie Guv Brad Henry has until tomorrow night to veto the toughest illegal immigration bill, otherwise it becomes law at midnight.

If he vetos it, it’ll still become law the following morning. Check & checkmate.

There you go, making another assumption. I don’t presume to know you and am simply commenting on the fact that you and A**** (name deleted) have a tendency to make assumptions in your responses to my comments that are not an accurate reflection of what I have actually said.

I am being specific and you are generalizing.

Generally, other commenters do not respond to my statements with the degree of errant assumptions that the two of you have a tendency to do.

Given that this is a blog arena, I hardly find it out of line to comment on responses that I have received over time, particularly when I was highlighting “assumptiveness.”

And, for what it is worth, you have brought up my name in a conversation that did not involve me. I did not, however, “pitch a fit.” I simply looked at the comment, decided it was rather silly, and dismissed it as of no consequence.

Was that for jan or me?

I agree. I haven’t even participated in this discussion at all. I don’t even know what she/he is talking about. So why my name needs to brought up to make she/he’s point I really don’t know but I really don’t appreciate it. You don’t know me from a woman on the street. That statement was an ad hominem jab that didn’t even need to be said.

You don’t like what I say, how I say it, or agree with with what I say, fine. Don’t HOWEVER presume to think you know me, because you DON’T.

@ 94, Angel wrote: “You have a serious problem with me and Tiffany.”

At least she stated what her problem was with you.

But, if Jan was wrong, then why would you break your rule to mention Tiffany, if you weren’t “talking” to Tiffany? Those two wrongs wouldn’t make right, even if it were a valid point, in the world according to thee.

You mean like you can speak ‘about’ Jan, but she can’t mention your name unless she’s conversing with you? Sounds like ye olde “Good for me, not for thee” hypocrisy. Or is about that “name-taking in vain” thang?

Newsflash, you may not be a real public figure, but in the blogosphere, you’re as public as cHillary or Rudy. Your online words/actions are fair game for talking about, whether or not you’re partaking in that conversation.