and, for some reason, on this thread i could wait all day and it only goes to the top.
there is no answer to my question at "+1 to you and don't disagree, but...". maybe you should read for comprehension.
in that thread is where you desccribe different type of grassroots. the grassroots you trust and the grassroots you don't. then you give some examples of that. that does not address my confusion.
i know you say "grassroots individuals", but that still implies that grassroots exists.
in a different area, you say that you agree that there is no such thing as grassroots. and then you proudly point out later that you got positive feedback on that point, as if that makes it right or wrong.
if there is no such thing as grassroots, there can be no "grassroots individuals" or "grassroots you agree with" or "grassroots you don't agree with."
no where have you addressed this contradiction.
i think it is kind of a silly argument, but since i first brought it up, you have belittled me and my reading comprehension without ever addressing my point.
you still have not addressed my point.
probably because you cannot admit that you made contradictory statements.
the only reason we are going round and round like this is because instead of addressing the origin of my confusion (your contradictory remarks) you decide to belittle.
i have no problem being wrong. when someone proves me wrong i admit it and try to learn from it. i've even admitted to being wrong in a discussion with you a few months ago.
this time, however, you are wrong.
and i only mean you are wrong about grassroots being able to exist and not exist at the same time.
i don't care about anything else you've written here, because it is all speculation and philosophy.
nothing can exist and not exist at the same time.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: