Comment: False accusations again?

(See in situ)


False accusations again?

"Read it."

I read it. Did you just falsely accuse me of not reading it?

The point is well taken, and offered, that your words do not mean what they mean if I read them, so asking questions as to what you mean is proven to be the only way to know what you mean when you write, or speak.

If you assume that you know what I advocate, and your accusations of what I advocate are based upon your assumptions, then you could easily make false accusations.

That is a proven fact - unless your use of quotes has another meaning.

How about the following?

"Should the government redistribute ITS citizens wealth?"

That is from here:
http://www.dailypaul.com/317382/is-julie-borowsky-an-anarchist

Time: 0:52

Do you, Jan Helfeld, advocate a thing that possesses citizens?

If I can admit that I now have no idea what you mean when you write a sentence, then by what power are you able to know what I advocate when you never ask the question as to what I advocate?

I am asking you a question that is specific to what you advocate.

Do you, Jan Helfeld, advocate a thing that possesses citizens?

I can admit that communication is difficult at best, and I can admit that both of us may not understand each other, and from that understanding I see value in asking specific questions concerning precisely what you do advocate, before making any further conclusions as to what you advocate, in your own words.

Do you, Jan Helfeld, advocate a thing that possesses citizens?

What did you mean when you spoke the following words:

"Should the government redistribute ITS citizens wealth?"

Joe