Sen. Rand Paul says mask mandates were always about 'submission'

Nope. I responded to a post you posted on a public forum. The fact I responded to your post in know way indicates I barged into any bet with you or anyone else. If you don’t want every PF member to have the ability to respond to your posts as they see fit I suggest you use the PM function and do your betting in private.

I’ve done neither. I responded to your post on an open forum by providing facts. I’ve taken no bet, dragged nothing in. Simply pointed out facts you seem unaware of.

 

A post not directed to you. I call that barging in.

You responded to a bet.

 

No. You did. I posted in response to this post.

Do you see ANYTHING about a bet in that post? Me either because it isn’t there.

 

Posts on a public forum are ultimately directed towards everyone who reads them. They are seen by the public and the public can respond to them. That's how public forums work.

 

I see something about a bet in my post, and you responded to that.

 

I'm not saying you can't reply to a random post here. I am saying that when 2 ppl are busy with a bet, and a 3rd party enters the discussion by replying on what's said... then it's expected that the comment is on that bet, and not about something else.

 

Got your beer goggles on? LOL

 

You responded to my post 403.

Post 403 contains the quote "LOL I'd bet that you can't find one."

 

I’ve already provided YOUR post 403 twice. Neither time has YOUR post included anything about a bet. If I wanted to respond to a bet I would have responded to post #401 that DID offer a bet! It was of course by another member not you. I DID not respond to that post. I responded to yours (again provided below) that does NOT offer a bet. Here is YOUR POST again—no offer of a bet.

 

I quoted somebody in that post, and it's currently missing in that dumb attempt of yours.

and that quote is:
LOL I'd bet that you can't find one. In any case, healthy people don't normally have an issue with covid. This is especially true with omicron.

 

I responded to YOUR post, not the other member’s post. If I wanted to respond to him I would have used the “reply” function and replied to him. Instead I used the “reply” function and replied to YOU. And as I’ve pointed out numerous times, YOUR post offers no bet.

 

You responded to my post, and it was about a bet. The word "bet" was in my post. And it's ends up that your reply out of nowhere did not make any sense on that bet. That's on you, champ... for barging into a discussion and reply without giving a damn about the context of my post.

 

Sorry. The word “bet” is NOT in the post of yours I responded to. Here it is AGAIN. Please point out the word “bet” in YOUR post I responded to. Here it is. AGAIN.

 

Yes, you are. You are now denying your own words. You called that (responding to a post not directed to you) "barging in".

You made a post on a public forum. That means that the public can see it and respond to it as the public sees fit. If you wish for the public to not respond to your post, then you need to use the PM feature and direct your post towards the specific users that you wish to see it. Otherwise, the public is involved.

 

it remains so my post contains a quote saying
"LOL I'd bet that you can't find one. In any case, healthy people don't normally have an issue with covid. This is especially true with omicron."

 

You are not responding to my argument that when 2 ppl are busy with a bet, and a 3rd party enters the discussion ... that it's to be expected that the comment of that 3rd party is no that bet and not about something else.

THAT is in essence "responding" to somebody.

Do notice that poster 557 flat out denies a bet was going on, while we all can read back that there was. It's just pathetic.

 

No it doesn’t. That is not your post. You quoted that post with the PF quote function. That DOES NOT make it your post. LOL

 

It most certainly makes it my post, where I quoted somebody in it.
PF facilitates posters quoting other posters in their posts.

That quote function in PF makes it so that people can follow a conversation, to respond to.
Something that goes clear above your head.
Who knew it could be so hard.

 

I responded to YOU. Not the other poster. You responded to the other poster. I didn’t want to respond to the other poster because a bet was of no interest to me. I responded to YOUR post because it was interesting to show there are vaccinated people dying unnecessarily. The other posters content is completely irrelevant to OUR conversation.

 

It remains so you responded to a bet I won. And you were able to know it was a bet, since the world bet was in my post.
And so it's your own fault that you barged in and replied out of context.

 

I responded to YOUR post in context. You responded to SOMEONE ELSES post.

Again, if you don’t want YOUR POST quoted and replied to, I suggest using the PM function instead of the open forum.

 

The context was a about a bet. And your reply did not make any sense to that bet. That's your own fault.


And I won that bet.

 

Here is your post and my reply.

Nothing in your post about a bet. Nothing in my post about a bet. I just responded to the content of your post.

 

That post you're putting up from me doesn't contain me quoting a poster.
And THAT quote is part of the context, while that quote is also part of my post.
We can all look back and see how I am so right.
And you are such a fail in this discussion.

I'll be referring to this post if needed.

 

Of course it doesn’t. If I wanted to reply to the other poster I would have. I wanted to reply to YOUR post, not his. That’s why I quoted YOUR post with the PF quote function. The PF quote function NEVER quotes the posts preceding the quoted post. LOL

Please do refer to this exchange. It demonstrates you have no understanding of the PF quote function, no understanding of how forum debate works on an open forum, and no understanding of what “context” means. I suggest referring to this exchange often—I would prefer daily!