so much for the "slam dunk"

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I understand pontificate and your posts come across as pontificating.

"Come across" is not a statement of certainty. It is an expression of personal taste or feeling. There is an old expression--their is no disputing taste. How things "come across" to you is not arguable. It is more an indication of how you see rather than what you see. Two people may see the same thing and have a different opinion of what they see, or hear, or read. What may "come across" as pompous to you may "be perceived" as simply true by someone else. Do phrases like "be perceived" seem like pontificating compared to "come across" to you? Do "statement of certainty" or "expression of personal taste" seem a bit uppity? OK, I can see your point, and can't argue with your personal tastes. More important, is my "pontificating" true or false? If by saying that I pontificate, you're implying that I'm not truthful or that I'm wrong, then prove it. Prove that what I've said in response to your posts is wrong. In the thread by Jim in CT re Bush tax cuts only for the rich you kept demanding that he provide a link or back up his assertion, and that he didn't have any credibility in any of his posts if he didn't do so. So if you're implying that my "pontificating" is an indication that what I've said RELATING TO THE TOPIC OF THIS THREAD is wrong, then prove it. If you don't, or can't, then you do not have any credibility (and, as you put it to Jim in CT, you're lying).

If you're saying that I pontificate is just a little personal dig, that's no big deal and doesn't matter to me. That doesn't change the fact that you should, as you demanded of Jim in CT, back up you're assertions re Bush, or you have no credibility.