Mall

I am the be all end all when it comes to the correct interpretation of my words because they're my words. They're subject to whatever point I make or have made.

My words, my meaning of words and points.

So I'm saying you misinterpreted my point.

You say "explicitly" which I take to mean word for word. When you don't stick by word for word you have to be careful of paraphrasing or reimagining what someone is saying or else you stand guilty no pun intended, you'll be charged with no pun intended again, you'll be pointed at as adding words , putting words in someone else's mouth which you may not want to admit.

Instead of telling someone what that someone's point is, let that one tell you his or her own point. I have told you my point in my last response. 

" "God bless him" is a statement of support, and "that's payment for..."  is a colloquial term that comes from the concept of erasing a debt owed, which is unquestionably considered a good thing."

No no no let me tell you where you went wrong, you. Let me tell you what "God bless him" means. This is where you add your own meaning causing a misinterpretation.

"God bless" may be a "statement of support " when others use it. Who's to say that's what I mean? You see what I'm saying?

You take your meaning that you provided in tandem "that's payment for", the support of a good thing.

See how you come up with your own read on things.

Never said anything about supporting anything or what is good. This is like a bias perhaps maybe you think I'm picking sides or something.

Like I said I'm just labeling the point you formulated.

You really should learn or get in the habit of actually listening to what people are meaning by what they say and what they're explaining by the exact words they're using. You keep saying "imply, imply, imply, imply".

My words are at face value. Why is this not good enough? Why aren't they taken explicitly as you broached the word? Why are you pursuing this imagined deeper meaning?

This is how you build strawmans. Just deal with what I actually said in text. I tell you , I tell you what my words amount to, they're my words. They amount to nothing, nothing, nothing more than what's on the face of them. They amount to nothing else than that .

The particular words I use mean what they do based on either what is given or according to me.

This is not the same instance. If I never said 4, and you say it was strongly implied, you can't say I actually verbatim said it and be honest and correct about it.

This is an example of how you've responded to my points. You're mixing up objective things with personal interpretations. You have to know where my exact worded point stops and your interpretation begins.

You can do your personal interpretations all day. If you want to know what I mean by anything, you ask. This "you implied" this and that is just your words and you only have a tougher time proving they're my words because I actually never used the language.

It's called a dialogue or in this sense an interaction on a topic. It was my response, that's why. If you don't want my response to what you stated in my own topic, say so.

It was my response, that's the reason. Individuals are going to have responses, what are you talking about "nor was there any reason for you to do so"?

It's called a response. You may not like it, you may not agree, accept or understand it, so be it. It's got nothing to do with you asking for anything. I take the liberty and respond.

This point you made is coming across like you have a problem with folks that appear to oppose you. I'm not even opposing. What? You don't like the label. Ok well let it go comrade. The man is gone, let him rest in peace. You know, you arguing with me ain't allowing any peace.

You really have a problem in comprehending word for word what is being said. I said you asked two different questions. Is believing in something or knowing something mean the same to you?

There were two different questions you asked. See I quote exactly what you say so I don't misrepresent and your quote is a witness even if it's against you or contradicts you. When it's your own contradiction, maybe you don't realize and you need help turning away from traveling the wrong track.

This thing was supposed to be on Mr. O.J. Simpson. You've blown all these other issues into this.... honesty,making claims, implications.

For somebody that wasn't really arguing with you, you just aching for something to argue about.

This just feeds my point about understanding what one another is communicating. Don't roll with assumptions, colloquialisms, generalizations and implications.

So we can leave it here for real. Hopefully you have a little more understanding.

"It means the same thing it would mean in any other situation. Have you never formed your own conclusion about an event before? "

Yes sure. Although the way I form a conclusion about this would be different from something else. According you it is the same.

"Earlier you talked about lynchings, how do you know they actually happened?"

I don't know. I don't know anything outside of witnessing it for myself like the sun I can see for myself. What I have not witnessed I don't know of.

"So what we need is a few thousand more black murderers to get away with killing innocent white people, and this will achieve our ultimate goal of "balance"? Is that right?"

Ohh I don't know. We have to think about the history of slavery. Somebody maybe, an historian, researcher, can get you exact numbers accumulated, aggregate over centuries of injustice, I guess you'll have a figure on that scale.