John Amendall wrote:
JA) If you meant the idea of many parties is stupid, you might have said so, but you didn’t (JA
False. I wrote: “offering multiple parties/candidates to the voters in our quadrant of Nolan space is dumb for multiple reasons”.
JA) dumb is a condition of speechlessness, it is not ignorance, and it is not stupidity (JA
False. Here is the relevant sense, from several different dictionaries:
1. unintelligent: regarded as having or showing a low level of intelligence
6 a: lacking intelligence : stupid b: showing a lack of intelligence
6. Conspicuously unintelligent; stupid
1. lacking intelligence or good judgment; stupid; dull-witted.
3. what John Amendall is
Learn to read.
1. I didn’t call the people dumb, I called the idea dumb. (I have now jokingly call _you_ dumb, as the evidence here really allows for no other conclusion.)
2. I made an exception for “wanting out” of a party that you think is unsalvageable and needs to be destroyed.
3. I never “insisted they ought to unite behind” Bob Barr. I think people disappointed with the Barr campaign out to follow David Nolan’s advice.
Again: learn to read.
