Stein's disqualification stems from a purported withdrawal letter from her running mate -- a letter Stein's campaign claims was unauthorized and had a forged signature.
You are changing the topic. Comment OP didn’t say you wrote the article. That was an assertion you created yourself in response to them. So you mischaracterized their comment. And that was my point: that you mischaracterized it.
I made no explicit judgement about whether you are debating here in the comments in good faith or not. I was pointing out that your response was inaccurate.
However your response/deflection here kind of supports their original point that you are arguing in bad faith in these comments.
The poster said, “Everyone look at how OP engages with people in these posts. They are clearly here to spread propaganda and engage in bad faith.”
I’ve explained how I respond.
And since the commenter suggested I was posting “propaganda,” I simply pointed out that I didn’t write the article. It was shared from a reputable news source, not produced by me. Unless he believes that the news organization itself produces propaganda, then his argument doesn’t hold up.
The op said “in these posts.” Meaning with these posts. I stand by what I said. Posts and comments are different things.
If op meant in the thread or in the discussion or in the comments, then it’d be different. But they said “posts.” So I was correct in how I responded. Thank you! :)
This usage is an example of semantic extension—where a word is used in a non-literal sense that still retains some of its original meaning. Here, “in” is being used to mean “through the medium of” or “via,” which is a broader interpretation of “in” that overlaps with “with.” This flexibility is common in English, allowing prepositions to take on slightly altered meanings depending on context.
op said “posts” not “comments.” You are incorrect.
You are changing the topic. Comment OP didn’t say you wrote the article. That was an assertion you created yourself in response to them. So you mischaracterized their comment. And that was my point: that you mischaracterized it.
I made no explicit judgement about whether you are debating here in the comments in good faith or not. I was pointing out that your response was inaccurate.
However your response/deflection here kind of supports their original point that you are arguing in bad faith in these comments.
The poster said, “Everyone look at how OP engages with people in these posts. They are clearly here to spread propaganda and engage in bad faith.”
I’ve explained how I respond.
And since the commenter suggested I was posting “propaganda,” I simply pointed out that I didn’t write the article. It was shared from a reputable news source, not produced by me. Unless he believes that the news organization itself produces propaganda, then his argument doesn’t hold up.
Thank you!
OP’s original comment (emboldened relevant word by me):
IN these posts, not WITH these posts. You engage INSIDE (in) posts via comments. He/she was talking about your comments.
The op said “in these posts.” Meaning with these posts. I stand by what I said. Posts and comments are different things.
If op meant in the thread or in the discussion or in the comments, then it’d be different. But they said “posts.” So I was correct in how I responded. Thank you! :)
TIL “in” means “with”.
You are incorrect. Thank you! :)
This usage is an example of semantic extension—where a word is used in a non-literal sense that still retains some of its original meaning. Here, “in” is being used to mean “through the medium of” or “via,” which is a broader interpretation of “in” that overlaps with “with.” This flexibility is common in English, allowing prepositions to take on slightly altered meanings depending on context.
op said “posts” not “comments.” You are incorrect.
Glad you learned something! :)
op said “posts” not “comments.” You are incorrect. Thank you! :)