Elon Musk has said an Axios report that the Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) had concluded there was no evidence of a Jeffrey Epstein client list was the “final straw”.
The report also said the agencies had concluded there was no credible evidence the disgraced financier and pedophile blackmailed high-profile and prominent individuals, and confirmed that surveillance footage showed Epstein had killed himself in prison.
“So… umm… then what is Ghislaine Maxwell in prison for?” Musk posted to his X platform, referring to Epstein’s former girlfriend and associate who procured underage girls for him to abuse.
You’ve been rude, and refused to acknowledge context. Your usage didn’t match the intent you expressed and wouldn’t clarify.
Read Rule # 3. I accused you of behavior of being like something else. It’s not the same as calling you that other thing.
You obviously think I have multiple accounts as you’ve accused me of such.
I walked in on a conversation with over 30 replies and most of them were you ignoring the context and providing content that was trying to walk all over a valid point without moving the conversation forward. Yeah - You failed to explain yourself and ignored context.
When everyone else thinks you’re wrong, perhaps - just perhaps - you could be wrong. Use a tool to look at all the folks who downvoted you. You’re not standing up for yourself. You’re standing up for incorrect usage, and you’re not following the rules.
Your entire exchange falls under rule 4 violations. Goodbye, I’ll follow the guidance. You’ve subtracted from the conversation.
I’ve responded in kind to a person who’s second comment questioned my honesty, integrity and intelligence based on a errant belief that I was trying to pluralize Clinton. I was not trying to pluralize anything hence the statement to that effect previously and my insistence that a “correction” that removes intent is gross editorial error and refusing to accept a reasonable answer as to why their correction is flawed at best is just egomaniacal. And to be clear I’ve never denied they’re could be a mistake I’ve said the correction they attempted is not a correction it’s an editorial error so am I ignoring context or are all three of you ignoring the context I’ve provided in multiple?
I understand, I still think you’re all the same person because you speak the same and the chances that I found three separate incessant pendants that all make the same error and all insist on their opinion of me meeting factual dispite what I think we have to agree is at the very least a plausible answer is nigh zero.
I believe you’re all the same person, correct regardless of if you are or not you’re all taking the same stance with the same wording and insisting “altogether” that I cannot know the intent of a statement I made more than any of you “three” know my intent so I ran into three egomaniacs or one with far too much time and far too few communication skills.
I didn’t ignore the context, I ignore the insistence that it was a pluralization error and not a possession error. I implore you to find a denial that their might be a mistake, the most I’ve ever done is say that the mistake they insist on is not the error they insist it to be.
Sure the majority is always save and correct right? We got trump because clearly group think is flawless and people would never pile on because it feels good to be part of something even if it’s attempting to tear someone else down for a minor error. And again you insist the same error they do despite multiple admission there might be an error it’s not the error they insist it is.
Their second comment violates rule two by attacking the commentor rather then the comment. Your position only makes sense if you’re certain for whatever reason that I’m a liar.
Please explain how your comment makes sense? Your initial statement clarifications state that it is to imply possession.
The sentence currently starting this was “Bro he’s good friends with the Clinton’s too”
English has specific structures and forms, that are well laid out, even if confusing.
The usage there is referring to the Clinton family as a plural noun. There are no correct possessive uses in the original sentence.
The conjunctions you used clearly stated He Is and Clinton Is.
Someone else explained this before me. They’re all trying to point out that English used the way you’re using it doesn’t mean what you are trying to explain it to mean.
Your follow up statement currently reads “It’s not plural it’s possessive.”
To declare possessiveness you would have had to change words or clauses.
One example that reads similar to what you’re explaining could be: “Bro he’s the Clintons’ good friend.”
My position makes sense when you comprehend the rules behind what everyone else was getting at, and what I’m driving at.