I Am Undecided.

Oh.
Is that what y'all are doing? Making points.

Just sounded more like you're throwing shade.

There's a difference between saying "I disagree, and here's why" and "You're an idiot, and here's why"

I don't care much for the subject matter. I simply noted as a group you sound boys in a school yard, rather then men debating.

That's what happens when you skim through stuff, you miss the point.

Your initial post to me was hostile in tone, so you shouldn't be surprised that mine was less than complimentary.

How is this....

"Not to derail the thread, but it's not like Britain doesn't have extensive business dealings with Saudi Arabia, including your police training Saudi Abrabian officers. "

Hostile in tone?

It was not, and is not, in any way, hostile in tone, or otherwise.

You're seeing slights, and devils, where there are not.

Maybe you have a point. My neighbor beats his wife, but he also buys a lot of stuff from my store, so I just look the other way.

I'm just kidding. I don't look the other way.

Yes it was hostile. We were discussing whether American Saudi relations were dependent on donations to the Clinton foundation. Your response implied I was adopting America wrong Britain bad argument. When my response tried to nudge you gently back in the right direction you refused to take the hint, preferring casual Anglophobia to reasoned debate.

So yeah, I told it like it is.

That's an incredibly oversimplified analogy. Countries are not the same as neighbours, there's no world police.

If the West won't sell to Saudi Arabia I'm sure China and Russia will oblige, and the Saudis can reciprocate by cutting off oil. Then there's Bahrain and the future of the American fleet.

maybe they're undecided about voting at all

I mean, what a choice this election offers, the creep or the other creep

Florida poll: 28 percent of GOP early voters picked Clinton

By Evelyn Rupert

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/303910-florida-poll-28-percent-of-gop-early-voters-picked

More than a quarter of Republicans who have already voted in Florida cast their ballots for Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, according to a new poll.

A TargetSmart/William & Mary poll released Tuesday showed 28 percent of early Florida voters picked Clinton over GOP nominee Donald Trump. The poll, which will be released in full Wednesday, was shared early with MSNBC.

28% of Florida early voting Republicans have voted for @HillaryClinton
— Lawrence O'Donnell (@Lawrence) November 2, 2016

Sponsored Content
United States drivers with no tickets in 3 years must read this

By Provide-Savings Insurance Quotes

Drivers are stunned that they never knew this. If you drive less than 50 mi/day, you better read this Read More

The poll also showed Clinton ahead of Trump 48 to 40 percent overall, with a larger lead — 55 to 37 percent — among those who said they already voted.

In the Florida Senate race, the poll showed incumbent GOP Sen. Marco Rubio ahead of Rep. Patrick Murphy by 6 points, 49 to 43 percent.

The poll surveyed 718 people, 311 who said they voted early, through web and phone interviews.

No, it wasn't hostile. I said it, so I should know my intent, and tone, which I've already explained.

How you took it personally is yours to own.

You didn't address any of the points I made, you attacked me for being British, and for having the temerity of not declaring Britain's relationship with Saudi Arabia, in a discussion about whether or not a donation to the Clinton's affected US/Saudi arms sales.

I don't know what relevance Britain's stance on the issue was, and you've not been able to provide one either, other than in a your **** stinks too sort of way. If you don't think you were being hostile you're off your bloody nut.

Was a Trump Server Communicating With Russia? - a group of computer scientists investigates

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/cover_story/2016/10/was_a_server_registered_to_the_trump_organization_communicating_with_russia.html

In late spring, this community of malware hunters placed itself in a high state of alarm. Word arrived that Russian hackers had infiltrated the servers of the Democratic National Committee, an attack persuasively detailed by the respected cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike. The computer scientists posited a logical hypothesis, which they set out to rigorously test: If the Russians were worming their way into the DNC, they might very well be attacking other entities central to the presidential campaign, including Donald Trump’s many servers. “We wanted to help defend both campaigns, because we wanted to preserve the integrity of the election,” says one of the academics, who works at a university that asked him not to speak with reporters because of the sensitive nature of his work.

Hunting for malware requires highly specialized knowledge of the intricacies of the domain name system—the protocol that allows us to type email addresses and website names to initiate communication. DNS enables our words to set in motion a chain of connections between servers, which in turn delivers the results we desire. Before a mail server can deliver a message to another mail server, it has to look up its IP address using the DNS. Computer scientists have built a set of massive DNS databases, which provide fragmentary histories of communications flows, in part to create an archive of malware: a kind of catalog of the tricks bad actors have tried to pull, which often involve masquerading as legitimate actors. These databases can give a useful, though far from comprehensive, snapshot of traffic across the internet. Some of the most trusted DNS specialists—an elite group of malware hunters, who work for private contractors—have access to nearly comprehensive logs of communication between servers. They work in close concert with internet service providers, the networks through which most of us connect to the internet, and the ones that are most vulnerable to massive attacks. To extend the traffic metaphor, these scientists have cameras posted on the internet’s stoplights and overpasses. They are entrusted with something close to a complete record of all the servers of the world connecting with one another.

In late July, one of these scientists—who asked to be referred to as Tea Leaves, a pseudonym that would protect his relationship with the networks and banks that employ him to sift their data—found what looked like malware emanating from Russia. The destination domain had Trump in its name, which of course attracted Tea Leaves’ attention. But his discovery of the data was pure happenstance—a surprising needle in a large haystack of DNS lookups on his screen. “I have an outlier here that connects to Russia in a strange way,” he wrote in his notes. He couldn’t quite figure it out at first. But what he saw was a bank in Moscow that kept irregularly pinging a server registered to the Trump Organization on Fifth Avenue.

More data was needed, so he began carefully keeping logs of the Trump server’s DNS activity. As he collected the logs, he would circulate them in periodic batches to colleagues in the cybersecurity world. Six of them began scrutinizing them for clues.
(more)

Everything you just said is completely besides the point.

I get to say if what I am saying is hostile, tone, word or otherwise, because I'm the one thinking and saying it.

I was not being hostile, it's in your mind.
It was a simple observation, and you're taking it way beyond my words, adding as you see fit.

You might ask why I keep responding?

Because if someone is telling me I was being hostile, and I wasn't, I'm going to stand up for myself.

Not in a hostile way, just in that you can't tell me what the intent or tone of my own words were, since they were my thoughts and words. I don't care if we are talking about Saudi Arabia, or Handel.

Now, if you had wanted to address that you thought what I said was just a random observation, and that you didn't think I was adding to the discussion, that's one thing.

If you tell me I'm doing anything other than making a observation, you're putting your own emotions into it, and thinking/projecting they are also mine.

I wasn't being hostile. I was making an observation.

If you respond again saying I was hostile, I'll again refute it, and will keep doing so.

You're talking out of your April and you know it. What you intended is neither here nor there. You were being hostile, and to claim it's all in the recipient's mind is disingenuous and controlling. It's a cheap huckster's trick and I'm not swallowing it, even if you are.

If you don't want to come across as hostile, read the posts first so you don't go off half cock. Then if you don't like what you get back don't pretend you were being all sweetness and light and blame the other party for having an active imagination. Unless of course you want to piss people off, then carry on.

I don't give a monkey's what you do, just don't expect me to believe a load of old bollocks.

The analogy is accurate. The U.S. sanctions North Korea, China, Russia, and Iran for human rights abuses. And you say there is no world police. Perhaps I should say that the U.S.'s failure to sanction the Saudis is hypocritical.

I was not being hostile, and I will continue to stand up for myself when someone else tries to tell me what my thoughts are.

You're not standing up for yourself, just trying to justify your behaviour. You tried to kick me up the arse but got your own kicked in return, and now you can't handle it.

I've not told you what your thoughts are, although you have picked up the wrong end of the stick and think you can wear people down with repetitive behaviour, so I doubt they're that profound.

I think it's a Westheimer moment. When I was in Houston there was, still probably is, a main thoroughfare called Westheimer. Now it was common knowledge that on a Saturday night every car driving down Westheimer would get stopped by the police, yet they would still go down there and get nicked. Now our drunk drivers are irresponsible gits but they're not daft enough to get tanked up and go somewhere they'll get pulled by the old bill, only in Texas are they daft enough for that. It's like they can't think of an alternative route, like some sort of mental block.

Am I your Westheimer? Is it why you continue with this strategy of wearing people down even it's not working and you end up looking stupid? Is this really your only option?

I don't know what you're talking about, it's very confused.
I'm just letting you know I wasn't hotile.

It's hardly the first time you've not known what's going on. You were hostile, you didn't address the points issued, instead accused me of hypocrisy by not listing Britain's relations with SA, which was irrelevant, then when you were put right, you resorted to sexist language By depicting the argument between myself and Glenn/McGen as playground behaviour you attempted to portray yourself as being so much more mature and conciliatory just because you're a woman. It's the language of division and helps perpetrate inequality, not as extreme as Trump's, "Grab them by the pussy," but in the same ball park.

Now you can keep on denying black is white but you're only fooling yourself. Whenever you're hostile towards me, I will respond accordingly. It's dead easy, stop being so brusque, patronising, smug and idiotic, not just towards me, but others who have felt the need to pm me with support for standing up to your 'hateful' behaviour.

I don't think you're hateful, I just think you're stroppy, but I'm damned if I'm going to swallow your bs regardless of how much of a strop you throw. You don't have to behave like this, but if you insist on going down Westheimer, at least be honest about it.

I don't think you can, I think you're stuck in some mental loop where you keep repeating the same behaviour over and over again. I've heard it all before, but if you're still arguing the point at quarter to 4 in the bloody morning something ain't right.