[Cincinatus' Wife]

Yes, I saw your post #1 narrative, presumably about the article Ms. Sanchez wrote, but conveniently every sentence in your post #1 was about all sorts of past and present statements, events and meetings about just-Cruz that to me didn’t really discuss the relevancy to Ms Sanchez’ piece. I guess it wouldn’t be cricket to go into Walker’s past positions on immigration and his transition to the right, huh?

Your jumbling, non-response speaks volumes. Re: Walker's past responses - that's the point. They're Cruz's positions too. Get it now?

[Gaffer]

I didn’t jumble. You slammed together 5 or 6 sentences about Cruz’ past thoughts and actions, slyly not mentioning your candidate. They weren’t about what Sanchez was talking about in the article really.

I’ve said my piece on the trail of tears re: Walker’s changes in the past up to his now-position and really haven’t gone out of my way to document all that like you did here with Cruz.

MY point is that your #1 wasn’t responsive to, nor really relevant to the content and purpose of the titled article, period. It was just a means to talk about Cruz without Walker in the mix. Bad cricket in my opinion.