hurriedly revises his opinion of what constitutes an acceptable answer, telling me to try again in pursuit of the 'correct' answer. I ask him to explain why he has just contradicted himself. The response?
Silence. Twenty-four hours of silence.
Well, this is deeply mysterious, but of course I know that it must be a mere oversight, and that it can't possibly be because he doesn't actually have any explanation to offer. So I jog his memory with this playful tweet -
24 hours on, and still no reply to my question. Are we to infer that the answer is probably "Er..."?
This time, I do receive a 'response' of sorts, albeit one that shatters all my illusions about the admin's integrity -
Thank you for attempting to answer the latest Question to which the answer is "Er..." Sorry, but your answer was incorrect.
This, for the uninitiated, is known as a "non-answer in desperate pursuit of closure". But, alas, there can be no closure for our friend the admin, until he admits to us, and to his readers, and perhaps most importantly to himself a fact that is a simple matter of record - that one of his 'impossible questions to nationalists' has now been answered in full conformity with the specifications he set down for an "acceptable" answer. This was of course never supposed to happen, so we can all fully appreciate why it's a wee bit hard for him, but it has happened, and he needs to accept that reality in order to move on.
The only alternative is to pretend, as he has just done, that the answer 'no' to the questions "Should California secede from the Union, and are those Californians who wish to remain American guilty of being “anti-Californian”?" is in some way 'incorrect'. As Colin pointed out on an earlier thread, this by definition means he is saying that California should indeed secede from the US, and that tens of millions of Californians (basically all Californians) are "anti-Californian" for not favouring independence.
Now, I don't think you really do believe that, Admin. Let's be grown-up about this, eh?