Trivializing others' answers by using fake grammatical "analysis" like this is simply another form of trolling, something you appear adept at.<quoted text>
"P.S. You thought there would be room only for your lies. You were WRONG."
Hee-hee... you're doubling down, I see.
It's been a while since I've broken sentences down, but let's give it a try, shall we?
Removing all the modifiers, here's you're basic statement:
>>You thought there would be room.
A simple statement. Could mean anything.
But let's add to it:
>>You thought there would be room only....
"only"? Use of that word here adds emphasis to "room", as in 'more room'. So you're acknowledging a bigger room.
>>You thought there would be room only for your lies.
A 'bigger room' for what? Lies. But taken in conjunction with 'only' you're saying that more lies are possible in the room. Whose lies? Not mine, you've alleged those already exist. So who else?
Why 'you', course. You're the only person left in the conversation.
>>You thought there would be room only for your lies. You were WRONG.
And as if you didn't already trip yourself up, you now admit that the alleged lies in a room are actually part of a larger room stocked with your lies.
.... except LOL
I haven't seen you on this board, but I've seen your posts elsewhere, you seem the typical Conservative troll. Not all of them are also Climate Deniers, but evidently you are. All Al Gore's fault, laugh at hockey sticks, e-mail coverups, all the usual jazz?
That'll really make this thread more meaningful.