If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1831
|
|||
|
|||
All-in-One PCs
In article , Eric Stevens wrote:
Eric Stevens: Then put back _all_ of the paragraph which I originally wrote and from which you quoted but one short sentence. Sandman: I have no need or desire to do that, nor would I be required to do so for me to not be a liar. Eric Stevens: Bull**** and you are bluffing. Sandman: I don't think you know what the word "bluffing" means. What I said above was 100% correct. Eric Stevens: Then put back _all_ of the paragraph which I originally wrote and from which you quoted but one short sentence. Sandman: For what purpose? The snipped text being in ur out doesn't change the fact that what I wrote was true. The truth, the *whole-truth*, and nothing but the truth. What *I* wrote was the truth, am I speaking chinese? When I quote *YOU*, I can not "lie" by what "amount" I am quoting you. I never claimed that the quoted text was the entirety of your post. You claimed I "misquoted", that was a lie. You claim I lied, that was a lie. Sandman: Are you, with a straight face, claiming that you never wrote this: Eric Stevens All-in-One PCs 02/24/2016 "Me? I'm not arguing a definition." Because then you would again be lying. Eric Stevens: Weasily turd, aren't you? Put back _all_ of the paragraph which I originally wrote and from which you have quoted but one short sentence. Sandman: Why can't you answer the question, Eric? Why are you falling back on personal attacks and insults? You said above: "It is when it enables you to respond on the basis of something I never said." That is you claiming that *I* changed the meaning of your sentence, of what you wrote - that it was something *you never said*. I then asked you if you with a straight face can say you never said this: "Me? I'm not arguing a definition." The truth, the *whole-truth*, and nothing but the truth. Ah, the broken record "argument". Now run away little man. You find yourself having brought a balloon to a gun fight - as usual. -- Sandman |
#1832
|
|||
|
|||
All-in-One PCs
On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 13:01:09 -0800, Savageduck
wrote: On 2016-02-26 20:24:13 +0000, Eric Stevens said: On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 08:52:20 -0800, Savageduck wrote: On 2016-02-26 16:12:56 +0000, Sandman said: Le Snip You claim I lied, that was a lie. Actually it was not a lie, it was as you indicated, a claim that you lied. Now the claim might be on shakey ground and is unsubstantiated, but it is still only a claim, not a lie. It is a lie when it comes to citing what I actually said. I am surprised that with your experience you would not recognise the significance of the old oath to "tell the truth, the *whole-truth*, and nothing but the truth." Our acestors long ago learned to deal with people like Jonas who lie with partial truths. I was a cop, not a courtroom warrior. I have had to sort out truth, imagined truth, not quite the truth, fabricated alibis, obvious lies, pathological lies, white lies, and pure obstructionist lies. I collected all sorts of statements and evidence, as to whether that is used for testimony in court is up to the D.A. and the defense. As far as "tell the truth, the *whole-truth*, and nothing but the truth" goes, I will leave that to the lawyers to impeach lying testimony, and for the trial judge to suggest to the D.A. to file perjury charges. News Groups are not courtrooms and nobody here is under oath. Perjury is not a factor here, and ultimately, in the Usenet, as on the battlefield all is fair. Not even on the battle field is all fair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_war The problem with "NG flamewar speak" is its hyperbolic nature. We say folks lie, when all they are doing is arguing. Unfortunately one of the typical defenses/attacks/counter-attacks in our flame wars is to claim the opponent is lying, often without proof. The only rebuttal to that is to counter-claim that the opponent was lying, leaving us in a never ending cycle of unsubstantiated claim-counter-claim. Silly isn't it? Le Snip Jonas tried to introduce a lie. He's done it this way before and he will do it again if we let him. There are several regulars in this NG who use the accusation of lying as a weapon in flamewars, even if there was never a lie to start with. You should know that I don't, except when I catch someone in a deliberate attempt to introduce a lie. I've been trapped by this technique of Jonas' in the past so I now call it for what it is when I see it coming. His reluctance to quote the entirety of what I wrote on that occasion confirms that he knew very well what he was doing. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#1833
|
|||
|
|||
All-in-One PCs
On 2/26/2016 3:24 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 08:52:20 -0800, Savageduck wrote: On 2016-02-26 16:12:56 +0000, Sandman said: Le Snip You claim I lied, that was a lie. Actually it was not a lie, it was as you indicated, a claim that you lied. Now the claim might be on shakey ground and is unsubstantiated, but it is still only a claim, not a lie. It is a lie when it comes to citing what I actually said. I am surprised that with your experience you would not recognise the significance of the old oath to "tell the truth, the *whole-truth*, and nothing but the truth." Our acestors long ago learned to deal with people like Jonas who lie with partial truths. The problem with "NG flamewar speak" is its hyperbolic nature. We say folks lie, when all they are doing is arguing. Unfortunately one of the typical defenses/attacks/counter-attacks in our flame wars is to claim the opponent is lying, often without proof. The only rebuttal to that is to counter-claim that the opponent was lying, leaving us in a never ending cycle of unsubstantiated claim-counter-claim. Silly isn't it? Le Snip Jonas tried to introduce a lie. He's done it this way before and he will do it again if we let him. Not if you ignore him. -- PeterN |
#1834
|
|||
|
|||
All-in-One PCs
On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 18:31:23 -0500, PeterN
wrote: On 2/26/2016 3:24 PM, Eric Stevens wrote: On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 08:52:20 -0800, Savageduck wrote: On 2016-02-26 16:12:56 +0000, Sandman said: Le Snip You claim I lied, that was a lie. Actually it was not a lie, it was as you indicated, a claim that you lied. Now the claim might be on shakey ground and is unsubstantiated, but it is still only a claim, not a lie. It is a lie when it comes to citing what I actually said. I am surprised that with your experience you would not recognise the significance of the old oath to "tell the truth, the *whole-truth*, and nothing but the truth." Our acestors long ago learned to deal with people like Jonas who lie with partial truths. The problem with "NG flamewar speak" is its hyperbolic nature. We say folks lie, when all they are doing is arguing. Unfortunately one of the typical defenses/attacks/counter-attacks in our flame wars is to claim the opponent is lying, often without proof. The only rebuttal to that is to counter-claim that the opponent was lying, leaving us in a never ending cycle of unsubstantiated claim-counter-claim. Silly isn't it? Le Snip Jonas tried to introduce a lie. He's done it this way before and he will do it again if we let him. Not if you ignore him. True. But then he will dance all over me for not answering. It's not possible to evade the nasty sod. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#1835
|
|||
|
|||
All-in-One PCs
In article , Eric Stevens wrote:
Eric Stevens: Jonas tried to introduce a lie. He's done it this way before and he will do it again if we let him. Savageduck: There are several regulars in this NG who use the accusation of lying as a weapon in flamewars, even if there was never a lie to start with. You should know that I don't, except when I catch someone in a deliberate attempt to introduce a lie. Which, of course, you have not. I've been trapped by this technique of Jonas' in the past so I now call it for what it is when I see it coming. I.e. lie about it. His reluctance to quote the entirety of what I wrote on that occasion confirms that he knew very well what he was doing. What "I was doing" was responding to your post, snipping the parts I did not respond to. You then replied and told two lies: 1. You lied when you said I misquoted you. I did not. 2. You lied when you claimed I lied. I did not. The first *only* person in this thread to lie was you, and only you. -- Sandman |
#1836
|
|||
|
|||
All-in-One PCs
In article , PeterN wrote:
Savageduck: The problem with "NG flamewar speak" is its hyperbolic nature. We say folks lie, when all they are doing is arguing. Unfortunately one of the typical defenses/attacks/counter-attacks in our flame wars is to claim the opponent is lying, often without proof. The only rebuttal to that is to counter-claim that the opponent was lying, leaving us in a never ending cycle of unsubstantiated claim-counter-claim. Silly isn't it? Le Snip Eric Stevens: Jonas tried to introduce a lie. He's done it this way before and he will do it again if we let him. Not if you ignore him. So why don't you "ignore me" instead of posting irrelevant responses to some of my posts? -- Sandman |
#1837
|
|||
|
|||
All-in-One PCs
On 2/26/2016 8:01 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 18:31:23 -0500, PeterN wrote: On 2/26/2016 3:24 PM, Eric Stevens wrote: On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 08:52:20 -0800, Savageduck wrote: On 2016-02-26 16:12:56 +0000, Sandman said: Le Snip You claim I lied, that was a lie. Actually it was not a lie, it was as you indicated, a claim that you lied. Now the claim might be on shakey ground and is unsubstantiated, but it is still only a claim, not a lie. It is a lie when it comes to citing what I actually said. I am surprised that with your experience you would not recognise the significance of the old oath to "tell the truth, the *whole-truth*, and nothing but the truth." Our acestors long ago learned to deal with people like Jonas who lie with partial truths. The problem with "NG flamewar speak" is its hyperbolic nature. We say folks lie, when all they are doing is arguing. Unfortunately one of the typical defenses/attacks/counter-attacks in our flame wars is to claim the opponent is lying, often without proof. The only rebuttal to that is to counter-claim that the opponent was lying, leaving us in a never ending cycle of unsubstantiated claim-counter-claim. Silly isn't it? Le Snip Jonas tried to introduce a lie. He's done it this way before and he will do it again if we let him. Not if you ignore him. True. But then he will dance all over me for not answering. It's not possible to evade the nasty sod. So what? Will it have any effect on your lifestyle? But here in Usenet that's your choice. It is also my choice not to tolerate that behavior. -- PeterN |
#1838
|
|||
|
|||
All-in-One PCs
On Sat, 27 Feb 2016 09:04:44 -0500, PeterN
wrote: Le Snip Jonas tried to introduce a lie. He's done it this way before and he will do it again if we let him. Not if you ignore him. True. But then he will dance all over me for not answering. It's not possible to evade the nasty sod. So what? Will it have any effect on your lifestyle? It has the potential to affect my reputation and hence my relationship with others. But here in Usenet that's your choice. It is also my choice not to tolerate that behavior. I'm glad we agree on that. I have already decided that as the current situation is now clear I will leave the unhappy fellow to work out his frustrations on someone else. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#1839
|
|||
|
|||
All-in-One PCs
On 2016-02-27 20:46:21 +0000, Eric Stevens said:
On Sat, 27 Feb 2016 09:04:44 -0500, PeterN wrote: Le Snip Jonas tried to introduce a lie. He's done it this way before and he will do it again if we let him. Not if you ignore him. True. But then he will dance all over me for not answering. It's not possible to evade the nasty sod. So what? Will it have any effect on your lifestyle? It has the potential to affect my reputation and hence my relationship with others. But here in Usenet that's your choice. It is also my choice not to tolerate that behavior. I'm glad we agree on that. I have already decided that as the current situation is now clear I will leave the unhappy fellow to work out his frustrations on someone else. Phew! -- Regards, Savageduck |
#1840
|
|||
|
|||
All-in-One PCs
On 02/25/2016 09:46 AM, PeterN wrote:
snip You guys are going to have to end this thread. As soon as I turned my computer on, the floor started to sag underneath it and I had to delete 2000 replies! |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|