A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

All-in-One PCs



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1831  
Old February 26th 16, 10:57 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Sandman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,467
Default 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  
Old February 26th 16, 10:59 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default 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  
Old February 27th 16, 12:31 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,254
Default 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  
Old February 27th 16, 02:01 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default 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  
Old February 27th 16, 09:39 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Sandman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,467
Default 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  
Old February 27th 16, 10:46 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Sandman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,467
Default 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  
Old February 27th 16, 03:04 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,254
Default 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  
Old February 27th 16, 09:46 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default 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  
Old February 27th 16, 09:51 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default 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  
Old February 27th 16, 09:58 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
philo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 444
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:31 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.