Re: Dreck forged a post under my name on August 17

"ipse dixit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 11:57:50 -0800, "Dutch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >"ipse dixit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> >> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 10:30:46 -0800, "Dutch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >"ipse dixit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> >> >> "Dutch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> >> >> > "ipse dixit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> >> >> > [..]
> >> >> > > >Forget about nym-shifting Derek, you can't
> >> >> > > >possibly win on that score. The point is, you
> >> >> > > >frequently use selective un-noted editing
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > I do not edit my opponent's replies as you do.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > That's right, I leave enough of the context of my
> >> >> > opponents' reply so that it means what he intended.
> >> >> >
> >> >> That's a lie which I can easily demonstrate by
> >> >> showing where you altered my reply from;
> >> >
> >> >That was obviously done as a wakeup call to you.
> >> >
> >> Now you've admitted it, why did you lie by claiming
> >> you "leave enough of the context of my opponents'
> >> reply so that it means what he intended."? You
> >> clearly didn't, so why did you lie about it?
> >
> >I didn't, and you know it. My *obvious* editing was done
> >to get a point through to you.
>
> Are you so stupid that you can't see how you've
> contradicted yourself just there? Read it again.
> You start off by insisting you didn't and then went
> on to explain why you did. You're a stupid, stupid
> idiot.

I DON'T use unethical posting methods as you consistently do. I responded to
your lie in that way for a specific purpose. It's OBVIOUS moron.

You're just too dumb to be spending your time here.

> >
> >> >> "Fallen apples and mustard cress."
> >> >
> >> >Which was a blatant lie.
> >>
> >> You have no idea what diet I may be on, or even
> >> if I'm fasting, so altering my reply just because
> >> you weren't prepared to accept it is no excuse for
> >> altering it.

Your response was a blatant lie, you know it, I know it, it's OBVIOUS.

> >You response was obviously a lie and you know it.
> >
> You have no idea what diet I may be on, or even
> if I'm fasting, so altering my reply just because
> you weren't prepared to accept it is no excuse for
> altering it.

It was a blatant lie, you know it, I know it, it's OBVIOUS.

>
> >> >You're a reflexive liar.
> >> >
> >> Says the liar whose only defence for his own lying
> >> is to claim his opponent lied first. Yeah, right. Think
> >> about it: YOU lied *reflexively* when altering my
> >> reply, rather than lying for some purpose, so by that
> >> standard, your lie was reflexive. You are a reflexive
> >> liar.
> >
> >No, I altered your response (which was itself an obvious
> >lie) *once* to show that two can play at the lying game.
>
> You didn't establish that I had lied,

I didn't have to, it was OBVIOUS.

> and still haven't,
> yet you altered my reply despite that and are now
> trying to exonerate yourself by claiming your lying
> was in response to mine.

My post wasn't a lie, it was a deliberate thumb-up your nose, and it was
closer to the truth than your LIE.

> > I then reverted to being completely
> >honest and ethical in my replies.
>
> Obviously, you haven't, else you wouldn't still be
> lying now while trying to claim you were provoked
> into lying by assuming your opponent lied first.

I didn't lie, you did.

> >> >> to
> >> >> "Factory farmed rice, grains, fruits and vegetables
> >> >> purchased indiscriminately, coffee, tea, cheese, milk
> >> >> and eggs, along with some shit that I have no clue
> >> >> about."
> >> >
> >> >Which was an obvious thumb in the eye reaction to
> >> >your blatant lying.
> >> >
> >> You have no idea what diet I may be on, or even
> >> if I'm fasting, so altering my reply just because you
> >> weren't prepared to accept it is no excuse for doing
> >> it.
> >
> >I had an excellent reason, to highlight your lies.
>
> Where is your evidence to show that I lied?

I don't need any, it's OBVIOUS. No supermarket lists " just fallen apples".

> >It worked.
> >
> It easily proved you reflexively lied, yes.

No it highlighted and continues to highlight, as long as you drag this out,
that YOU lied, and YOU use unethical posting methods.

> >> >> You just don't know when to stop lying,
> >> >
> >> >Yes I do.
> >>
> >> Gotcha! Thanks for admitting you lie, but that you
> >> do know when to stop.
> >
> >That was my whole point dumbfuck.
>
> Then why didn't you just come right out and admit
> you're a liar in the first place?

The response was OBVIOUSLY edited from what you wrote, there was no
deception to admit.

Why do you continue to pretend that this ipse dixit character was anyone
else but you? Why did you go to such lengths to establish an alter ego, did
you expect anyone would be fooled?

Why do you act as if you're talking to grade-school kids?

> >I never denied that I changed your lie
> >into something closer to the truth.
> >
> Where's your evidence showing I lied, and where's
> your evidence showing your unethical alteration
> to my reply was closer to the truth?

I don't need any, it's obvious.

> >> >I deliberately and obviously edited your post to make a point,
> >> >then I stopped.
> >>
> >> Then, again, now you've admitted it, why did you lie
> >> by claiming you "leave enough of the context of my
> >> opponents' reply so that it means what he intended."?
> >> You clearly didn't, so why did you lie?
> >
> >I didn't, that was ONE single exception,
>
> Are you so stupid that you can't see how you've
> contradicted yourself just there? Read it again.
> You start off by insisting you didn't and then went
> on to explain why you did. You're a stupid, stupid
> idiot.

No, I'm exceptionally intelligent, and an ethical debater, and you're a
unethical, slobbering idiot.

> >done deliberately to make a point.
> >
> The only point you've proved is that you alter
> your opponent's posts to suit your argument
> and then excuse your unethical behaviour by
> accusing your opponent of lying first.

Nope, I'm stringing you along to keep the topic of your unethical posting
behaviour under a spotlight.

> >>
> >> >Your unethical behaviour never ends.
> >> >
> >> Says the liar who has no defence for his own lies
> >> other than that he suspected his opponent of lying
> >> first. Do you realise how pathetic that excuse is?
> >
> >My reason was perefectly sound
>
> That is NOT a sound reason for lying, Dutch. You
> cannot defend altering your opponent's post and
> your open lying by asserting your opponent lied first.
> You are very stupid.

I didn't lie. My act was a crude demonstration of unethical editing of an
opponent's post. It was deliberately crude so as to be obvious to everyone
that I was making a statement about unethical editing, YOUR stock-in-trade.
I'm exceptionally bright, and my reasons for what I did were very sound. You
lose, and will always lose, because you're unethical, wrong, and an idiot.