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

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 11:57:41 -0800, "Dutch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>"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

You've admitted that you do in this very thread
several times.
"I altered your response ... I then reverted to being 
completely honest and ethical in my replies"

"I deliberately and obviously edited your post to 
make a point, then I stopped."

How can you sit there stating you don't use 
unethical posting methods while at the same 
time admitting you do use unethical posting 
methods in the very same thread?
>
>> >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.
>
Then show your evidence and explain why the 
lack of it somehow exonerates you from altering
my posts and lying?
>>
>> >> >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.
>
No, it isn't. You have no defence for altering your
opponent's post, especially if that defence rests on
an unsupported suspicion that your opponent lied
first.

>> 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

You've admitted that it was in this very thread
several times.
"I altered your response ... I then reverted to being 
completely honest and ethical in my replies"

"I deliberately and obviously edited your post to 
make a point, then I stopped."
>
>> > 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've admitted that you did lie in this very thread
several times.
"I altered your response ... I then reverted to being 
completely honest and ethical in my replies"

"I deliberately and obviously edited your post to 
make a point, then I stopped."

> you did.

Then show your proof instead of just repeating
my alleged lies were obvious.

>> >> >> 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

You do, because even now you're still trying to 
excuse your own lying, cheating and post-altering 
on a mere suspicion that your opponent lied first,
so where's your evidence?

>> >> >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

You did contradict yourself by initially stating you
didn't, and then going on to state you did with "ONE
single exception."
>
>> >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

It's certain you do because you have admitted
to it in this very thread several times already;

"I altered your response ... I then reverted to being 
completely honest and ethical in my replies"

"I deliberately and obviously edited your post to 
make a point, then I stopped."
>> >>
>> >> >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. 

It's certain you did because you have admitted
to it in this very thread several times already;

"I altered your response ... I then reverted to being 
completely honest and ethical in my replies"

"I deliberately and obviously edited your post to 
make a point, then I stopped."