From: wally@wally.world.net

On 23/4/05 2:22 PM, in article BE8F37B1.13BBF%SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID,
"Snit"  wrote:

> "Wally"  stated in post
> BE8FF985.AB25%wally@wally.world.net on 4/22/05 10:06 PM:
>
>> You could do a whole lot worse than emulate me, look at the mess being *you*
>> has got you into!  LOL



>>> You are right, Wally, you are left where you can only dishonestly snip and
>>> make absurd assumptions, whereas I am here looking at facts and logic.
>>> Someday I would like you to mature to a point where you can do the same.
>>>
>>> Your dishonesty and absurd assumptions do not change the facts:
>>>
>>> * You have a bias when it comes to me.  You admit to it.
>>
>> Have I ever denied it?
>
> Who cares what you have denied?  Do you see now that your comments do not
> change the facts I have presented to you?

So you can make accusations without any regard to the undeniable facts?
Yup that sounds like Snit of course you can! LOL

>>> * You, Elizabot, and I agree that Elizabot took at least one image,
>>>   edited it, and reposted it to a public forum.  At one point, however,
>>>   you refused to admit she had done all of these actions and would only
>>>   claim she had done *one* action, though you would not say which one!
>>>   Eventually even you saw the futility of your game and admitted she
>>>   had done multiple actions.
>>
>> LOL
>
> Do you see now that your "LOL" does not change the facts I have presented to
> you?

Reality is not spelt "LOL" which is merely an abbreviation for Snits use of
logic!

>>>
>>> * While I have commented on still more actions of Elizabot, including
>>>   digging through my site, I have not been able to produce proof public
>>>   of this.
>>
>> Ah! More comments but still no proof! It has been proven that no digging
>> through your site was necessary to arrive at your pictures on your page on
>> your site!...you chose not to comment!...big surprise.....NOT!
>
> Do you see that your comments do not change the facts I have presented to
> you?

Snit.....Facts.............No sorry ...does not compute!

>>> * My other comments about Elizabot's actions, according to you, are
>>>   not accurate - though you have offered no evidence to support your
>>>   accusations against me on this.
>>
>> So you make unsupported accusations, but the onus is on me to disprove them?
>
> Incorrect.  Once again you fail to understand logic.  You did more than make
> the observation that I did not provide public proof, you made the accusation
> that I lied.

 OH DUR!........because you lied?

> You have not supported your accusation.  You are guilty of what you blame me
> of - the difference being that I am completely honest about it.

I have supported *everything* you have supported *nothing* except my
contention of your gross stupidity/dishonesty, for that I thank you!

>> Hahahahhaha, another example of *Snit* logic at work!  ROTFL.
>
> Do you see now that your comments do not change the facts I have presented
> to you?

Snit.....Facts.............No sorry ...does not compute!

>>> * Elizabot's actions were obviously not honest - she clearly did
>>>   edits in a way to be offensive (ex: adding feminine hygiene products
>>>   to the image).  She also did not seek ask permission from either the
>>>   person who took the photos nor the person who was the subject of the
>>>   photos.
>>
>> And yet at the time you didn't find them offensive, but I must admit that
>> that assumption of mine is based on YOUR *actual* comments at the time, so
>> as usual they will exhibit your usual lack of consistency, hence your recent
>> flip, flop regarding them!
>
> You base the honesty of Elizabot's actions on my comments *after* the fact!

Are you claiming that you made comments about Elizabot's actions *BEFORE*
the fact?  really Snit! At least make an effort at coherency.

> What a bizarre attempt at an obfuscation you are making.

It's called reality...........I know! To you that must seem an alien
concept, But some of us like it! LOL

> Do you see now that your comments do not change the facts I have presented
> to you?

Snit.....Facts.............No sorry ...does not compute!

>>> * You admit that you are not able to comprehend my comments - and
>>>   this is true even when my comments are clearly written.
>>
>> Never have! In fact I have commented on your transparency!
>
> Snit: it is not surprising that you are not able to understand comments
> Wally: 'your' comments!

When compared to reality I defy anyone to understand some of your comments
such as......

" You base the honesty of Elizabot's actions on my comments *after* the
fact!"

When the alternative is to base it on comments *before* the fact!, the rest
of your comments are usually based on lies and distortions so it would be
fair to say I don't understand why you need to do that.....that must be what
you mean.

>
> You have admitted to not having the capacity to understand my comments.

I gladly admit to not having the capacity to understand why you constantly
feel the need to make comments that are clearly lies or distortions, I have
stated that I believe it is probably linked to your admitted 'mental
problems'.

> Do you see now that your denial does not change the facts I have presented to
> you?

Snit.....Facts.............No sorry ...does not compute!

>>> * You have shown you are unable and unwilling to answer simple questions
>>>   based on abstractions: for example when asked if you think that the act
>>>   of breaking a law is moral - you are not able to understand the abstract
>>>   concept that one could not find law breaking immoral but still find an
>>>   act that breaks the law immoral.  You refute this claim easily by giving
>>>   a clear answer to the question: do you find the law breaking, by itself,
>>>   to be an immoral act.
>>
>> My position is very clear and I have already answered and you chose to
>> ignore and snip the points made, by choosing not to answer whether you could
>> think of an immoral (in your view) law, where the breaking of it would not
>> (in your view) be an immoral act, proves my point and demolished yours.
>
> As you show, again, you are not able to answer the question or understand
> how the concept of the law in abstraction is divorced from any specific law.

So again you choose not to answer wrt your morality......probably a very
wise move on your part! ;=)

> Do you see now that your comments do not change the facts I have presented
> to you?

 Snit.....Facts.............No sorry ...does not compute!

>>> You can keep playing games, making absurd assumptions, and running from
>>> these facts all you want... the facts will not change.
>>
>> If by 'the facts' you mean what you have stated previously! Then you are

[continued in next message]

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
 * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)