From: wally@wally.world.net
On 17/4/05 2:38, in article BE86A9C6.12344%SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID, "Snit"
wrote:
> "Wally" stated in post
> BE86F192.A070%wally@wally.world.net on 4/16/05 1:45 AM:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 16/4/05 14:55, in article BE8604D6.12245%SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID,
>> "Snit" wrote:
>>
>>> "Wally" stated in post
>>> BE86A481.A068%wally@wally.world.net on 4/15/05 8:14 PM:
>>>
>>> Once again you start tossing attacks with no support... look at your first
>>> couple of sentences... about as far as I got in your drivel.
>>
>> Now Snit! We both know that isn't true,,,,don't we?
>
> I did end up reading and responding to your drivel - so I stand corrected.
> Sorry.
>>
>>> You are
>>> clearly trying to disagree, but nothing changes the facts:
>>>
>>> 1) Elizabot has admitted to multiple actions: taking an image from my site,
>>> editing it (including adding feminine hygiene products to the image), and
>>> reposting it.
>>
>> I will agree to that, so we can agree that you no longer hold Elizabot
>> responsible for multiple images, merely multiple actions wrt 'one' image,
>> gee it occurs to me that a lot of time could have been saved if you had not
>> lied about the number of images involved in the first place, and simply
>> accepted Elizabot's version of events as she has clearly been telling the
>> truth all along, but I suppose that would have been in conflict with your
>> morals? LOL
>
> One image is accepted by all. I have acknowledged that I do not have the
> logs to prove she did more, and that the logs would be hard to prove they
> were not tampered with.
You talk about morals, and yet we now know that there was absolutely no
evidence whatsoever to substantiate your accusations, you admit that here
and you would have known that when you made them, had it not been for
Elizabots admission you would have had to resort to one of your ridiculous
observations.....such as ip's pointing here there and everywhere.....are you
ever going to act in an acceptable manner?
>>> 2) You do not deny that Elizabot has done this
>>
>> I agreed the moment she admitted it, did you miss that?
>
> Then there should be no argument - other than the fact that you see her
> actions as being OK... while I have a sticker sense of morality and do not
> see her actions as being acceptable.
Actions aren't the only thing that has an equal but oppose reaction.....Bias
works in the same way! So your opinion is to be expected.
>>
>>> (well, you even waffle on
>>> that - you refer to *one* action but will not say which one!),
>>
>> If you have read down this far you will see that that has now been
>> clarified.
>
> You never did clarify what *one* action you were in reference to. Above I
> describe *multiple* actions of hers that you now agree with.
And you accuse me of word games! LOL
But ..ok ..just to clarify and to prevent further lengthy posts by you on
the subject, the one action referred to was that which was associated with
one image, yes I admit to alleviate your obvious confusion it may have been
prudent to say actions...but there we have it.
>>> but you have stated it is OK with you...
>>
>> Correct!
>
> So now we know that I do not accept such actions as being moral and you do -
> though even there you have waffled and not said if you think they would be
> acceptable if directed at someone else. Can you clear that up now?
Already done so......
"I have answered!, I have stated categorically that in your case I see no
problem with it, does it really have to be spelt out to you that in other
cases I may have a problem with it?"
Is that really too confusing for you?
>>
>>> not because her actions in general are moral,
>>
>> Where have I stated they are immoral? Would they not be one or the other?
>>
>>> but because you think it is ok to do that to *me*...
>>
>> Do you not see that both could be valid, moral (IMO), and because it is done
>> to you?
>
> If you clear up your view on how you would see it if the acts were done to
> someone else - stealing someone else's picture and editing it as such...
> then we can see if your morals are consistent. So far you have not been
> willing to do so. Will you now?
Well! We can see that I have been totally consistent on that point, the
ideal situation would be for you to be able to ask me again but with
reference to a specific poster, but don't waste your time for there is no
other poster that compares to you wrt your ability to completely disregard
the norms wrt honesty and reasonable behavior toward posters of your
choosing, for that reason alone I consider it appropriate to apply the same
standard toward you.
>>> even though the image
>>> in question was not mine (though it was *of* me).
>>
>> That's correct!, but lets not forget that the fact that you didn't own the
>> image was not known at the time, if indeed that is the case.
>
> Sure it was - and I have pointed you to the site where the image came from.
> Do you not agree that it is clear who the images belong to?
As previously stated...
"I have looked, the problem I have of course is knowing if that was indeed
where the original came from, and whether or not the site has changed in the
mean time."
If it is me that has the comprehension problem as you maintain, why do you
find the need to keep asking the same old questions when they have clearly
been answered in previous posts?
>> ......Honestly! LOL
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 16/4/05 3:29, in article BE856419.1217F%SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID,
>>>> "Snit"
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> This has gotten too silly
>>>>
>>>> Of course! *You* are participating!
>>>>
>>>>> and you have taken into too many side issues. Let
>>>>> me just offer a quick recap:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) Elizabot has admitted to multiple actions:taking an image from my
site,
>>>>> editing it
>>>>
>>>> But not multiple images which is your unsubstantiated claim! Or should I
>>>> say
>>>> ...your lie....yup far more accurate!
>>>
>>> You are claiming it is a lie - so prove she did not.
>>
>> The fact that you accused her, and yet now agree that that she is innocent
>> of most of that which you accused her of proves your lie
>
> When did I say she was innocent?
???? If you accept she is only responsible for altering one image only, and
yet previously you had accused her of multiple images, to any reasonable
person the interpretation of your back flip is that she is innocent of the
others, the fact that you may not agree should I suppose come as no
surprise.
>> , what more proof is needed to show that "she did not"? In this case the
>> victim (you) turns out to be the star witness for the defense..nicely done
>> Snit. LOL
>
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
