From: wally@wally.world.net   
      
   On 18/4/05 2:26, in article BE87F851.12645%SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID, "Snit"   
    wrote:   
      
   > "Wally"  stated in post   
   > BE8846A9.A1E0%wally@wally.world.net on 4/17/05 1:58 AM:   
   >   
   >>>>> 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?   
   >   
   > Once again you show what you and I have both agreed to - you do not   
   > understand my comments, even when they are stated clearly and accurately.   
   > You act as though I should not talk about what Elizabot has done unless I   
   > can provide the proof I have.   
      
   Proof should always accompany accusations, unless you make it perfectly   
   clear that no proof exists and said accusations are merely your   
   unsubstantiated opinions, then you and your accusations could be treated in   
   the way they deserve........ignored!   
      
   > I have every right to talk about her actions   
   > and to point out what proof there is to support it.   
      
   In this case you should have pointed out that you had NO proof to support   
   your *initial* accusations!   
      
   > Of course, I do not   
   > expect all people to take my word where I do not have concrete proof I can   
   > point them to.  That is OK.   
      
   Making unsubstantiated accusations against someone would not sit well with   
   everyone, the fact that they do with you is simply more proof that my   
   opinion of you was the right one...thank you!   
      
   >   
   > Are you able to understand the difference?  Do you need someone else to   
   > explain it to you, being that it is clear you do not understand simple   
   > concepts when I tell them to you, but there still exists the possibility   
   > that this does not generalize to others (it may be based on your admitted   
   > bias).  If so, perhaps I can find someone else to explain these simple   
   > concepts to you.   
      
   I fear your search, at least in csma would be a fruitless one for as   
   previously stated, I don't believe that any other poster has as yet sunk to   
   such depths.   
      
   >>   
   >>>>> 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.   
   >   
   > There, at least now you are admitting that we were in reference to multiple   
   > actions.  You show you can grow and become more accurate in your wording.  I   
   > am happy to see it.   
      
   And I am happy to have saved several hundreds of kb's, so we have a win, win   
   situation.   
      
   >>>>> 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?   
   >   
   > It is clear you can not answer in the general case but only in the specific   
   > case.  One of the tenants of logic is that it can be generalized... in fact   
   > there is a whole branch called "Generalized Logic".  This branch of thought   
   > is beyond you... and I find that a shame.   
      
   Work on this.......again..   
      
   " does it really have to be spelt out to you that in other cases I may have   
   a problem with it?"   
      
   You are showing the exact same tendency that you showed with your inability   
   to differentiate between 'The Law' and 'A Law' only here you are showing   
   that you cannot grasp that given a certain set of circumstances the outcomes   
   may be different base on nothing more than who the person is, how you manage   
   in the real world, if indeed you do, with such narrow perceptions will no   
   doubt remain a mystery to me.   
      
   >>>>   
   >>>>> 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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)