From: wally@wally.world.net   
      
   On 18/4/05 21:31, in article BE8904B3.12AF8%SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID,   
   "Snit"  wrote:   
      
      
      
   >> Proof should always accompany accusations,   
   >   
   > Why do you consider it an accusation?  You claim the actions are not wrong.   
   > If they are not wrong, to comment on them is not an accusation... please try   
   > to be consistent.   
      
   This is all getting too difficult for you isn't it Snit?, .........at the   
   time you first mentioned these actions they were merely accusations   
   because......now concentrate...that would have been *before* Elizabot agreed   
   to the actions wrt one image...see how it works....accusation....admission.   
   I do hope you managed to keep up!   
      
   >> 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!   
   >   
   > Who said they were "unsubstantiated opinions"?  Not I.   
      
   I just did....you weren't able to keep up were you?   
      
   >  They are facts that   
   > I have seen direct and concrete proof of, but ones that I have not proved to   
   > a public forum.   
      
   You saw "concrete proof" even though you originally mentioned images and   
   then changed to image? Oh yes! And wasn't it you who *saw* an ip pointing   
   back to... well well the same person that you accused of these images!   
   Why would you think you are to be believed about what you saw?   
      
   >  I can surely understand people not accepting what *they* do   
   > not have direct proof of, but to claim such things are not the case is an   
   > illogical leap.  You have made that illogical leap, and now are trying to   
   > claim it is my error.   
      
   LOL   
      
   >>   
   >>> 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!   
   >   
   > Incorrect.  To the contrary, I have ample proof and have explained it to you   
   > - even if I can not share it with you.   
      
   So it all comes down to you asking to be believed over what you have   
   explained....your naivety really does surprise me.   
      
   >  Add to that, Elizabot has *admitted*   
   > to at least some of the acts she has committed and you have accepted them as   
   > truth!   
      
   What do you mean "some of the acts she has committed" she has I believe   
   admitted to ALL the acts she has committed......oh wait! Let me guess you   
   wish to be believed there were more even though you have absolutely no proof   
   to indicate otherwise.......yer right Snit.   hahahahhahahaha   
      
   >>   
   >>> 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!   
   >   
   > Here you claim that my comments are unsubstantiated... which is correct,   
      
   Which is why I claimed it....LOL   
      
   > I can not substantiate *all* of them.   
      
   YOU didn't substantiate any of them, Elizabot did!   
      
   > You also call them "accusations" though   
   > you have elsewhere said the actions of Elizabot's that I describe are not   
   > bad ones.  How does one accuse someone of a neutral action?   
      
   Do you not think that you can accuse someone of doing......nothing?  LOL   
      
   > Add to that, you have made the unsubstantiated accusation that I am lying   
   > about my comments on what Elizabot has done.  Do you not see your own   
   > hypocrisy?  You are doing *exactly* what you blame me of.   
      
   Not at all, look at your comment above " I can not substantiate *all* of   
   them." a clear indication that you have made claims other than those that   
   Elizabot has admitted to, these additional claims are nothing but   
   unsubstantiated noise! And will remain so!   
      
   >>>   
   >>> 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.   
   >   
   > You are now babbling and showing a lack of understanding of my comments.   
      
   =)   
      
   >>>>   
   >>>>>>> 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.   
   >   
   > Good.  Were you planning on wasting several hundreds of kb's before   
   > admitting to your error?   
      
   =)   
      
   >>>>>>> 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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)