From: wally@wally.world.net   
      
   On 19/4/05 5:29, in article BE8974DA.12BD6%SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID, "Snit"   
    wrote:   
      
    Ok, this post is getting silly and long, so let's just cut to the chase:   
   >   
   > You have admitted you have a weakness in comprehension, at least* when it   
   > comes to my posts, even when* my posts are clearly and accurately written.   
      
   Wow that's a surprise, you run out of steam and therefore dream up one of   
   your legendary ..."you have admitted......." posts which when put under any   
   scrutiny at all are found to have no basis in fact whatsoever!........how   
   tiresome of you.....but understandable!   
      
   > You are not able to understand abstractions - for example dissuasions   
   > dealing with the law in general or morality in general.   
      
   I have shown that I can differentiate between 'The Law' and 'A Law' and   
   apply the question of morality to each.   
      
   >  In both examples I   
   > have been happy to share my views which shows there were no trick questions.   
      
   The fact that you ask a morality question wrt 'The Law' and yet cannot   
   accept that the answer can only be given wrt a specified law, otherwise the   
   answer must be taken as the equivalent to agreeing that in terms of morality   
   all laws are valid and equal, this idea is abhorrent to me, the fact that it   
   sits well with you may not be a "trick" but I fail to see how anyone with   
   any sense at all can agree to it.   
      
   > Since I often talk in terms of logic - an abstract discipline - this may   
   > explain your weakness in comprehension.   
   >   
   > We both have agreed about at least some of the actions of Elizabot's that   
   > are clearly dishonest and despicable,   
      
   As far as I am concerned based on acknowledged facts, I agree that that   
   which Elizabot has agreed to is the entirety of her actions in this matter,   
   I apply no derogatory terms to her actions....period.   
      
   > though you do not have any problem   
   > with her actions and do not describe them as such.   
      
   Then why describe them as such when describing our 'agreement' as this   
   description is outside the boundaries of any agreement?.....can you not help   
   yourself?   
      
   >  You have, however,   
   > agreed that she took at least one image from my site, edited it by adding   
   > feminine hygiene products, and then reposted it.   
      
   My agreement is superfluous as it occurred *after* her admission!   
      
      
   >  While this is clearly a dishonest and despicable action,   
      
   Clear only to you it seems!   
      
   > you admit that you have a bias that prevents you from seeing it that way.   
      
   Of course I have a bias, but your obvious need to lie here can be seen in   
   the fact that I have stated that I would see the action in the same light no   
   matter which member of csma was the recipient, so you are lying when you say   
   that my bias toward you is preventing me from seeing it that way.   
   If you are not lying then it is too bad that you question my comprehension   
   when in fact it is yours that can be shown to be defective, and likewise any   
   assertions that you made/make based on it.   
      
   >   
   > Do you need me to support any of my claims - or will you just dismiss them   
   > out of hand and play silly games as is your norm?   
      
   I welcome ANY support wrt any claims of yours...it would make a refreshing   
   change!   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)