From: wally@wally.world.net   
      
   On 19/4/05 5:30, in article BE89750F.12BD7%SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID, "Snit"   
    wrote:   
      
   > "Wally"  stated in post   
   > BE8A0C68.A43E%wally@wally.world.net on 4/18/05 10:14 AM:   
   >   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> 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!   
   >>>>>>>   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)