From: wally@wally.world.net
On 20/4/05 13:53, in article BE8B3C50.131DA%SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID,
"Snit" wrote:
> "Wally" stated in post
> BE8C097F.A6C5%wally@wally.world.net on 4/19/05 10:26 PM:
>
>
Oh dear! Snit resorting to what he claims to dislike soooooo much, now, why
would he do that? LOL
This must be why.....
I wrote...
" You simply show that you are unable to accept the answer that I have
given, or is it that your position prevents you from asking a question that
makes sense, Because you know the answer will demolish your
argument!.......yup that must be it!"
Clearly I was right!
Or when I wrote..
"Well NO! I believe you show why you are having so much trouble here,
Firstly you ask a theoretical question wrt " images" and then you
dishonestly apply my answer to a specific case that relates to an image
considering that you have already been shown to dishonestly apply a term to
this case and attribute that term to me, begs the question why you are so
uncertain of your position that you need to repeat that dishonesty all over
again!
As you should be able to work out but seem unable to do so, in the specific
case of Elizabot " at least at first glance" simply does not apply, as ALL
the facts are known and not in dispute, it is only when a hypothetical is
introduced that the reader has to try and dot the i's and cross the T's,
hence the term ...."at first glance".
Yup I was spot on again!
>>> LOL... you really can not deal with abstractions... OK... here is a more
>>> specific example:
>>>
>>> Person E digs through person S's site and finds images on pages that have
>>> not been publicly pointed out or linked to.
>>
>> "dig's through" I was just able to locate these image's of you by simply
>> following links from your main page......Bookmarks/ANNE'S DREAM WORLD [1]
>> this involved no digging whatsoever!
>>
>> [1] It should be noted that the link "ANNE'S DREAM WORLD" appears under the
>> sub-heading "My Pages" therefore as Snit claims it to be his site it is IMO
>> reasonable for any visitor to think that Snit is responsible for the
>> creation of "ANNE'S DREAM WORLD".
>> Whilst on the subject of Snit's site, I am forced to wonder why the link
>> "Image Albums" from the main page and from all other places where this link
>> exists is dead, how long has this been the case, when active, was the image
>> in question accessible from there?
No answer Snit? Why would that be?, can you not fault my reasoning, or
remember when that link went dead, or were it linked to?
>>> Person E then downloads one or
>>> more images, edits what has been downloaded - including adding items that
>>> are clearly designed to be offensive - and then posts at least one images
on
>>> another site and posts links to the image in a public forum. The image or
>>> images in question are hosted on person S's site, but are not necessarily
>>> owned by person S.
>>
>> But not made clear on any part of the site, and are in fact accessed from a
>> page clearly owned by S, perhaps a small sentence such as..'Clairvoyants
>> only beyond this point' should be displayed!
>>
>>> Not all the facts of this are public... but person E
>>> openly admits to the act in at least the case of posting one altered image.
>>>
>>> Would you find person E's behavior acceptable in this example?
>>
>> Given that you are in clear reference to an actual event I am unable to
>> consider it a hypothetical scenario, and likewise given that the first two
>> lines contain errors serious enough to show that at least one contention of
>> yours ..... i.e "Person E digs through person S's site" is totally false,
>> your further accusations have to be treated in the same light.
You clearly agree...well done.
>>> I look forward to your waffling, obfuscation, and running from the question
>>> - because, let's face it - we both know that is all you will do. You will
>>> not answer the question in a straight forward way.
>>
>> Your opinion is again flawed!
>
> Incorrect - as stated, you waffled, obfuscated, and ran from the question...
> but you were not able to answer if you thought the actions in this
> hypothetical situation were moral or not. Sure, the hypothetical situation
> was largely, if not wholly, based on the real situation in question... but
> without names you were not able to indulge in your admitted bias. Once that
> is gone, your game is shot down.
Once again I was spot on correct when I said......
"Given that you are in clear reference to an actual event I am unable to
consider it a hypothetical scenario, and likewise given that the first two
lines contain errors serious enough to show that at least one contention of
yours ..... i.e "Person E digs through person S's site" is totally false,
your further accusations have to be treated in the same light."
I did tell you Snit you are far too transparent!
So just to recap.....
1) You ask a question wrt Elizabot.
2) My answer is an honest one, but clearly not the one you wanted!
3) Then you dream up a hypothetical case which you admit is based " largely,
if not wholly," on the one involving Elizabot, with the exception that the
hypothetical contained enough inaccurate information to enable a different
answer to be forthcoming, hopefully this time it would be the answer that
you were trying to manufacture, now, guess what you would have happened to
this manufactured reply.......absolutely! You would have used it to replace
the answer given at 2)...... By anybody's standard that is pretty pathetic
Snit......anybody standard but yours of course!
>
> Again, we are back to where we were
Not at all, we have arrived at a new place where your dishonesty and
pathetic tactics are out in the open, this is not a unique situation for
some of us, but the difference is that this time you were not able to spread
it over a huge amount of posts thereby dissuading many posters from getting
involved, here your dishonesty can be seen in no more than a few paragraphs.
< repeated statements already shown to be in error snipped >
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
