From: wally@wally.world.net   
      
   On 20/4/05 22:03, in article BE8BAF34.13265%SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID,   
   "Snit"  wrote:   
      
   > "Wally"  stated in post   
   > BE8C4E95.A710%wally@wally.world.net on 4/20/05 3:21 AM:   
   >   
   >>>    
   >>   
   >> Oh dear! Snit resorting to what he claims to dislike soooooo much, now, why   
   >> would he do that?  LOL   
   >> This must be why.....   
   >   
   > Might it be because you were doing it and, well,   
      
   Or it might be the more likely reason........your hypocrisy!   
      
      
      
   >>   
   >> 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!   
   >   
   > Incorrect, I have already fully responded to your dishonest claims: "You   
   > have avoided answering if you would think the exact same actions would have   
   > been dishonest and despicable if directed at someone else - for the obvious   
   > reason that it shoots down your claims."   
      
   Already answered multiple times.   
      
   >> Or when I wrote..   
   >   
   > "Or"?  So this is a multiple choice quiz now... not even you will pretend   
   > both of your claims are true.  How funny...   
      
   You are often wrong on multiple fronts......don't act so surprised!   
      
   >>   
   >> "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!   
   >   
   > Nope... and I fully responded to your lies there: "You have avoided   
   > answering if you would think the exact same actions would have been   
   > dishonest and despicable if directed at someone else - for the obvious   
   > reason that it shoots down your claims."   
      
   Already answered multiple times!   
      
   > You see, Wally, there is no reason for me to respond to each and every   
   > repeated lie you make... I have already responded to your lies.  Why waste   
   > my time creating a fresh reply to your repeated lies?   
      
   Because every reply you make is always a different one.....and it is so much   
   fun watching you twist and turn!   
      
   >>>>> 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?   
   >   
   > Sure I did: "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."   
      
   Clearly the facts above about your own site have put you in an awkward   
   position as you choose not to answer ANY of the points put to you....again   
   no surprise .   
      
   >   
   > See, I responded to your question fully - I simply did not bite on your   
   > attempts to change the topic from my hypothetical situation to your   
   > innuendos and silliness about my site.   
      
   Bad, Bad, Wally, changing the subject from a hypothetical which was not a   
   hypothetical to the *actual* topic which caused Snit so much discomfort   
   ROTFLMAO.   
      
   > When you stop playing games, avoiding questions, any outright lying I am   
   > more than happy to come back to these questions of yours.  I welcome it.  I   
   > look forward to it.  But I will not let you push yet another silly attempt   
   > at an obfuscation so you can avoid answering my simple questions.  Not gonna   
   > happen, Wally - so you can give that game up.   
      
   What do you mean come back to them ...you have completely ignored them, as I   
   knew you would, your own site disproves your argument, and you have NO   
   answers.........that make any sense anyway!   
      
   >>>>> 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 can not stop you from coming to that erroneous and dishonest conclusion -   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)