From: wally@wally.world.net   
      
   On 21/4/05 13:21, in article BE8C8666.1342A%SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID,   
   "Snit"  wrote:   
      
   > "Wally"  stated in post   
   > BE8D571D.A7F8%wally@wally.world.net on 4/20/05 10:12 PM:   
   >   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> On 21/4/05 12:56, in article BE8C808B.13427%SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID,   
   >> "Snit"  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> "Wally"  stated in post   
   >>> BE8D503D.A7E4%wally@wally.world.net on 4/20/05 9:43 PM:   
   >>>   
   >>>>>>>    
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> 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!   
   >>>   
   >>> Funny how you attribute such meaning to your own actions...   
   >>   
   >> It would be had I done so!   
   >   
   > I copied your actions and let you know, clearly, that is what I am doing.  I   
   > even do so in reply to the post where you are doing so - and then you   
   > belittle my actions.   
   >   
   > Your actions are despicable and dishonest.  And, as I have shown, I have   
   > responded to your claims.   
      
   I must have missed where you responded to the claims concerning your site!   
      
   >>   
   >>>>    
   >>   
   >> Ditto   
   >>   
   > We are still in the same place:   
   >   
   > 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.   
      
   No! Never have! Like to support your position wrt *that* admission?   
      
   > You are not able to understand abstractions - for example discussions   
   > dealing with the law in general or morality in general.  In both examples I   
   > have been happy to share my views which shows there were no trick questions.   
   > Since I often talk in terms of logic - an abstract discipline - this may   
   > explain your weakness in comprehension.   
      
   No! All you have shown is your inability to differentiate between 'The Law'   
   and 'A Law' at least you are consistent as you have always shown that lack   
   of ability, unfortunately you have now expanded that concept to show that   
   you cannot differentiate between 'Posters' and 'A Poster' a very disturbing   
   development!   
      
      
   Wally...   
   " 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."   
   ================   
      
      
   > We both have agreed about at least some of the actions of Elizabot's that   
   > are clearly dishonest and despicable,   
      
   I don't see how, as I don't recognize ANY of her admitted actions as "   
   dishonest and despicable"........more delusions?   
      
   > though you do not have any problem   
   > with her actions and do not describe them as such.   
      
   Proving your previous statement to be a lie......thank you!   
      
   > 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.   
      
   I have only agreed to that because it is what Elizabot has agreed to,   
   certainly not because there was any other proof of it, so my agreement is as   
   previously stated superfluous!   
      
   > While this is clearly a dishonest and despicable action,   
      
   I think not! You have claimed...   
      
   "You and I have agreed about her dishonest and despicable actions,"   
      
   And you then clarify by saying...   
      
   "I comment on how you have *not* labeled her actions as dishonest and   
   despicable"   
      
   Therefore...   
      
   "Witch must mean logically that if in your mind we are in agreement over her   
   "dishonest and despicable actions" and I "have *not* labeled her actions as   
   dishonest and despicable" then that must mean that you don't label her   
   actions that way either....well done Snit we are finally in agreement on   
   that point.   ROTFL"   
      
   > you admit that you have a bias that prevents you from seeing it that way.   
      
   Wrong again! Here are a few quotes........   
      
   1)   
   Snit...   
   "Do you agree that if Elizabot had committed her actions against someone   
   else they would have been dishonest and despicable?"   
      
   Wally...   
   "I assume (I realize that is an unwise thing to do with you) that we are   
   talking about csma, if so, then no I would not see Elizabot's admitted   
   actions as being "dishonest and despicable"."   
   ===================   
      
   2)   
   Snit...   
   "being that even you admit the only reason you do not see her   
   actions as such is your own bias."   
      
   Wally...   
   "Which aids the forming of my opinion! As previously stated I can think of   
   no reason within csma to consider her actions "dishonest and despicable", so   
   clearly it is not simply by bias toward you, it is my view of the deed."   
   ===================   
      
   3)   
   Wally...   
   " 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."   
   ====================   
      
   And finally ...for now...   
      
   Wally...   
   " I can show where I have said that I cannot think of anyone within the   
   ranks of csma where I would consider Elizabot's actions to be as you   
   describe. You are lying if you continue to say otherwise, no surprise   
   there!"   
   =====================   
      
   And of course once again I am proven right you are still saying that , and   
   you are still lying!   
      
   >  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.   
      
   Then considering that the quotes above prove your lie, my claims are very   
   much alive and well ..........thank you for that admission.   
      
   > You keep playing games and trying to obfuscate the above... do you think   
   > that strengthens your position?   
      
   It is true what they say about giving a person enough rope...shame you   
   couldn't see it coming...shame for you that is! ;=)   
   >   
   > (yet another question you refuse to answer)   
      
   LOL   
   >   
   >   
   > --   
   > I am one of only .3% of people who have avoided becoming a statistic.   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   > _________________________________________   
   > Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server   
   > More than 120,000 groups   
   > Unlimited download   
   > http://www.usenetzone.com to open account   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)