From: wally@wally.world.net   
      
   On 22/4/05 0:22, in article BE8D216C.1346A%SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID, "Snit"   
    wrote:   
      
   > "Wally"  stated in post   
   > BE8D885C.A811%wally@wally.world.net on 4/21/05 1:40 AM:   
   >   
   >> < Snits proven lies snipped>   
   >   
   > I see that once again you felt the need to dishonestly snip my content.   
      
   You never learn do you? You really shouldn't make it this easy for me, but,   
   if you insist....EVERY word that I snipped from what you laughingly call   
   your "content" in your last post was dealt with in previous posts...'EVERY   
   SINGLE WORD' why would I not snip that which had already been dealt with   
   having demolished every point in it previously?, the fact that you have   
   nothing to say on your behalf but the same old stuff is disappointing but   
   understandable! So to ensure there is no doubt and for a Google record here   
   is what I snipped, which you refer to as "my content". LOL   
      
      
   "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.   
      
   Previously...   
   > 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.   
      
   My previous reply...   
   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.   
      
   Previously...   
   > 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.   
      
   My previous reply...   
   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,   
      
   Previously...   
   > We both have agreed about at least some of the actions of Elizabot's that   
   > are clearly dishonest and despicable,   
      
   My previous reply...   
   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.   
      
   Previously...   
   > though you do not have any problem   
   > with her actions and do not describe them as such.   
      
   My previous reply...   
   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.   
      
   Previously...   
   > 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 previous reply...   
   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!   
   ===============   
      
   This is clearly a dishonest and despicable action of hers.   
      
   Previously...   
   > While this is clearly a dishonest and despicable action,   
      
   My previous reply...   
   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 do not have a problem with her actions against me,"   
      
   I had previously stated on more than one occasion that I have no problem   
   with Elizabots actions period, regardless of who the recipient was!   
   ===============   
      
   "but also admit that you have a bias against me."   
      
   I would have a bias against anyone that was willing to exhibit the level of   
   dishonesty that comes so easily to you! But as I previously stated...   
      
   " 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."   
   ===============   
      
   You have avoided answering if you would think the exact same actions would   
   have been dishonest and despicable if directed at someone else outside of   
   CSMA - for the obvious reason that it shoots down your claims.   
      
   Previously...   
   >  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.   
      
   My previous reply...   
   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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)