From: wally@wally.world.net   
      
   On 23/4/05 6:43, in article BE8ECC17.13A36%SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID, "Snit"   
    wrote:   
      
   > "Wally"  stated in post   
   > BE8F4B37.AA55%wally@wally.world.net on 4/22/05 9:42 AM:   
   >   
   >>> That is where this whole thread has made it to, Wally - it has gotten old.   
   >>> There is nowhere else for this thread to go   
   >>   
   >>    
   >>   
   >> I can only assume   
   >   
   >    
      
   You could do a whole lot worse than emulate me, look at the mess being *you*   
   has got you into!  LOL   
      
   > You are right, Wally, you are left where you can only dishonestly snip and   
   > make absurd assumptions, whereas I am here looking at facts and logic.   
   > Someday I would like you to mature to a point where you can do the same.   
   >   
   > Your dishonesty and absurd assumptions do not change the facts:   
   >   
   > * You have a bias when it comes to me.  You admit to it.   
      
   Have I ever denied it?   
      
   > * You, Elizabot, and I agree that Elizabot took at least one image,   
   >   edited it, and reposted it to a public forum.  At one point, however,   
   >   you refused to admit she had done all of these actions and would only   
   >   claim she had done *one* action, though you would not say which one!   
   >   Eventually even you saw the futility of your game and admitted she   
   >   had done multiple actions.   
      
   LOL   
      
   >   
   > * While I have commented on still more actions of Elizabot, including   
   >   digging through my site, I have not been able to produce proof public   
   >   of this.   
      
   Ah! More comments but still no proof! It has been proven that no digging   
   through your site was necessary to arrive at your pictures on your page on   
   your site!...you chose not to comment!...big surprise.....NOT!   
      
   > * My other comments about Elizabot's actions, according to you, are   
   >   not accurate - though you have offered no evidence to support your   
   >   accusations against me on this.   
      
   So you make unsupported accusations, but the onus is on me to disprove them?   
   Hahahahhaha, another example of *Snit* logic at work!  ROTFL.   
      
   > * Elizabot's actions were obviously not honest - she clearly did   
   >   edits in a way to be offensive (ex: adding feminine hygiene products   
   >   to the image).  She also did not seek ask permission from either the   
   >   person who took the photos nor the person who was the subject of the   
   >   photos.   
      
   And yet at the time you didn't find them offensive, but I must admit that   
   that assumption of mine is based on YOUR *actual* comments at the time, so   
   as usual they will exhibit your usual lack of consistency, hence your recent   
   flip, flop regarding them!   
      
   > * You admit that you are not able to comprehend my comments - and   
   >   this is true even when my comments are clearly written.   
      
   Never have! In fact I have commented on your transparency!   
      
   > * You have shown you are unable and unwilling to answer simple questions   
   >   based on abstractions: for example when asked if you think that the act   
   >   of breaking a law is moral - you are not able to understand the abstract   
   >   concept that one could not find law breaking immoral but still find an   
   >   act that breaks the law immoral.  You refute this claim easily by giving   
   >   a clear answer to the question: do you find the law breaking, by itself,   
   >   to be an immoral act.   
      
   My position is very clear and I have already answered and you chose to   
   ignore and snip the points made, by choosing not to answer whether you could   
   think of an immoral (in your view) law, where the breaking of it would not   
   (in your view) be an immoral act, proves my point and demolished yours.   
      
   > You can keep playing games, making absurd assumptions, and running from   
   > these facts all you want... the facts will not change.   
      
   If by 'the facts' you mean what you have stated previously! Then you are   
   again in error as it can be plainly seen here and in the past that 'facts'   
   in your possession are in a constant state of flux [1] and subject to   
   frequent change.   
      
   [1]...I look forward to see how long it will take for you to use this word   
   in a subsequent post, for I have noticed a trend over a long period of time   
   where a term, word, or expression used against you, pops up in one of your   
   later posts, it has been interesting trying to predict how long it will   
   take, and I freely admit to have gotten quite good at it! Of course you will   
   be more careful now.....or perhaps you will have one last act of bravado?   
   We shall see!   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)