From: wally@wally.world.net   
      
   On 23/4/05 2:22 PM, in article BE8F37B1.13BBF%SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID,   
   "Snit"  wrote:   
      
   > "Wally"  stated in post   
   > BE8FF985.AB25%wally@wally.world.net on 4/22/05 10:06 PM:   
   >   
   >> 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?   
   >   
   > Who cares what you have denied?  Do you see now that your comments do not   
   > change the facts I have presented to you?   
      
   So you can make accusations without any regard to the undeniable facts?   
   Yup that sounds like Snit of course you can! LOL   
      
   >>> * 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   
   >   
   > Do you see now that your "LOL" does not change the facts I have presented to   
   > you?   
      
   Reality is not spelt "LOL" which is merely an abbreviation for Snits use of   
   logic!   
      
   >>>   
   >>> * 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!   
   >   
   > Do you see that your comments do not change the facts I have presented to   
   > you?   
      
   Snit.....Facts.............No sorry ...does not compute!   
      
   >>> * 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?   
   >   
   > Incorrect.  Once again you fail to understand logic.  You did more than make   
   > the observation that I did not provide public proof, you made the accusation   
   > that I lied.   
      
    OH DUR!........because you lied?   
      
   > You have not supported your accusation.  You are guilty of what you blame me   
   > of - the difference being that I am completely honest about it.   
      
   I have supported *everything* you have supported *nothing* except my   
   contention of your gross stupidity/dishonesty, for that I thank you!   
      
   >> Hahahahhaha, another example of *Snit* logic at work!  ROTFL.   
   >   
   > Do you see now that your comments do not change the facts I have presented   
   > to you?   
      
   Snit.....Facts.............No sorry ...does not compute!   
      
   >>> * 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 base the honesty of Elizabot's actions on my comments *after* the fact!   
      
   Are you claiming that you made comments about Elizabot's actions *BEFORE*   
   the fact?  really Snit! At least make an effort at coherency.   
      
   > What a bizarre attempt at an obfuscation you are making.   
      
   It's called reality...........I know! To you that must seem an alien   
   concept, But some of us like it! LOL   
      
   > Do you see now that your comments do not change the facts I have presented   
   > to you?   
      
   Snit.....Facts.............No sorry ...does not compute!   
      
   >>> * 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!   
   >   
   > Snit: it is not surprising that you are not able to understand comments   
   > Wally: 'your' comments!   
      
   When compared to reality I defy anyone to understand some of your comments   
   such as......   
      
   " You base the honesty of Elizabot's actions on my comments *after* the   
   fact!"   
      
   When the alternative is to base it on comments *before* the fact!, the rest   
   of your comments are usually based on lies and distortions so it would be   
   fair to say I don't understand why you need to do that.....that must be what   
   you mean.   
      
   >   
   > You have admitted to not having the capacity to understand my comments.   
      
   I gladly admit to not having the capacity to understand why you constantly   
   feel the need to make comments that are clearly lies or distortions, I have   
   stated that I believe it is probably linked to your admitted 'mental   
   problems'.   
      
   > Do you see now that your denial does not change the facts I have presented to   
   > you?   
      
   Snit.....Facts.............No sorry ...does not compute!   
      
   >>> * 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.   
   >   
   > As you show, again, you are not able to answer the question or understand   
   > how the concept of the law in abstraction is divorced from any specific law.   
      
   So again you choose not to answer wrt your morality......probably a very   
   wise move on your part! ;=)   
      
   > Do you see now that your comments do not change the facts I have presented   
   > to you?   
      
    Snit.....Facts.............No sorry ...does not compute!   
      
   >>> 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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)