Re: Maccies resort to their typical dishonesty [was Re: You wanted an example of a price drop...]

"Steve Carroll" <noone@xxxxxxxxxxx> stated in post
noone-BB5F45.20073413092007@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 9/13/07 7:07 PM:

1) My words belong only to me. They are my property, and protected by
the US Constitution.

Agreed - and that includes if you were to show evidence that showed someone
had broken the law and so stated... that would not be against the presumption
of innocence (though, of course, others would be welcome to agree or disagree
- and need not even share a reason).

Evidence?

Yes, Steve. Evidence. There is nothing wrong with stating someone has
broken the law when the available *evidence* proves, beyond a reasonable
doubt, that this is so. Doing so is *not* against the presumption of
innocence... or any other right that the person accused has... *especially*
when not done in the context of a court. Doing so, of course is in the
context of legality unless one means someone broke the laws of physics or
something.

Do you agree?

If so, Steve, do you have *any* counter to my argument against Bush?
<http://csma.gallopinginsanity.com/bush/>

Keep in mind that while you have repeatedly been told my view that I have
offered strong support (proof beyond a reasonable doubt) but not the level
of proof one would see in a mathematical proof, you have refused to show any
understanding of this and repeatedly quote me out of context and, frankly,
openly lie. You *repeatedly* did so in the very post I am responding to!

4) It is extremely impolite to do what Steve is doing toward me in
this newsgroup. If he wants my opinion, let him come to me for it. I
will certainly not withhold it, if he asks politely.

All too often Steve tries to speak for others... several examples from the
last few days where he has done this to me.

Post them...

Here are just a few, all from just the last few days (most from today!)

I told you that I was not interested in off-topic and ancient accusations
you made, especially when you were not willing to support accusation you had
made in a current discussion, and you replied by trying to speak for me:

So, with the passage of time, in your mind...that means you
weren't dishonest to George?

I said *nothing* of the sort. I did not even speak about your accusations
in regards to George except to say I would not speak of them. You simply
made up some BS and tried to attribute it to me. Even you admitted, when I
asked you to stick to the topic at hand, that my request was "denied" - you
were not willing to stick to the topic at hand.

Elsewhere you stated:

As I suspected... you made an accusation to George based on race
and you can't back it up. Now you are trying to pretend that it
shouldn't matter because enough time has passed.

Keep in mind I never said anything of the sort. I did say that I would not
let you run away from the current discussion by diverting the topic to
ancient accusations of yours, but I simply did not say what you claim I was
"trying" to do.

How about this claim of yours:

On the topic of Bush's guilt.. today, you said you were
talking about his guilt in a legal context... which is
absurd being that he hasn't gone to court for the delusions..

You indirectly were trying to speak for me when you lied about the context
of what was meant by "legal context". When one speaks of someone breaking
the law it is, generally, in a legal context as opposed to, for example,
breaking the laws of physics.

You also stated:

Said the guy who has repeatedly claimed he will stop
responding to me real soon now too many times to count;)...

Your implication is that I was going to stop *forever*... something I never
said. And you wrote:

the same guy who also once wrote this regarding his belief about
winning an argument"
"Well, Steve, seems you won an argument simply based on
outlasting your opposition"

When you claim it is my belief that outlasting an opponent shows a "win" you
are dishonestly speaking for me. I said no such thing. Ever. I have noted
that *you* show that in your actions.

You also said:

So you think we should not leave Iraq right away but you
don't think we should be attacking the enemy there?

I said no such thing. Ever.

You also claimed:

you support Bush's *continued* attacks in Iraq just like I do.

No, Steve, I never said that. Nor the following:

What's your point? That we should keep caring all by ourselves and
paying out the ass? Of course it is, you're the guy that doesn't
actually work for a living so you have no real concept of the effort
it takes to actually earn money.

You simply made that up... fabricated stories about what you thought I had
said.

If you want to stand behind your Muslim brothers while they
mutilate and kill women that's your business... don't expect
everyone around you to sit on there hands forever.

Your implication that I ever stated such a thing is clear... and wrong.
I never said any such thing. Nor the following:

If fools like you and Lund want to stand shoulder to shoulder
backing these radical Muslims assholes ...

Note that I have *never* said I back them and have made it clear I do not.
I doubt Lund said what you attribute to us, either. You made it up. Again.

Snit's view:
"The price of *using* the iPhone dropped about 10% (assuming
the cheapest plan, less otherwise)".

When taken out of context, Steve, you are speaking for me... making it seem
as though my comments meant something other than they did. And one more:

Again... why would anyone need to defend someone against people
questioning something that no one can find any kind of proof
for? This position makes no sense... which is probably why you
are found posting it.

Except I never posted it... you were speaking for me again.


That is just with a few minutes of Googling, Steve... I am sure there are
more examples. You repeatedly make up positions and attribute them to me
and to others. Add to that your open and bigoted lies about health concerns
and your personal attacks against your perception of my income level... you
really have a *lot* to apologize for... but you do not show enough maturity
to make it likely you will do so.

....

Steve repeatedly backs himself into a corner with his comments... when he
does and even he sees it he generally reacts with one of his common
"tells"
- he makes references to drugs or substance abuse
- he makes personal attacks against people based on his *claims* about
their income, health or other irrelevancies. He occasionally even will do
so based on sexuality or, I believe, color of skin, though I would have to
hunt a bit for an example of the latter.
- he starts snipping all but the first few words of the post he responds to
and pretends that the post said something he did not. This has been
referred to as his "vandalism" of posts.

....
I am, of course, happy to show where Steve acts as I describe.

So do it... be happy. I suggest you won't because you know what will happen
when you do... reality will come a knockin'.

Which do you deny? Your repeated drug references and allegations? Your
personal attacks based on your claims of income, health, or other
irrelevancies? Your snipping of all but the first few words and then
pretending the post said something it did not?

Tell you what: if I can find 2 examples of each, from you and from *this*
month, will you leave CSMA for a month? Will you agree to do that?


--
It usually takes me more than three weeks to prepare a good impromptu
speech. -- Mark Twain

.