Re: OT:Did he support this accusation?

"Steve Carroll" <noone@xxxxxxxxxxx> stated in post
noone-5D4D50.18104914092007@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 9/14/07 5:10 PM:

* repeatedly speaking for others and insisting that is what
they said or meant

I go by the words used... like all sane people do.



From a recent post... that you were never able to give an honest response
to:


--------
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.
--------

LOL!


--
Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and
conscientious stupidity. -- Martin Luther King, Jr.

.

Loading