Re: Rich Shewmaker LIES & Defends A BLANTANT *GANG* LIAR
- From: "LadyLollipop" <LadyLollipop@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 04:50:45 GMT
"Peter Bowditch" <myfirstname@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
[ ]
..
> "LadyLollipop" <LadyLollipop@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Mark Probert" <markprobert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
[ ]
>>> Rich wrote:
>>>
>>>> Okay, I struggled through this convoluted argument, and even followed
>>>> all
>>>> the links. I still find no "lie" by Mark. If you are going to claim
>>>> that
>>>> you have "proven" a lie, the courteous thing to do is
>>>>
>>>> 1. Quote precisely what single statement you believe to be a lie.
>>>>
>>>> 2. State in your own words why you believe that that statement is an
>>>> intentional falsehood to mislead, (as opposed to opinion or
>>>> unintentional
>>>> error), and then produce evidence to back up your claim with your own
>>>> comments as to why you believe that evidence does so.
>>>>
>>>> It's not fair to expect your readers to fish through 10kb of muddled
>>>> cut-and-paste to find "proof" that you claim is there. If it's there,
>>>> point it out in a concise manner. Until you have done so, there is no
>>>> proof.
>>
>>Rich can not see lies because he does not want to.
>>
>>He can not see Peter Bowditch's lies on his website.
>
>>He can not see Quack Barrett's lies on his website.
>
>>He could not see your lies previously.
>>
>>My OWN WORDS very clear, right under the I replied.
>
>
> --
> Peter Bowditch
.
- References:
- Re: Rich Shewmaker LIES & Defends A BLANTANT *GANG* LIAR
- From: Rich
- Re: Rich Shewmaker LIES & Defends A BLANTANT *GANG* LIAR
- From: Mark Probert
- Re: Rich Shewmaker LIES & Defends A BLANTANT *GANG* LIAR
- Prev by Date: Re: "Organized Medicine" A step Toward a Definition
- Next by Date: Re: The Significance of the Courtroom Defeat of Steven Barrett
- Previous by thread: Re: Rich Shewmaker LIES & Defends A BLANTANT *GANG* LIAR
- Next by thread: Re: Rich Shewmaker LIES & Defends A BLANTANT *GANG* LIAR
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|