Re: This Ng and What I don't get! RANT!
- From: ~patches~ <noones_home@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 18:12:48 -0500
Peter A wrote:
In article <jHeXf.1522$i41.151@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, gregorymorrowEMERGENCYCANCELLATIONARCHIMEDES@xxxxxxxxxxxxx says...
In my book the very *worst* epithet one can be called is "liar"...once
someone has been pegged for lying, that person just might as well be dead,
their existence has no useful purpose. That goes for Usenet as it does for
real life. In real life the low - lifers I have nailed as liars cross the
street to avoid me, they know better than to foist their folderol upon me
(and those I choose to associate with). On Usenet I've pegged quite a few
liars too, in fact a number of them have in their shame stopped posting. -- although some have no concept of shame, these are the *true* sociopaths.
These are beneath even the insect level, as insects are programmed by nature
to do as they do, they have no choice in how to behave.
Too bad you do not understand the difference between lying and being wrong.
But I wasn't lying. I've repeated said we don't eat refined white sugar. I didn't have instant website references and I said I have articles on the issue. No one *could* possibly expect me to drop and run and get the articles, type out the references just to appease them. It's not like I have the articles sitting right beside the computer. So I'm accused of being a liar. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. No problem but to be accused of being a liar for being wrong according to their references? Yet my references say I'm right. I think the aftermath of both the sugar thread and lurking post is more than proving my point in the rant post.
.
- Prev by Date: Re: what makes you feel better?
- Next by Date: Re: Cheddar Cheese: what is "Real"
- Previous by thread: Re: This Ng and What I don't get! RANT!
- Next by thread: Re: This Ng and What I don't get! RANT!
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
