Posted on 03/11/2003 2:10:43 PM PST by A2J
And as I have said to you before, that choice of yours causes you great difficulty when it comes to matters of simple discourse with other people. It leads you to neglect everything except for that which you desire to hear or believe to support your previously formulated belief. In other words, it results in you making generally less informed and less educated opinions than your peers.
No, It helps me keep my core beliefs clear where I'm not misled by those that speak with expertize. Now you are different and look at the results. You believe crazy things because you're so gullible. You spend too much time reading other people's opinion and it causes you to believe crazy things. You believe that slavery had nothing to do with secession. You believe Lincoln was a communist. The reason you believe these things is that you haven't learned to discern truth from fiction, or fact from opinion. You don't understand that when you read another person's opinion, that the author will tell the truth 9 times in a row, then that author will throw in a subtle little lie that you can't detect and then all these little lies add up to a big problem and you're completely off-course from the truth.
It leads you to neglect everything except for that which you desire to hear or believe to support your previously formulated belief. In other words, it results in you making generally less informed and less educated opinions than your peers.
Those that I choose to support are in higher positions than I and they got there by being intelligent and thoughful. You'll notice in the above post I said "most". Those very few I choose to support have their fundamentals correct and so having more experience in the intellectual circles of our society, I will listen to their expanded opinion. I'm very particular about this though. You won't catch me listening to some BSer that goes against truth and obvious fact. That keeps me away from the kind of nuts that have you so misguided.
I suppose completely cutting oneself off from what is said in the world outside will do that. It will also do other things, such as leaving you in a state of ignorance.
Now you are different and look at the results. You believe crazy things Out of curiousity, what would those so-called "crazy things" be?
because you're so gullible.
Now that's a peculiar assertion for you to make. After all, am I not subjecting what you say to scrutiny rather than taking it as is in the fashion of a gullible person? It seems that you are at a lack of words by which to describe me, thus you simply assign what comes to mind without any basis beyond that.
You spend too much time reading other people's opinion and it causes you to believe crazy things. You believe that slavery had nothing to do with secession.
I do? Would you mind quoting me where I asserted that belief then? If you cannot do so, you should not shoot your mouth off in such a fashion.
You believe Lincoln was a communist.
I do? Would you mind quoting me where I asserted that belief then? If you cannot do so, you should not shoot your mouth off in such a fashion.
The reason you believe these things is that you haven't learned to discern truth from fiction
Wait a moment there. You have yet to establish that I believe what you assert me to believe. Having failed to do so, you cannot logically develop, with any basis in fact, a theory to explain a behavior you have yet to even establish. Until then, your allegation is without substance. It's a simple matter of reality - quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
You don't understand that when you read another person's opinion, that the author will tell the truth 9 times in a row, then that author will throw in a subtle little lie that you can't detect and then all these little lies add up to a big problem and you're completely off-course from the truth.
In some ways, that is a fancy theory you've developed for yourself. Now, would you mind demonstrating to me what basis in reality, if any, that it has? If you cannot do that, you should not shoot your mouth off by alleging it in the first place.
Those that I choose to support are in higher positions than I and they got there by being intelligent and thoughful. You'll notice in the above post I said "most". Those very few I choose to support have their fundamentals correct and so having more experience in the intellectual circles of our society, I will listen to their expanded opinion.
Put in other terms, you look for people who support your view, determine them to be factually correct even though you personally lack the background or knowledge to make that determination by way of your own choice to ignore the statements of others, lend your endorsement to them since they support your view, and proceed to neglect everything else for no other reason than your dislike of what they have to say. BTW, is that not essentially what you just accused me of doing?
Cutting myself off? LOL In case you haven't noticed, we're posting on a conservative news forum where there are thousands of opinions posted every day about almost any topic under the sun by some of the wisest conversationalists in America. I've studied things that would spin your mind, that's for sure. You wrap yourself in the Civil War exclusively here. If anyone is isolating himself in ignorance, it's you. You are one-issue.
Now you are different and look at the results. You believe crazy things Out of curiousity, what would those so-called "crazy things" be?
Let's see. You believe slavery had nothing to do with secession. You believe Lincoln was a communist. You believe the steel industry in this country can be quickly rebuilt in an emergency from nothing.
Now that's a peculiar assertion for you to make. After all, am I not subjecting what you say to scrutiny rather than taking it as is in the fashion of a gullible person?
No. You play stupid by playing with semantics.
It seems that you are at a lack of words by which to describe me, thus you simply assign what comes to mind without any basis beyond that.
Lack of words? Only one is needed: crazy. You believe nutty things.
I do? Would you mind quoting me where I asserted that belief then? If you cannot do so, you should not shoot your mouth off in such a fashion.
See, you're proving my point. You spend a lot of time implying that slavery had nothing to do with secession but you won't confirm or deny what you believe now. Subtle lies.
I do? Would you mind quoting me where I asserted that belief then? If you cannot do so, you should not shoot your mouth off in such a fashion.
You're proving my point again about other people's opinion. You spend a lot of your time implying Lincoln was a communist but now you won't confirm or deny it now. Subtle lies.
Wait a moment there. You have yet to establish that I believe what you assert me to believe. Having failed to do so, you cannot logically develop, with any basis in fact, a theory to explain a behavior you have yet to even establish. Until then, your allegation is without substance. It's a simple matter of reality - quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
Subtle lies. That's what you find in other people's opinion. You're not confirming or denying anything now, so you use subtle lies. You have proven my point. If you're opinion wasn't laced with subtle lies, then you would be more forthright. You are not being bold at all in these posts because you know I'm right and you know if you were to make a bold statement one way or the other, you would get nailed for it because of the subtle lies you have told.
In some ways, that is a fancy theory you've developed for yourself.
It's true. A lot of opinion is laced with subtle lies.
Now, would you mind demonstrating to me what basis in reality, if any, that it has? If you cannot do that, you should not shoot your mouth off by alleging it in the first place.
I see you're getting defensive. If you don't want to believe that some are experts at subtle lies, then have at it. Have a good trip through life. LOL You will continue to be fooled.
Put in other terms, you look for people who support your view, determine them to be factually correct even though you personally lack the background or knowledge to make that determination by way of your own choice to ignore the statements of others, lend your endorsement to them since they support your view, and proceed to neglect everything else for no other reason than your dislike of what they have to say. BTW, is that not essentially what you just accused me of doing?
You're missing a big part of what I said. I said they have to have their fundamentals right. You listen to liars. I don't.
You have repeatedly admitted to me that you refuse to read anything that you do not desire to see, so yes. Cutting yourself off.
I've studied things that would spin your mind, that's for sure.
You are correct. The inane ramblings of intellectually shallow fools you surround yourself with are enough to make any rational person's head spin due to the impossibility of making sense out of the utterly senseless.
Let's see. You believe slavery had nothing to do with secession.
As I stated previously, would you mind quoting me where I asserted that belief then? If you cannot do so, you should not shoot your mouth off in such a fashion.
You believe Lincoln was a communist.
As I stated previously, would you mind quoting me where I asserted that belief then? If you cannot do so, you should not shoot your mouth off in such a fashion.
You believe the steel industry in this country can be quickly rebuilt in an emergency from nothing.
If the market demands it...
No. You play stupid by playing with semantics.
I only play semantics in response to your heavy but imprecise dependence upon that very same artform. If you wish to continue your semantical endeavours, you should be able to defend them under scrutiny. If you cannot defend them from scrutiny, your should not play them in the first place.
See, you're proving my point. You spend a lot of time implying that slavery had nothing to do with secession
Oh, so now it's only "implying that slavery had nothing to do with secession" rather than the old line of "believing that slavery had nothing to do with secession"? You're backpeddling and it shows. You backpeddle because you know your position is a fraudulent one - you know you shot your mouth off in haste with an allegation you could not support. To explore this further, I will press you on your new allegation. Please quote me where I "imply" that slavery had nothing to do with secession.
You spend a lot of your time implying Lincoln was a communist but now you won't confirm or deny it now. Subtle lies.
Oh, so again it is no longer believing or asserting, but rather "implying." To explore this further, I will press you on your new allegation. Please quote me where I "imply" that Lincoln was a communist.
Subtle lies.
No. Neither subtle, nor a lie. You shot your mouth off and made an allegation in haste. Now that I press you on it, you cannot back up that allegation to save your life. Face it - you're in way over your head on this one.
You're missing a big part of what I said. I said they have to have their fundamentals right. You listen to liars. I don't.
So let me get this straight. You listen to and endorse certain other people because you do not know enough for yourself. Yet you know that everything they say as their fundamentals is right, despite having just admitted that you do not know enough to make that judgment. Strange...
No, I said I don't waste my time reading BS. If someone is lying, then I won't read their books or articles.
You are correct. The inane ramblings of intellectually shallow fools you surround yourself with are enough to make any rational person's head spin due to the impossibility of making sense out of the utterly senseless.
You spend 24/7 arguing about your one-issue, the Civil War, and you call me shallow? LOL
As I stated previously, would you mind quoting me where I asserted that belief then? If you cannot do so, you should not shoot your mouth off in such a fashion.
You're being vague. The BS meter is rising. Why don't you just be bold and say I'm lying? LOL
As I stated previously, would you mind quoting me where I asserted that belief then? If you cannot do so, you should not shoot your mouth off in such a fashion.
You're being vague again. You're not confirming nor denying this charge, just telling me to prove it. The mode of operation of a subtle liar.
You believe the steel industry in this country can be quickly rebuilt in an emergency from nothing. If the market demands it...
Your crazy and short-sighted. If you'd get your nose out of the Civil War conspiracy books and take a look at the world around you you'd realize that something as demanding and complex as the steel industry cannot be rebuilt in a short time.
I only play semantics in response to your heavy but imprecise dependence upon that very same artform. If you wish to continue your semantical endeavours, you should be able to defend them under scrutiny. If you cannot defend them from scrutiny, your should not play them in the first place.
When you confused the meanings of "significance" and "agreement" it confused my statement to you. It was necessary for me to define these two words for you so you could be brought out of your state of confusion. There is a chasm of difference in those two words. You claim not to recognize the term "Declaration of Secession" because you refer to them as "Declaration of Causes". You're playing semantics to avoid discussing the damning evidence contained in the Declarations of Secession.
Oh, so now it's only "implying that slavery had nothing to do with secession" rather than the old line of "believing that slavery had nothing to do with secession"?
See, that is exactly my point. You use subtle lies.
You're backpeddling and it shows.
No, I'm proving my point to you with your own words. Your own words are laced with subtle lies.
You backpeddle because you know your position is a fraudulent one - you know you shot your mouth off in haste with an allegation you could not support.
Not at all. Look at what you're saying. You won't confirm nor deny what I said. You are a subtle liar. You put your little implications out there and then when someone calls you on it, you get vague. You are proving my point exactly. You know you can't admit to believing that Lincoln was a communist because you know it's not true and you can't admit that it's not true because you spend so much time trying to imply that it is true. You know you can't deny that you believe that Lincoln is a communist because that would automatically prove you a subtle liar.
To explore this further, I will press you on your new allegation. Please quote me where I "imply" that slavery had nothing to do with secession.
You're being vague. You won't confirm nor deny it. You know you can't do either because either will prove you a subtle liar. You are in a fix and you are proving my point exactly. LOL
Oh, so again it is no longer believing or asserting, but rather "implying." To explore this further, I will press you on your new allegation. Please quote me where I "imply" that Lincoln was a communist.
Vagueness is the mode of operation of a subtle liar. Come on now be bold. Take a stand. Let's hear you say "Lincoln was not a communist", or "Lincoln was a communist", or "slavery had nothing to do with secession", or "slavery was a cause of secession". You can't do it. You can't be bold because any of these four statements prove you a subtle liar. I trapped you with my bait in the previous post! LOL
No. Neither subtle, nor a lie. You shot your mouth off and made an allegation in haste. Now that I press you on it, you cannot back up that allegation to save your life. Face it - you're in way over your head on this one.
Nope, I drew you into this trap where you can't make a definitive statement. And those who cannot make definitive statements are subtle liars.
So let me get this straight. You listen to and endorse certain other people because you do not know enough for yourself.
Nope, I check their fundamentals. If their fundamentals are correct then I will see if they have anything that I haven't went through already.
Yet you know that everything they say as their fundamentals is right, despite having just admitted that you do not know enough to make that judgment. Strange...
No, fundamentals can be judged by one with discernment.
Walt lies all the time and you apparently read what he posts. So it would seem that you don't practice what you preach.
You spend 24/7 arguing about your one-issue, the Civil War, and you call me shallow?
Now that's funny, cause I recall very distinctly getting involved in a debate yesterday about a school district policy in Texas. You seem to have been posting on little more than this thread for some time now while managing to add virtually nothing of value or substance to it. So yes. I do call you shallow.
You're being vague.
Quite to the contrary. I am asking you for something very specific - evidence to back your oft-made false allegations against others. If you cannot specify those allegations, you should not make them. What about that is so difficult for you?
The BS meter is rising.
It often tends to almost immediately following your arrival at any given thread. Coincidence? I think not.
Why don't you just be bold and say I'm lying? LOL
Happily. You're lying. And unlike you, I can prove that you are lying by noting the simple fact that, for all those allegations, you cannot offer a single piece of evidence for any one of them.
You're being vague again.
Exactly how is asking you to substantiate your abusive and fraudulent charges with evidence being "vague"? Oh wait. I almost forgot. You live in a world where up is down, black is white, war is peace, hot is cold, and all that other stuff. You're not confirming nor denying this charge, just telling me to prove it.
It is your charge and therefore also your burden to prove it.
Your crazy and short-sighted. If you'd get your nose out of the Civil War conspiracy books and take a look at the world around you you'd realize that something as demanding and complex as the steel industry cannot be rebuilt in a short time.
Sure it can. If the market demands it, it will happen. Just the same, if a need arises for an airstrip in Afghanistan, something that normally takes years to build will be erected in a matter of weeks as just happened not to long ago. Calling me names will not change those facts.
When you confused the meanings of "significance" and "agreement" it confused my statement to you.
What in the world are you rambling about now? Seriously, are you drunk? Or perhaps missing some medication?
You claim not to recognize the term "Declaration of Secession" because you refer to them as "Declaration of Causes".
If you are referring to the Declarations of Causes, call them by that name because that is what they call themselves. Don't get mad at me for pointing out your erronious use of a title because you have only yourself to blame for that.
You're playing semantics to avoid discussing the damning evidence contained in the Declarations of Secession.
Nonsense. If I were trying to avoid the Declarations of Causes, I would not have prominently included them in my chart. Thus, by accusing me of ignoring them you are lying.
See, that is exactly my point. You use subtle lies.
Then substantiate that allegation. By asking you to substantiate them I mean for you to post specific evidence of them such as a quote. It has become apparent though that you are doing exactly what you fraudulently accused me of - intentionally remaining vague about the false allegations you make.
No, I'm proving my point to you with your own words.
That would require you to quote me. You have yet to do anything of the sort, thus you have not proven your point with my words and thus, by claiming falsely that you have, you expose your habitual dishonesty.
Your own words are laced with subtle lies.
Quote one and prove it. Otherwise you should not shoot your mouth off with fraudulent allegations such as that.
Walt posts actual quotes from the time. Your credibilty just took another hit.
Now that's funny, cause I recall very distinctly getting involved in a debate yesterday about a school district policy in Texas.
Wow, one other issue in two days.
You seem to have been posting on little more than this thread for some time now while managing to add virtually nothing of value or substance to it. So yes. I do call you shallow.
So you call me shallow for doing for two days what you do for years. That's not too bright.
Quite to the contrary. I am asking you for something very specific - evidence to back your oft-made false allegations against others. If you cannot specify those allegations, you should not make them. What about that is so difficult for you?
Why is it difficult for you to make a definitive statement. It's because you're a subtle liar.
It often tends to almost immediately following your arrival at any given thread. Coincidence? I think not.
You're the one refusing to make definitive statements.
Happily. You're lying.
Then I'm glad you finally admit that Lincoln was not a communist and that slavery was a cause of secession. Now why do you spend all your time implying the opposite. Because you're a subtle liar.
And unlike you, I can prove that you are lying by noting the simple fact that, for all those allegations, you cannot offer a single piece of evidence for any one of them.
Anyone who reads your posts knows what you imply day after day.
Exactly how is asking you to substantiate your abusive and fraudulent charges with evidence being "vague"? Oh wait. I almost forgot. You live in a world where up is down, black is white, war is peace, hot is cold, and all that other stuff.
And you live in a world where it's OK to imply anything you want as long as you don't make a definitive statement. In my world that is lying.
It is your charge and therefore also your burden to prove it.
You're the one that spends every day saying the same thing over and over. The fact that you won't confirm or deny what you imply proves my point that you are a subtle liar.
Sure it can.
No it can't.
If the market demands it, it will happen.
No it won't, not in a few months.
Just the same, if a need arises for an airstrip in Afghanistan, something that normally takes years to build will be erected in a matter of weeks as just happened not to long ago. Calling me names will not change those facts.
Airstrip?! You equate a slab of pavement with a nationwide steel infrastructure?! You are truly naive. Get your nose out of the Civil War BS books and learn something.
What in the world are you rambling about now? Seriously, are you drunk? Or perhaps missing some medication?
It's on this thread, idiot. When I said Kofi's opinion was insignificant, you thought I meant solely that they were so because I disagreed with it. I had to explain to you the difference between "significance" and "agreement".
If you are referring to the Declarations of Causes, call them by that name because that is what they call themselves. Don't get mad at me for pointing out your erronious use of a title because you have only yourself to blame for that.
Well, you have it wrong also because they're actually the Declarations of Immediate Causes. I call them Declarations of Secession because it's shorter and everyone but you knows what I'm talking about.
Nonsense. If I were trying to avoid the Declarations of Causes, I would not have prominently included them in my chart. Thus, by accusing me of ignoring them you are lying.
You try to dismiss them by including them with simple legal statements. Therefore you are truly avoiding them.
Then substantiate that allegation.
Your posts over the last three years. Every post where you implied that Lincoln was a Marxist or a Communist. Every post where you ignore the Declarations of Secession.
By asking you to substantiate them I mean for you to post specific evidence of them such as a quote. It has become apparent though that you are doing exactly what you fraudulently accused me of - intentionally remaining vague about the false allegations you make.
Not at all. You imply that Lincoln is a communist every day. Everyone knows it.
That would require you to quote me.
No it doesn't. I said you are a subtle liar. A subtly liar is one who won't make definitive statements. You have proven that you cannot make a definitve statement because I asked you to do so and you won't do it so my point is proven by this post I'm responding to.
You have yet to do anything of the sort, thus you have not proven your point with my words and thus, by claiming falsely that you have, you expose your habitual dishonesty.
Nope, you won't state clearly your position on Lincoln and secession, therefore you are a subtle liar.
Quote one and prove it. Otherwise you should not shoot your mouth off with fraudulent allegations such as that.
I asked you to make a definitive statement and you won't do it, therefore you are a subtle liar.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.