Posted on 12/09/2002 12:54:58 AM PST by MadIvan
You never answered the question, "Yes" or "No", nor answered it directly.
That is weaseling. You should not be allowed to get away with it as it is an issue that requires moral clarity. Something which you have none of, otherwise you would have had a clear and unequivocal answer to this question, would not have smeared Reagan, and not tried to invoke Jim Rob to make me "bend to your will".
Ivan
Of course. That explains her original posts to me on the subject.
Ivan
You are now clearly lying.
I'll leave the lovely Happygal to dispense with you for this silly quip.
Ivan
Fine, let them read the threads. You never answered the question directly, "Yes" or "No".
Thread 1
Thread 2
People will see that you never answered the question directly, and in fact tried to weasel out of it.
Ivan Ivan
I realise this is a tactic on your part to make me angry and say something that will get me banned.
Very unsubtle, old boy, and won't work. Hope this helps.
Ivan
I realise this is a tactic on your part to make me angry and say something that will get me banned.
You are projecting old chap. You describe your own dirty deeds as if they were the work of others.
Oh really? Was I the one who invoked Jim Rob and the implicit threat of Jim Rob first?
Who whinged to the authorities first? And who said they would continue to fight their own battles?
Nice try, old boy, but you really need to let it go. You're not going to get me to let you off the hook. Hope this helps, lad.
Ivan
I made no threats. I asked you a question. I informed you of the rule laid down along time ago and you continued. If I had meant to have you banned (like I even have that power LOL) I would have flagged Jim or a moderator to the thread. I was appealing to your own conscience. I stated as much.
Your entire interrogitory on this subject of child pornography on the other hand is a great description of that which you project upon me.
What I think readers will notice on the two threads is that xJones has been noticably absent since he came in with his stink bomb. He left you to wallow in the stench of an accusation you didn't even bother to verify for yourself. You just went with it because you imagined it might help you.
Your objective failed.
Give me a bloody break. You would not have brought it up if you did not want to intimidate me into doing what YOU want. That is plain to see. I have not done anything similar to you. You trying to excuse this tactic is truly pitiful.
Your entire interrogitory on this subject of child pornography on the other hand is a great description of that which you project upon me.
A persecution complex is never pretty to behold. If you had answered the question directly, yes or no, then there would be no need for this. People will look at your post 81 and realise the lack of moral and legal clarity that you are running around with. You simply didn't want to answer that question directly, and it is to the detriment of your reputation.
What I think readers will notice on the two threads is that xJones has been noticably absent since he came in with his stink bomb. He left you to wallow in the stench of an accusation you didn't even bother to verify for yourself. You just went with it because you imagined it might help you.
I asked you the question directly more than 5 times now. You simply cannot issue a straight answer. If you said "No, I don't believe the possession of child pornography should be legal", then it would be all over. You didn't say that, you made a choice to weasel instead, and weaseling on such an issue is disgusting.
As I've said, you tied a noose around your neck, stood up on the chair, tied the rope 'round a hook, kicked the chair away. You're just upset that I'm telling you you're dangling in the breeze.
Ivan
You can't possibly imagine that somebody who disagrees with you could be telling the truth about their intentions. My actions bear out my words. Jim wasn't summoned. No Admin Moderator was flagged. You can overlook that fact but you can't reconcile it with your flawed conclusion.
A persecution complex is never pretty to behold.
LOL.
Who whinged to the authorities first?(sic)
Excuse me, but I told you I wasn't going to let you off the hook. You posted on here knowing full well I wasn't. Then you brought up Jim Rob to try and get me to let you off the hook. End of discussion. You really haven't a clear thought about anything, do you?
And as for bringing up Jim Rob, you did indeed bring him up first on this thread. Posting backwards to me pointing that out is hardly flattering to your cause. One wonders if you need to "sleep it off" and try again in the morning.
Ivan
You apparently by the looks of the sanitation going on in the thread. LOL.
There is also the RINO problem. I think Bush needs to tread lightly and carefully on this - however if he can come up with a very simple, clear proposal, such as the abolition of the income tax, the nation will love him forever. He can appear on national television, with a bound copy of all the tax regulations (probably huge) and say, "This is the present tax law. It is complex, unnecessary and a terrible drain on the economy. What I propose is very simple."
Cue, him throwing it into the rubbish. And he announces a new national sales tax to replace the IRS. The IRS, all its auditors and employees, to be told to get lost.
The pure love that would accompany such a move would overwhelm the Democrats and RINO.
Regards, Ivan
Not at all. I did not call on anyone. You invoked Jim Rob first.
Ivan
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.