March 16th 05, 12:42 AM
Greegor wrote:
> Kane, Rather than be truthful in your own dealings,
Please point out and prove the untruthfulness.
> it looks like you simply attempt to redefine truth
> and what constitutes a lie,
Well, things can "look"(s) like anything one wishes to see if they are
not objective. You are certainly welcome to point out what looks like a
lie to you in my posts, and support your claim. So, which words, which
post?
> all the while apparently
> "gerrymandering"
Redefining boundaries is not what I've done. I have taken what I said
from pretty standard sources. You have to know how to read and
understand the english language. If I make any number of claims in
writing, and at the end say, "True or not?"
I have just said that I do not know if my claims or correct or not. And
I have asked you to varify, deny, or clarify. You chose to not varify,
deny, or clarify. Whose really lying, greegor the whore?
> enough so that in your mind your
> own rules do not apply to your self?
Oh but they do. If you ask me a question, and I think you are
insinuating, I'll say I think or believe you are. It's up to you to
clarify if you are not, or not.
Now if you think I'm insinuating, go ahead, ask. I'll tell you,
greegor, that I most certainly AM, because, I'm Honest Kane. And I'll
point to the supporting material from YOUR OWN WORDS in posts placed by
you. Like the one in reply to the ex cop from Oregon.
It looked to me like you were instigating for parents to use lethal
force. In fact I have a very strong feeling you do so instigate. And
I'll insinuate as much as I wish, and insinuation is not accusation.
Just insinuation.
1. To introduce or otherwise convey (a thought, for example)
gradually and insidiously. See Synonyms at suggest.
2. To introduce or insert (oneself) by subtle and artful means.
Am I then "insidious?" You betcha greegor. And I'd never deny it.
On the other hand, I watch you and your cronies, and other assorted
fools and jackasses in these ngs, insinuate, insidiously, rather a
great deal...and NEVER OR RARELY OFFER SUFFICIENT PROOFS, IF ANY that
they have the least support for their insidious claims.
I try to make most if not all my insidious insinuations proof based,
and I love MOST that I refer to YOUR OWN WORDS as support.
So tell us, when you responded to the ex cop that said it was sick for
someone to wave a gun in someone else's face by your mocking him and
his collegues by pointing out they do it, and suggesting he was NOT a
cop at all, did you mean that parents should not wave a gun in
someone's face to take their children from state custody?
Or did you think cop's shouldn't use guns to enforce the law?
> Perhaps you have lorded over people too much, when
> you think the rules are for your "subjects" and do not
> apply to yourself.
Actually I think I posted resently in a post to bobber, that I dislike
command. I do not like authority for myself. I tend to work well in a
team of equals, or independently. I have to steel myself when I'm
pushed into authority positions and can't wait for them to end.
I am so dedicated to "lording it" that I refuse to impose myself on
even little children. You do recall I'm a non-punitive parenting
advocate, right? Does that look like I have a desire to control, or
lord it over anyone?
My only "subjects" boil down to one, myself. I have nothing but
influence on everyone else. I cannot force anyone to do anything, but I
can influence. Disciplining myself in this matter makes me very good at
influencing. And the number one rule of effective influence is to be
factual and correct. At least for me it is.
> You surely DO behave as if you were a caseworker,
> and as if you did it for so long you got BENT.
The problem is, greegor, you lie about caseworkers, based on your one
experience. I've been mugged by a black man. I admit that for some time
afterward I had involuntary reactions of anxiety and guardedness in the
presence of black people. But then, for me, had it been an Englishman
with red hair, I'd have felt guarded and anxious in the presence of
them.
And greegor, I did NOT go around lying about black people in general,
no matter HOW I responded emotionally. And guess what. In time I got
over it, rather fast, actually, if what I read about such things is
true.
I suspect that I've you would stop lying about caseworkers because you
got savaged by some of them (which we very much doubt) you too might
stop having those feelings sooner, and subsequently not even feel the
need to lie.
> If "misleading by intent" is lying, then we could have
> whole agencies up on perjury charges!
Human being have classifications of lying and some are acceptable. For
instance, to withhold the truth, and say nothing, or dodge as it were,
is acceptable under certain circumstances.
Caseworkers that simply answered every question with the exact facts in
full would in short order get people injured and killed. Charges cannot
proceed if the perp has all the information needed to dodge. Like kill
or threaten victims and potential witnesses.
You yourself withhold requested information, greegor. Are you lying? I
haven't said you were. But you do fit the criteria, if you are going to
claim that CPS workers do by withholding information.
Then there is the official sanctioned lie. National security comes to
mind. Hidding information that people who wish to harm the nation, our
society, is just such a "lie."
Then there is the contracted lie. Your friend tells you something very
serious that if you told could hurt them or others. You honor that
request. Are you then lying of someone else asks: "Did Jack tell you he
slept with your mutual friend's wife?" and you answer, "I don't know
that he did."
You are, greegor, telling the exact truth. You only know that Jack told
you he did. You did not witness it, and he could have just been
bragging, and making it appear more credible by swearing you to
secrecy. But greegor, you withheld the information that he told
you....that he slept with a mutual friend's wife.
YOU LIED.
Now why do I withhold certain information from you? Well, it could be,
that despite my misleading you, I have one of those kinds of socially
acceptable lies going on. No?
Is there some reason, for instance, that you withhold the information I
ask for about the use of lethal force by parents and your opinion on
that use? Would that qualify you as using one of those kinds of "lies"
I speak of above?
> But you are the king of that behavior aren't you?
If I am the king, Doug is the prince, and you the Jester he sends or
you willingly go out of misplaced loyalty to distract the king when he
has nailed Doug's sorry lying ass to the wall for misleading the
readers.
> Long winded diatribes full of invective?
Well, I try to answer each of the claims you make. If I am long winded
look to your claims. You said I lied about you by accusing you. I
pointed out to you that was not so.
>From the first time I did point that out to you you continued to come
back as though you had missed the proofs I provided, and continued to
simply parrot yourself, just as you do here, more or less.
So once again, I respond to your accusations as fully as you call for.
> Nothing pathological there, ever! : )
Not that I can see, however, feel free to point to the content that is,
by your claim, (you put no question mark in) "pathological" and provide
some supporting evidence.
We tend not to take your word for much anymore.
Why won't you answer the questions on the use of lethal force? Are you
afraid?
Kane
> Kane, Rather than be truthful in your own dealings,
Please point out and prove the untruthfulness.
> it looks like you simply attempt to redefine truth
> and what constitutes a lie,
Well, things can "look"(s) like anything one wishes to see if they are
not objective. You are certainly welcome to point out what looks like a
lie to you in my posts, and support your claim. So, which words, which
post?
> all the while apparently
> "gerrymandering"
Redefining boundaries is not what I've done. I have taken what I said
from pretty standard sources. You have to know how to read and
understand the english language. If I make any number of claims in
writing, and at the end say, "True or not?"
I have just said that I do not know if my claims or correct or not. And
I have asked you to varify, deny, or clarify. You chose to not varify,
deny, or clarify. Whose really lying, greegor the whore?
> enough so that in your mind your
> own rules do not apply to your self?
Oh but they do. If you ask me a question, and I think you are
insinuating, I'll say I think or believe you are. It's up to you to
clarify if you are not, or not.
Now if you think I'm insinuating, go ahead, ask. I'll tell you,
greegor, that I most certainly AM, because, I'm Honest Kane. And I'll
point to the supporting material from YOUR OWN WORDS in posts placed by
you. Like the one in reply to the ex cop from Oregon.
It looked to me like you were instigating for parents to use lethal
force. In fact I have a very strong feeling you do so instigate. And
I'll insinuate as much as I wish, and insinuation is not accusation.
Just insinuation.
1. To introduce or otherwise convey (a thought, for example)
gradually and insidiously. See Synonyms at suggest.
2. To introduce or insert (oneself) by subtle and artful means.
Am I then "insidious?" You betcha greegor. And I'd never deny it.
On the other hand, I watch you and your cronies, and other assorted
fools and jackasses in these ngs, insinuate, insidiously, rather a
great deal...and NEVER OR RARELY OFFER SUFFICIENT PROOFS, IF ANY that
they have the least support for their insidious claims.
I try to make most if not all my insidious insinuations proof based,
and I love MOST that I refer to YOUR OWN WORDS as support.
So tell us, when you responded to the ex cop that said it was sick for
someone to wave a gun in someone else's face by your mocking him and
his collegues by pointing out they do it, and suggesting he was NOT a
cop at all, did you mean that parents should not wave a gun in
someone's face to take their children from state custody?
Or did you think cop's shouldn't use guns to enforce the law?
> Perhaps you have lorded over people too much, when
> you think the rules are for your "subjects" and do not
> apply to yourself.
Actually I think I posted resently in a post to bobber, that I dislike
command. I do not like authority for myself. I tend to work well in a
team of equals, or independently. I have to steel myself when I'm
pushed into authority positions and can't wait for them to end.
I am so dedicated to "lording it" that I refuse to impose myself on
even little children. You do recall I'm a non-punitive parenting
advocate, right? Does that look like I have a desire to control, or
lord it over anyone?
My only "subjects" boil down to one, myself. I have nothing but
influence on everyone else. I cannot force anyone to do anything, but I
can influence. Disciplining myself in this matter makes me very good at
influencing. And the number one rule of effective influence is to be
factual and correct. At least for me it is.
> You surely DO behave as if you were a caseworker,
> and as if you did it for so long you got BENT.
The problem is, greegor, you lie about caseworkers, based on your one
experience. I've been mugged by a black man. I admit that for some time
afterward I had involuntary reactions of anxiety and guardedness in the
presence of black people. But then, for me, had it been an Englishman
with red hair, I'd have felt guarded and anxious in the presence of
them.
And greegor, I did NOT go around lying about black people in general,
no matter HOW I responded emotionally. And guess what. In time I got
over it, rather fast, actually, if what I read about such things is
true.
I suspect that I've you would stop lying about caseworkers because you
got savaged by some of them (which we very much doubt) you too might
stop having those feelings sooner, and subsequently not even feel the
need to lie.
> If "misleading by intent" is lying, then we could have
> whole agencies up on perjury charges!
Human being have classifications of lying and some are acceptable. For
instance, to withhold the truth, and say nothing, or dodge as it were,
is acceptable under certain circumstances.
Caseworkers that simply answered every question with the exact facts in
full would in short order get people injured and killed. Charges cannot
proceed if the perp has all the information needed to dodge. Like kill
or threaten victims and potential witnesses.
You yourself withhold requested information, greegor. Are you lying? I
haven't said you were. But you do fit the criteria, if you are going to
claim that CPS workers do by withholding information.
Then there is the official sanctioned lie. National security comes to
mind. Hidding information that people who wish to harm the nation, our
society, is just such a "lie."
Then there is the contracted lie. Your friend tells you something very
serious that if you told could hurt them or others. You honor that
request. Are you then lying of someone else asks: "Did Jack tell you he
slept with your mutual friend's wife?" and you answer, "I don't know
that he did."
You are, greegor, telling the exact truth. You only know that Jack told
you he did. You did not witness it, and he could have just been
bragging, and making it appear more credible by swearing you to
secrecy. But greegor, you withheld the information that he told
you....that he slept with a mutual friend's wife.
YOU LIED.
Now why do I withhold certain information from you? Well, it could be,
that despite my misleading you, I have one of those kinds of socially
acceptable lies going on. No?
Is there some reason, for instance, that you withhold the information I
ask for about the use of lethal force by parents and your opinion on
that use? Would that qualify you as using one of those kinds of "lies"
I speak of above?
> But you are the king of that behavior aren't you?
If I am the king, Doug is the prince, and you the Jester he sends or
you willingly go out of misplaced loyalty to distract the king when he
has nailed Doug's sorry lying ass to the wall for misleading the
readers.
> Long winded diatribes full of invective?
Well, I try to answer each of the claims you make. If I am long winded
look to your claims. You said I lied about you by accusing you. I
pointed out to you that was not so.
>From the first time I did point that out to you you continued to come
back as though you had missed the proofs I provided, and continued to
simply parrot yourself, just as you do here, more or less.
So once again, I respond to your accusations as fully as you call for.
> Nothing pathological there, ever! : )
Not that I can see, however, feel free to point to the content that is,
by your claim, (you put no question mark in) "pathological" and provide
some supporting evidence.
We tend not to take your word for much anymore.
Why won't you answer the questions on the use of lethal force? Are you
afraid?
Kane