SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: greenspirit who wrote (150386)6/3/2001 5:05:03 PM
From: E  Read Replies (2) of 769670
 
SO, Michael, in sum: The only 'threats' you have cited, and spent hundreds of words charging me with, are

1)what you call a 'threat' to ProLife -- my saying that if the lie continued, the truth would.

2) the 'threat' to you was the one you now say of, "You made one threat toward me (granted you later admitted it was a joke)." ("Admitted" is an interesting way of putting it. Does it not imply that I had at some earlier point taken the position that it wasn't a joke, and you had wrested the admission out of me that it was? (That's so very Michael of you! It has a familar feel, even.) Did I ever take the position that it wasn't a joke, Michael? Ever?)

So the above are your two points. But here is your third:

Hint- it relates to you incorrectly quoting a passage from me, being called on it, and then having to face the embarrassment of your mistake. Notice I didn't call you a liar the way you have repeatedly done toward me.

It would be a bit hard to do that, wouldn't it, Michael. Since the sum total of that point you have to keep taking refuge in is this. It is your point 3):

When you lied and said I had posted an article on "numerous threads to get attention," and then posted it "multiple times," I didn't realize the "multiple times" meant that I had posted excerpts from it on this thread to three or four people, and instead of writing

"on numerous threads" and "multiple postings,"

I wrote

"on numerous and multiple threads."

So your entire point here is that

NUMEROUS THREADS

means, to you, something significantly different from

NUMEROUS AND MULTIPLE THREADS.

Is that correct? Do you take exception to anything above? Your total point here is that I accused you of saying "numerous and multiple threads" instead of "'numerous threads'" and 'multiple postings'"?

And oh, btw, let's not forget that the "numerous threads" I posted on is two. Right? To you two is numerous. We've established that.

Right?

Any chance you might reply to my questions here?

Nah. You can't.

You can't answer anything. You can just keep changing the subject to the above lame absurdities because for some reason you don't know they make you look even worse, not better. Weird.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext