"I accused you because it seemed reasonable to me under the circumstances. "
Of course it did. Because you are so used to fitting the 'facts' to support your argument, you'd do something similar under those circumstances.
"1) You declared the referent post does not exist. No one is that stupid, so I believed you to be promoting a lie and I still do. "
Of course you do. Given how much you lie, you figure everyone else does too.
"The post being refered to by the link does exist and you know it. The link and the context of the link were exactly the same as had been posted to you on many occasions. "
It wasn't the same, _less. For one, it doesn't work. For another, when you first see it, it presents as a new link, not one that has been taken. Which is what I, and any rational person, would do.
I know you find it hard to believe, but I don't memorize your posts. So I wasn't aware that it was otherwise identical to the same silly post you have been making the past few days.
Really, you need to get over yourself. You aren't that great.
"2) It wouldn't be necessary for you to commit to memory the previous links because of the repetition and exactness of the repeated statement referring to the same post as evidence to know that the post exists. "
It presented as a new link, _less. Are you too stupid to realize that?
"3) You exploited the technical problem dishonestly by concluding a fact that you knew to be false."
Uh, no. See above.
"4) You were being otherwise nasty and disingenuous."
Projecting again, _less. That is a perfect description of most of your posts.
"5) You frequently make stuff up including finding facetious ways to attack me based on convoluted information. "
Here again. If I do it so much, how come you have been unable to point to a single case, much less many, where I have actually made stuff up? And just because you are too dim to understand something, doesn't make it convoluted. If you want examples of deliberately convoluted posts, read some of your own.
"6) Didn't anyone ever tell you about the little boy who called wolfe too many times, until everybody thought he was up to some screw ball thing, even when he wasn't."
Like this. That doesn't make any sense. What does 'called wolfe' mean?
Plus, wolfe doesn't have an 'e' in English unless it is a name. In which case, the first letter is capitalized.
"I don't equate making a mistake with 'refusal to man up.'"
That isn't it, _less. The fact that you leaped to an assumption without checking it out was a bad step. Apparently you didn't bother to check it out until I pointed it out several times. Then you are still trying to blame it on me.
Which shows a distinct inability to man up. It wasn't the mistake, but the accusation and the refusal to accept the total blame. Because there was no one at fault but you.
I've seen 5 year olds with a better sense of responsibility.
"Of course. I know it for a fact."
Umm, opinions are not facts. The facts show you are a liar.
"The post being referred to (referent post) exists."
Umm, _less, the fact of the matter is in the post under question has a dead link. Period. When you first open the post, the link shows up as a new link. Whether or not there are others which resemble it superficially is totally irrelevant.
This post is a perfect example of what I have been saying. You made a mistake, yet have spent several paragraphs trying to pin the blame on me. Not to mention the constant ad hom. attacks. When you do make an honest mistake, which this really wasn't but what the hey, you don't have it in you to actually man up to it, but twist the facts and everything you can to make it look like you are the aggrieved party.
You are not an honest person. That is a pose, which is false.
And you have proven it yet again. |
