Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: E who wrote (150364)	6/3/2001 2:07:06 PM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769670

res- I can see why you might feel threatened by the truth. Still, that's a different and special meaning of the word "threat," i believe. Ok E, it looks like you have a deep desire to get into a sophistic argument about the use of the word threat. In your above analysis you conjecture that a "threat" can only be made regarding a lie and not the truth. Let's begin by examining the definition of threat. 1 : an expression of intention to inflict evil, injury, or damage 2 : one that threatens 3 : an indication of something impending <the sky held a threat of rain> Whether you were describing the truth or not, doesn't singularly constitute a threat. You many wish it were true now that you've hung so much of your ego on the line, but we can clearly see that a threat can have multiple meanings, of which one fits your past and present posting intent. Have you now decided to become the single harbinger of word definition usage, and then to take it one step further, are willing to classify everyone as a liar because they don't use your special inner E definition?? Quite a stretch even for you E. I'm frankly glad you brought forth the truth regarding infant heart beats, and I believe I said so at the time. The assumption you seem to have now is that because I don't want the truth to be known related to infant heart beat, that somehow that relates to not seeing a threat under your current lie criteria. Clearly your intention was to state a continuation of something impending. In this case, an impending continuation of presenting your case, and demanding a rebuttal in return. Nothing wrong with that, however, it does contitute a threat at some level. Therefore, your supposed "catch me in a lie" is nothing of the sort. Two incidents is a plural, meaning the s is not a lie and stands objectively as the truth. Now, what you wish to do is re-write the truth, pretend only your definition of "threat" is the valid one, and further argue that I lied in the process because I used the dictionary definition and not the E only definition. Quite a sophistic juggling act you're trying to accomplished E. LOL You made one threat toward me (granted you later admitted it was a joke). And you made one threat toward Prolife. Case dismissed. Now, I could do an E here and go on and on ad-naseum and describe all your potential motivations regarding why you feel so compelled to win this lie hypothesis. But, most of that I've already done. 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. That ought to give anyone reading this exchange a strong indication of who is correct, and who wishes to be correct, but can't quite muster an organized argument in which to accomplish it with. Calling someone liar, liar, liar over and over, doesn't make it the truth no matter how much you wish it to be true. Once again I gave you an open door in which to save face and end your embarrassment, and once again you've elected to jump in with both feet planted fully in your mouth instead. Sorry, but you're your own worst enemy in this regard. And I can't save you from yourself.