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: greenspirit who wrote (150386)	6/3/2001 5:04:31 PM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

I believe that was your most incoherent post yet. I shall try to squeeze some sense out of it. It looks like I have a desire to get into a sophistic argument? Er... dude. It's you who went on and on pointlessly about various definitions, para after para. That was all irrelevant. Does it really have to be explained to you that the word "threat" always (unless used playfully, as in "she threatened to give the shy little boy a kiss") connotes an impending negative-- such as injury or impending bad news? "The sky held the threat of rain" is what is said; "The sky held the threat of cheery sunshine" is never said. Did I really have to say both 'injury' or 'impending bad news such as "the threat of rain"' to escape your lecture on the dictionary? It gained you nothing. Michael, do you really not know that 'threat' connotes an impending negative? Something bad for you. You don't want it. As in, "Eeeek, a threat." Never, "Oh good, a threat." In a minute, I'll point out what the purported impending injury or negative or bad thing was to ProLife. But first, let's straighten out another of your little mistakes. Continued.

To: greenspirit who wrote (150386)	6/3/2001 5:04:57 PM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

you conjecture that a "threat" can only be made regarding a lie and not the truth. Where is that conjecture? Those are your words and concept, not mine. Blackmail is an example of a threat that could be made regarding the truth. A blackmailer could threaten to reveal embarrassing private truths unless he got payoffs. We are in ProLife's case talking about public exchanges about public disinformation, so to refer to my saying i will correct those lies a "threat" -- well, that's speshull. If the truth is felt to be 'impending' bad news, so hearing that if you keep lying publicly you'll continue to be corrected publicly feels to you like a 'threat,' that is telling. Now, re 'threats." Yet again, ad infinitum. I thought you'd put that to rest, Michael. Now you write!: 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,* But Michael. I thought we had settled that matter when you wrote to me these words: <<If you interpreted the S to mean I implied multiple threats in the past, than I am truly sorry E. >> You then expatiated on what you had meant, ie, NOT that you were implying multiple threats in the past. Let's agree: as you wrote, there were no multiple threats in the past. Continued.

To: greenspirit who wrote (150386)	6/3/2001 5:05:03 PM
From: E	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to 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.