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 : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JBTFD who wrote (81241)	6/1/2007 4:40:40 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

You quoting Me: "So you may have a point but you have failed to defend your point when I pointed out that the huge body of evidence from first hand observers, internal and external evaluators, and corroborating sources are in conflict with your belief statement" "Here you are saying in effect, that because no charges have been filed there can be no truth to suspicions of other people's involvement." You may attempt to reframe my words to mean something different as often as you feel it suits your purposes. As often as you do that, it will be another lie on your part. If that was what I wanted to say to be effective, I would say it, or at least I would agree with it, which I have not each time you attribute it to me. "And your assertion is incorrect that all the sources are in conflict with my belief statement." I have never made such an assertion. There are many sources of information. Not all of them are evidentiary. "Just because no charges were filed on others doesn't mean that the truth is that no one else was involved." Nor have I ever said so. It does not prove that no one else was involved and I have said it doesn't, nor does it prove that others were involved. Neither is proven. I simply proved that you contradicted yourself in your claim. "The statement above is in fact a bluff." That doesn't even make sense.