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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (556085)	3/19/2010 9:38:36 PM
From: one_less	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578288

Thats very schizoid dude, under the circumstances. "Nothing factual about it, _less. Sure it's factual. I am a completely honest person and you are not. "I can point out numerous cases where you lied, You have attempted to make a case for that on several occasions. But pointing fingers is one thing, backing it up is another. Calling me a liar is by it self a dishonest act. I can understand how threatening it is to be caught in such an act and why you've gone to such measures to make it work out. It never will because it was a mistake on your part in the first place. Perhaps in your heart you can't believe that I could truly be an honest person, maybe you're one of those who believes everybody is a liar and if you are really good you can prove it. I can't help you with that. I have a simple criteria for lying which includes the intent to deceive. I have not attempted to deceive you, I have been honest with you, brutally honest at times. You may have pointed out cases where your opinion differed from mine and you didn't like that I could not force you to change your mind but that doesn't mean you are correct and I am a liar. You have claimed I didn't know enough about something where you felt I was wrong (strawman). However, it does not make me a liar to have a different perspective than yours and this one is not a black and white issue. I answered your complaint and you didn't like my answer because it didn't vindicate you in that situation, but that doesn't make me a liar either. It just explains why I had the perspective I did, which was not deceitful. Even if the high judge of terminology declaired my ideas about strawman to be flawed it would only indicate I should have used a more precise term. You've claimed I lied about boycotting the thread. Well your basis for that claim is unfounded. I posted my reasons for ending my attempt at boycott to tejek. You probably read it but if not, go look. There was no attempt to deceive anyone. despite your ignoring my posts. No. I haven't ignored your requests for genuine discussion, at least initially when I thought you were being genuine. No one buys it so just drop it an move on for your own sake. I responded to your requests for an explanation about your complaints over previous topical discussions until I felt the issue had been covered completely. You wanted to continue arguing about it, I did not. Perhaps you didn't feel like you had won after all was said and done and in your mind that makes you a loser, which is understandably unacceptable. What you don't seem to understand is that other people only seeing you behaving that way, I doubt anyone was thinking you lost or that I did in those topical discussions. You wanted to argue theories of creation which was fine with me. You insisted that I argue a point of view that you deliver to me, which you delivered as flawed logic. I don't hold that view, so why would I argue for it when I believe my views to be superior. I would not, I did not. I have looked into this a lot and have background in the subject. For some reason you balked at my terms so I said fine, discussion over. I told you at the start I couldn't except your premise (here less_ take this flawed idea and I will prove what a great debater I am by using basic biology to prove it wrong). Frankly I didn't think you had any depth of knowledge beyond beginner biology and I have no disagreement with Biological science, so I didn't see any point in going on. Further I made that clear to you when I bowed out of the discussion. You marked that somehow as proof that I don't have good debate skills... which actually doesn't matter to me but you've been exploiting that in ungenuine self-agrandizing ways ever since. "That isn't what we call 'honest'." What you label or call honesty is one thing, authentic honesty is another. You put your own twist on something and call your twist evidence of dishonesty. That may bolster your delusions but it is meaningless otherwise. You have shown yourself to be a dishonest person in a very pervasive manner and so your pointed finger on that issue is not to be taken very serious.