Reply #47 on: August 05

[sirs]

Yes, it's an abstract title to a thread, and its an abstract point being made, but one that needs to be made.  A while back a certain Canadian poster went apesnot over being called in one of his all to frequent episodes of stretching the truth.  It was apparently a bad day, and he needed to take it out on someone, so he took it out on sirs, by deciding to ignore future posts, despite both the lack of validity to the original accusation, and subsequent backpedal to simply cite sirs as not being a nice person, again despite a plethora of examples where folks, nearly on a day to day basis, who are not being nice to each other, this Canadian being no exception. 

Then came Reply #47 on: August 05, 2010, which to this day has not been addressed by the accuser. 

Too many otherwise interesting conversations here seem to end with sirs using his favorite word "lie". Everything that sirs does not believe is not an opinion, it is a "lie".

Examples, please.  You do realize you're responding to Bt's post.  But by all means, do a quick search here, and provide all these apparent numerous examples of sirs supposed "favorite word"...lest you be the one caught with his hand in the cookie jar

This is a perpetuation of the same "less than truthful" endeavor, this time by our other fellow liberal, that as noted above, has also gone unresponded to

Could that lack of a response be........no such plethora of examples??  no such pattern with sirs' posts, both originally when the claim was made, and subsequent to it??  I think its safe to say the silence speaks volumes

Now, that all said, and perhaps it was simply a slip, but it was a pleasant change of pace to see our Canadian provide a substantive response to a recent sirs post.  There had been 2 other occasions, but was assured they were simply errors, that the response was supposeldy based on a different poster.  Was the lastest another error?  Or was it a return to debate, which is what a debate forum is all about.....where when one is challenged on their claims, they either back them up with examples, reason & logic, or pull back in error, and thus learning from their mistake?

I think the jury is still out, on that one

[Kramer]

Does this have something to do with Mikey?

[sirs]

He'll have to answer that.....preferrably with supportive back up

[sirs]

Could that lack of a response be........no such plethora of examples??  no such pattern with sirs' posts, both originally when the claim was made, and subsequent to it??  I think its safe to say the silence speaks volumes

The jury has indeed rendered its verdict, it does appear

[Xavier_Onassis]

That would be the teensy judge and itty-bitty jury that inhabits the space between sirs' ears.

[sirs]

Naaaaaa.....that'd be the huge Judgemental chasm of no examples, jury, cited from Xo's keyboard, and (un)seen by all, who frequent the saloon.  Note the time you took here to respond, in no manner of debate by the way, time you could have used to even do a simple search within our archives.  I thank you for the debunking of your own claim.  You and Tee are to be commended       

[Plane]

You can't be given a trophy.

Nor even a handshake.

But if you exaust the real and logical out of the opponent , is thaqt a win?

[sirs]

hehe.......never was looking for one myself.  Just putting pair of twits in their place when it comes to this frivolous & meritless accusations about lies.  Especially when said accusations are the supposed foundation for the immature tact of ignoring substantive debate inquiries. 

[Xavier_Onassis]

Pretty much any accusation of "lies" by sirs is a waste of time to investigate, so far as I am concerned. I have already wasted far too much time wading through sirs' weird logic, and now I don't really care. Sirs, to sirs, is wrong. But to me he is always boring and tedious to read.

So I don't. There is no law saying I have to read sirs labyrinthine, boring posts.

[sirs]

Pretty much any accusation of "lies" by sirs is a waste of time to investigate, so far as I am concerned.

Because, as both Xo & Tee have demonstrated over and over, is baseless.  Again, your effort at debunking yourselves is appreciated, as again, time taken to respond nonsense here, compared to time could have spent backing up your own accusations.  Helps to shed alot of light on both past and future accusations, of any kind, the two of you may or may not share

There is no law saying I have to read sirs labyrinthine, boring posts.

I'm sure it will be equally as difficult for Xo to demonstrate any post, by anyone for that matter, that demands, or even implies what he must and mustn't read.  But at least now we see that one of the problems, at least for Xo, is apparently reading comprehension.  Seems to have been a frequent pattern of Tee's as well.  Perhaps we're on to something