This sums it all up real well

[sirs]

I don't know why everyone is picking on Michael Tee. He and I had a nice discussion going, but that got sidetracked by people calling him a liar and then expecting him not to be upset by that. I'm frankly rather annoyed that this ended up having to be about Michael Tee rather than the issues.

Let's be clear Prince.  I was calling Tee on what he was specifically lying about.  Not making some grand proclaimation that Tee was a liar.  I too wish he would stick to the issue(s) he was lying about, vs trying to make this all about how badly he's supposedly being attacked

[Universe Prince]

I was calling Tee on what he was specifically lying about.  Not making some grand proclaimation that Tee was a liar.

Um, yeah, why ever would he take offense at that? I don't see how he could possibly connect being accused of lying with being called a liar. Well, except for that part about being accused of lying. Pooh yi.

[sirs]

I was calling Tee on what he was specifically lying about.  Not making some grand proclaimation that Tee was a liar.

Um, yeah, why ever would he take offense at that? I don't see how he could possibly connect being accused of lying with being called a liar. Well, except for that part about being accused of lying. Pooh yi.

Ahh, is this a new format?  When someone lies about X, we're not allowed to highlight that?  And that highlight automatically applies to everything they say?  I must have missed the memo.

[Universe Prince]

Ahh, is this a new format?  When someone lies about X, we're not allowed to highlight that?  And that highlight automatically applies to everything they say?  I must have missed the memo.

Um, no. I didn't say that. But if you're going to start accusing someone of "complete bald faced lies", seems to me you should not then be surprised if the person you're accusing takes offense at being called a liar, because you have at that point indirectly said that person is a liar. This isn't rocket science. This is common sense. Or at least it should be common sense.

[Plane]

<<Neither should you [claim objectivity for yourself].>>

That's a red herring.  I have no problem with anyone, myself included, claiming to be objective.  It's a claim like any other, it can be tested and accepted or rejected.

<<"You're a bare-faced liar" is not a debating tactic that you are used to. It seems just as impolite to us as it does to you when the tide is running the other direction.>>

Except that this is a tide that only seems to run in one direction.  I'm the one who is accused of being a bare-faced liar and the accusations all come from the same source.

I gotta agree that Sirs is being tactless , but tact is one way , when courtesy can be reciprocal it works better.

Why do you want to call President Bush a Liar ?

I suppose that it is not possible to hold the same standard , discussing famous persons is something like discussing fictional people , they cannot possibly show up to defend themselves.

I do not think that you are being Just as you call President Bush a liar , I think it is rude and politically motivated.


But I am not taking it personally .


Neither should you or Sirs be stomping on each others hemorrhoids so energetically .

This is closer to even and reciprocal than you think.

[sirs]

Ahh, is this a new format?  When someone lies about X, we're not allowed to highlight that?  And that highlight automatically applies to everything they say?  I must have missed the memo.

Um, no. I didn't say that. But if you're going to start accusing someone of "complete bald faced lies", seems to me you should not then be surprised if the person you're accusing takes offense at being called a liar, because you have at that point indirectly said that person is a liar. This isn't rocket science. This is common sense. Or at least it should be common sense.

And did you or Tee bother to look at what specifically I referenced as what he was lying about?  Well, Tee did, and went off on a pity me victim rant vs dealing with those issues, but you seemed to have missed it.  I suggest scrolling up to see what specifically I referenced as "complete bald faced lies".  I'll give you a hint, they were specific to certain accusations/issues, and not to Tee in general

[Michael Tee]

You really don't get it, do you?

<<I gotta agree that Sirs is being tactless , but tact is one way , when courtesy can be reciprocal it works better.>>

This has nothing at all to do with tact.  I'm not a particularly tactful person and I don't insist on tact in a debating club.  My complaint has nothing to do with a lack of tact.  It has everything to do with being called a fucking liar - - not that I give a shit what sirs thinks about anything, because he is too fucking dumb for that, but because this club has other members, I feel compelled to answer every charge that that lying dipshit makes about my honesty.  I simply don't have the TIME to respond to each personal attack on my integrity AND debate the issues that the club is supposed to be debating.

<<Why do you want to call President Bush a Liar ?>>

Because that's EXACTLY what he is, and his lies and the lies of his administration have landed you in a disastrous war.  Why in such circumstances would you NOT want to call him a liar?  and worse?

<<I suppose that it is not possible to hold the same standard , discussing famous persons is something like discussing fictional people , they cannot possibly show up to defend themselves.>>

Frankly, I wish the little prick WOULD show up here to defend himself, he'd get asked tougher questions than he ever got from his sycophantic "press corps" and he wouldn't be allowed to wriggle off the hook as he does at his own press conferences.

<<I do not think that you are being Just as you call President Bush a liar , I think it is rude and politically motivated.>>

Well before you get too upset about that, I'm not too happy about what you've been saying about the world's greatest living national leader, Fidel Castro.  Maybe we should just stop being 3DHS and turn this into the Sweet Talk  Cafe and Patisserie.


<<But I am not taking it personally.>>

Good, I don't take your Castro comments personally either.


<<Neither should you or Sirs be stomping on each others hemorrhoids so energetically.>>

Maybe you didn't get this the first time round, so I'll type it in real slow: I am not complaining because sirs stomped on my haemorrhoids and he is not complaining because I stomped on his.  I am not going to put up with him calling me a liar.  I don't lie and I don't intend to ignore it.  A little lying shit like sirs can use that term freely because he doesn't know - - can't know - - the significance of the word to someone who is not himself a liar.  But I take that the same way you yourself would - - as a very, very serious insult.

If you're going to allow this club to degenerate from debate into a free-fire zone of personal insult, you're going to have some members - - and you're hearing from one right now - - who are just too fucking busy in their real lives to spend double their usual time here, responding to personal attacks on their integrity AND attempting to carry on a debate on rational, factual principles at the same time.

<<This is closer to even and reciprocal than you think. >>

I'm glad you know what I think of that kind of "evenness" and "reciprocity."  You better come to grips with the fact that this exchange began when ONE person was gratuitiously called a bare-faced liar, and only then were all the holds taken  off.
 
 
 

[sirs]

I'm glad you know what I think of that kind of "evenness" and "reciprocity."  You better come to grips with the fact that this exchange began when ONE person was gratuitiously called a bare-faced liar, and only then were all the holds taken  off.

Try to keep it honest Tee.  Your plethora of lies regarding Bush lies were the issue.  Not you personally.  A subtle, but distinct difference

[Michael Tee]

<<Try to keep it honest Tee.  Your plethora of lies regarding Bush lies were the issue.  Not you personally.  A subtle, but distinct difference>>

Yeah now I got it - -   I tell a "plethora" of lies but I'm personally not a liar.  Blow it out your ass, sirs.

[Lanya]

I do not think that you are being Just as you call President Bush a liar , I think it is rude and politically motivated.

________________________________

If I had a doctor, and he or she detected cancer, I would like that doctor to be as clinical in describing the cancer as possible. 
Do not spare the patient the facts.   Facts allow us to change course, to correct things. 
I would not accuse the doctor of being rude or of not liking me personally..."How dare you tell me I have cancer! you DOG you!"

Same with lying presidents.  Get it out into the air. It's simply a fact.   He has lied so darn many times.

[sirs]

<<Try to keep it honest Tee.  Your plethora of lies regarding Bush lies were the issue.  Not you personally.  A subtle, but distinct difference>>

Yeah now I got it - -   I tell a "plethora" of lies but I'm personally not a liar.  Blow it out your ass, sirs.

OR (here's a thought).......focus on the issue & show us how I'm wrong regarding your specfic lies.  That's always been a valid option.  Playing the poor me, sirs is attacking me card is obviously the option you've chosen, but doesn't have to be.  We do't need a signed confession.  Witnesses would be nice.  Memos that demonstrated how Bush knew there were WMD but chose to take us to war would be nice.  some Letter of authorization from the WH or the Pentagon leaked to the NY Times demonstrating their madate & acceptance for torture would be nice.  

Opining that you've supposedly done this many a time, and don't feel the need to do it any longer, simply ignores the issue completely, leading to our most recent exchange.

[Michael Tee]

<<OR (here's a thought).......focus on the issue & show us how I'm wrong regarding your specfic lies.  That's always been a valid option. >>

Follow this through sirs.  The FIRST time I make an allegation that you challenge, it's not just an option but an obligation on me to "focus on the issues" and back it up.

The SECOND time I make the very same allegation that I backed up the first time, and you challenge it, to "focus on the issues" and prove it all over again is, as you say, a valid option.

Unfortunately, the issues that you challenge, and demand proof on, such as the stolen election, the lies that Bush (and/or his administration) told to get the U.S. into a war, the widespread use of torture by U.S. forces, and the other stuff you complain about, have been proven numerous times in this thread.  Unfortunately again, the level of proof produced is never as high as you want it to be, and so IN YOUR OPINION these charges have not been proven.  I have no problem with you telling me exactly that - - I'll call you a fucking idiot for not wanting to see the truth staring you in the face, but that's only my opinion, and you're free to call me a paranoid nut or conspiracy theorist in return. 

What I object to are your oft-repeated statements that people in this group make such allegations "without a shred of evidence" which is bullshit, because there are AT LEAST "shreds" of evidence (and in our opinion, adding up to much more than a shred, but that's only an opinion) but I do at least have the option of "focusing on the issues" and dragging up the same old facts and logic one more time to prove that, yes, there was a "shred" of evidence.  Sometimes I will take that option, sometimes not.


However, what I object to even more is MYSELF being called a fucking liar for expressing my opinion here, based on such evidence as I chose to rely upon.  When you insult someone's integrity, if that person is an honourable individual, you really leave him no choice - - he HAS to respond to the insult or risk appearing to have conceded the point, "Yes I am a lying sack of shit, otherwise I would have rebutted what sirs has said about me."  Which immediately side-tracks the debate - - no longer is it about Bush lying or who's winning the "War on Terror," now it's about ME - - am I a lying sack of shit or not?  Believe it or not, sirs, although you seem to love to grovel in the mud of personal insult, the subject is not of much interest to the sane and normal members of this group, who thank God constitute the vast majority of it.  They don't want or need to listen to any of this shit, because presumably they come here to debate issues more important than whether I - - or whoever your next target may be - - is or is not a lying sack of shit.  As did I - - and I just am not going to permit my time to be wasted in replying to scurrilous attacks from scum like you on my personal integrity.

Nobody here is obligated to serve as your personal tutor.  If for example you ask for proof of Bush's lies, and I - - wishing to debate other things or just not having the time to set down the same well-known facts and reasoning all over again - - simply direct you to a "Bush Lied" website to read for yourself - - YOU have the option of going to the fucking web-site, reading the allegations, posting your opinion (that they're all fulla shit) and, as you yourself suggested, "dealing with the issues."  That you're too fucking lazy to actually get off your ass and read what's on the site is clearly NOT MY PROBLEM.  When you take your lazy dumb-ass way out by NOT going to the site and simply accusing me of lying, THAT IS MY PROBLEM.

[Plane]

It's simply a fact.   He has lied so darn many times.


[][][][][][][][][][]


No this is your opinion , it is not a fact .



[][][][][][][][][][][][][][]

 such as the stolen election, the lies that Bush (and/or his administration) told to get the U.S. into a war, the widespread use of torture by U.S. forces, and the other stuff you complain about, have been proven numerous times in this thread.  Unfortunately again, the level of proof produced is never as high as you want it to be, and so IN YOUR OPINION these charges have not been proven.


][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]


It has been proven to my satisfaction that Fidel Castro is a billionaire , taking my own prejudices into account I can understand how I could possibly be wrong .

Is thre an objective measurement for the quality of proofs?

[Mucho]

It's simply a fact.   He has lied so darn many times.


[][][][][][][][][][]


No this is your opinion , it is not a fact .

>>>Not a fact, but a perception . And a perception supported by repeated evidence<<<<

[][][][][][][][][][][][][][]

 such as the stolen election, the lies that Bush (and/or his administration) told to get the U.S. into a war, the widespread use of torture by U.S. forces, and the other stuff you complain about, have been proven numerous times in this thread.  Unfortunately again, the level of proof produced is never as high as you want it to be, and so IN YOUR OPINION these charges have not been proven.


][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]


It has been proven to my satisfaction that Fidel Castro is a billionaire , taking my own prejudices into account I can understand how I could possibly be wrong .

Is thre an objective measurement for the quality of proofs?


[/quote

I am not sure what you were trying to prove here, but Fidel IS considered a billionaire by none other than Forbes magazine.
http://www.forbes.com/2002/03/04/royalsphotoshow_6.html
I guess that means MT is totally truthful now.

[sirs]

<<OR (here's a thought).......focus on the issue & show us how I'm wrong regarding your specfic lies.  That's always been a valid option. >>

Follow this through sirs.  The FIRST time I make an allegation that you challenge, it's not just an option but an obligation on me to "focus on the issues" and back it up.

The fatal flaw to your timeline here is that the FIRST time you tried pulling this, was largely with a big finger pointing at some Bush Lied web site.  Like you'd say "ok" for anyone else pulling up a Newsmax web site as the end all for proving innocence.  You actually refused to pick it a lie, just basically told everyone to go there.  Plane had no problem pulling just one of those lies out and showing it for the sham that it was.  Let's move along the time line here now

The SECOND time I make the very same allegation that I backed up the first time, and you challenge it, to "focus on the issues" and prove it all over again is, as you say, a valid option.

Your "back-up" has been consistently and systematically debunked.  Now you can sit there, jump up and down and claim I'm simply doing the same thing, by saying such.  Difference is I, Plane, Ami, Bt, can all back it up, by doing it all again.  When I originally posted this challenge, only Brass made an effort, to which it was shot out of the water pretty quick.  The 2nd go around, we got your Bush lied link.  The 3rd time was your paltry effort to claim Bush lied about WMD, which also was shot down.  Consistently every one of your supposed "back-ups" was debunked for what it was, a plethora of weak accusatory innuendo, with prescious little valid circumstantial evidence.

What I object to are your oft-repeated statements that people in this group make such allegations "without a shred of evidence" which is bullshit, because there are AT LEAST "shreds" of evidence (and in our opinion, adding up to much more than a shred, but that's only an opinion) but I do at least have the option of "focusing on the issues" and dragging up the same old facts and logic one more time to prove that, yes, there was a "shred" of evidence.  Sometimes I will take that option, sometimes not.

Actually the lack of "shreds" is more in line with proof.  I realize you have miniscules of circumstantial evidence.  I believe there's circumstantial evidence that could be presented that Elvis is still alive.  Your problem is the overwhelming circumstnatial evidence to the contrary, the direct evidence to the contrary, and this reality's parameters for common sense.  When you continually ignore all that and keep claiming as if it's a documented certainty that Bush lied, THAT lie is going to be exposed for the lie that it is.  and no amount of repeating it is going to make it any more valid that when 1st tried

However, what I object to even more is MYSELF being called a fucking liar for expressing my opinion here, based on such evidence as I chose to rely upon. 

And there is what we were waiting for.  The molehill of "evidence" you chose to rely on while ignoring the mountain of evidence to the contrary.  My apologies for you choosing to take this as some personal attack.  It was an attack, but it was on the preponderance of the lies you keep perpetuating regarding Bush & American military, not on you.  Beyond that, I can't control how you're going to feel.