It was a sincere question about your statement that there were audio clips. If you can’t link to them, then I must assume you just made it up.
Finn, you do need to pick your targets with a lot more care and judgment than you’ve shown here - and with a lot less bluster when that’s pointed out to you.
'Nuf sed.
I think I pick my targets just fine.
And I think that your tu quoque response is, or should be, beneath you.
No matter what your opposition does, you need to hold yourself to high standards of honesty.
There’s no reason to believe a liar a second time once they’ve been unmasked. And I have to admit, especially since you’ve not even formally retracted your original falsehood, I’m no longer sure as to just how honorable you plan on being.
I’d just like to add that it’s somewhat disturbing that my suggestions on intellectual honesty are “bluster” in your view. Do you really think that it’s okay to distort and invent facts as long as you’re ‘supporting’ your argument?
Isn’t it worse when the guy with the truth distorts it, and then everybody has to dig into his lies as well as his oponent’s arguments in order to get at the truth? Doesn’t it do the cause of truth a grave disservice if we can’t believe the guy who is telling truth? If you exagerate or make things up, how can anybody trust anything that you say?
No, it isn’t worse, and yes, you’re blustering.
Not at all. All posts are recorded for you to peruse at your whatever pace permits you to keep track of them. You refused to do so and are now reduced to disavowing responsibility for the results. That is bluster.
Now I know I have misjudged you, and will not do so again. Schmuck.
S’okay, I don’t really value the judgement of liars.
It is very slimey that your only defense of posting something which you knew to be false is that you were arguing with someone else. And rather than retracting, you try to turn this on me. “Yes, I’m a liar, but you didn’t take the other guy to task too!”
This is the politics of tu quoque, dishonesty, distortion.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
Elvis, may I rely on my long-standing position as your friend and ally to offer a scolding? Finn’s right. I perfectly understand the anger and frustration that moves you to step over the line, I share them. I trust the aforementioned friendship is strong enough, and sincere enough, to permit me this liberty.
We have to be ruthlessly and scrupulously careful. Our case is solid, we have no need for exaggeration, no need to shade the truth, the truth is our ally.
Stick to the facts, stick to the truth, and stick it to 'em!
Your pal,
e.
Lets go back a second. Elvis is certainly acting irrated. However, I didn’t blame him. He has ofered cites, and John just isn’t admitting to that fact. Surely you can see how this can be frustrating?
'Zackly, Scott, and thanks. 'luci, old friend, everything demanded has already been provided, as he notes.
Finn, you don’t even know what “accepting responsibility” means, do you? Consider the possibility that your misguided “work” here allows a casual observer to infer that the O’Reilly harassment/perversion case really is “baseless” and that those who talk about it are liars - is that a positive contribution to the fight against ignorance? Grow the fuck up.
Don’t shit on a triscuit and tell me it’s a sandwich.
He didn’t offer cites, he offered a cite which did not back up his claim.
As a matter of fact, his claim was a deliberate lie.
Nope.
You should fucking be ashamed of yourself, you’re a liar.
No, not everything has been provided, you have yet to produce an audio tape of O’Reilly saying what you claim he said. You have yet to produce a text based transcription of a tape where O’Reilly said what you claimed he said. In fact, you won’t be able to, because you’re lying through your teeth. And it’s disgusting.
Which one of us was lying in order to support a position and still refuses to accept responsibility for that, trying instead to shift blame to the people who call him out?
Don’t talk to me about accpeting responsiblity, because that only shows that you’re a hypocrite as well as dishonest.
That’s just stupid. I linked to the transcript and used it to support the truth. Which, by the way, is not the claim you made. All those who talk about it aren’t liars, but it seems that you are.
If you don’t want people to think that those who attack O’Reilly aren’t liars, then you’d better stop lying in order to attack him, eh? Or it’s my responsibility that you’re a liar?
Actually, yes. I’m preventing the ‘casual observer’ from believing your lies. Someone without the time to do the reasearch might’ve believed you, to the detriment of all involved.
It’s ironic that you’re kvetching at me to grow up, when you’re the one lying through his teeth and not even showing a shred of remorse for such an act. You’re acting like a petulant child who, when caught in a fib, whines and pouts. Again, poor form, and you should be ashamed of yourself.
[Moe] Shemp, goddamit, shut the fuck up! Curly, stuff a sock in it! [/Moe]
My enemies are out to get me, and my friends are trying to get each other.
I’d prefer it if it hadn’t come to this Luc. I think I pretty much went out of my way to be civil and fair in the beginning of this. Honesty is virtue, as is honor, and dishonesty is a pet peeve of mine. Still, I pretty much kept my cool. If ElvisL1ves would like to retract his claim and not make things up again in the future, I’ll be happy to consider this whole thing as never having happened.
Thanks for the back-up, Finn.
elucidator: Shading the truth is, perhaps, a forgivable offense. Deliberate lying is not. I hope you can see the difference.
::Shrug:: I coulda’ sworn I saw Elvis post this: Documents | The Smoking Gun and saw John denying what it clearly says.
If ONLY there were audio clips…
O’Reilly’s lawyers acknowledged that the transcripts came from tapes and actually tried to demand that Mackey turn the tapes over to them in their “extortion” filing.
Although O’Reilly talked about the case on his show, he never contested or denied any of Mackey’s specific complaints, he only complained that she wanted too much money.
None of his lawyers or mouthpieces ever denied any of the complaints either, or at least, they never denied the accuracy of the transcripts.
When O’Reilly finally paid up, he issued a statement that “there was no extortion,” and that he would “never speak of this matter again.”
Mackey has also not said a word since then. IIRC, part of the settlement deal is that she would cease to speak about in public.
O’Reilly has doubtlessly destroyed the original tapes and if Mackey secretly kept any copies, the settlement agreement would prevent her from ever making them public.
So, I’m afraid we will never get to hear Mr. O’Reilly rogering himself with a vibrator and maybe that’s a blessing. There are some things that once you hear them, you can’t unhear them.
Then surely you can quote the post where I did that.
The site does not offere a “transcript” of the tapes, but that’s not the biggest issue. I’m willing to let that slide. I asked for cites of “audio clips”, which I don’t believe exist.
For fuck’s sake Scott…
To begin with, John is debating whether or not the indictment is enough to be sure of his guilt. While I disagree with him, it’s a perfectly honest and reasonable position to take. John is also, quite correctly, pointing out that Elvis’ original claim was a lie. Both can be valid Scott.
Finn, please restate what you think Elvis’s original claim was. Don’t quote, but paraphrase, please. You see, we seem to hear two diffrent things.
Just to put a finer point on it, I have no idea why you don’t want me to quote. It’s in black and white. Elvis claimed that O’Reilly said something that he never said.