ElvisL1ves: Lying Weasel

The BBQ Pit
61

I say “stop it, youfillintheblank” :wink: (I almost posted a name 'cause I’ve personally said it so often).

and it has indeed happened, over and over, Izzy - continually folks would make the statement that I was a SH supporter 'cause I was against the war, ISTR that some even went so far as to claim that I was personally ‘helping’ SH continue to kill and torture.

Let me be clear about one other point, though - I don’t think that automatically restating the opposition’s arguement is by itself wrong. It can be helpful to try and understand the other’s position.

So:

“I’m against stomping on kittens”

So this means you’re for stomping on puppies?

“No, I wouldn’t be for that either, perhaps I should say I"m against stomping on baby animals”

Should be ok. however if the response was this:

So this means you’re for stomping on human babies??

I’d agree that (unless the poster was joking), they’d be guilty of deliberatly mischaracterizing the post.

:smiley:

62

RickJay, since you apparently need help getting your diaper changed, click here. A mighty convenient memory you have, isn’t it? Now go do the right thing - if you can figure out what it is, and you’ve been told already.

Scylla, go read the whole thread you’re using as your version of the IAEA report. Age replied to my reply to the doughty december - perhaps that’s why you failed to recognize its source. There’s a word for you, actually two, that appear in the thread title.

Izzy, you started this very thread to accuse me of lying about the basic topic in the other thread. See the thread title you chose. Now you claim you’re not accusing me a liar? Is that hiding behind your claim of “nebulousness” again?

Spoofe, and Monster104, I’ve looked all over your posts for their actual content, but it seems to be well hidden. Did you destroy it without documenting it, or perhaps smuggle it into Syria?

I do hope you’re all still having fun massaging your feelings of moral superiority - despite their lack of basis in the real world the rest of us are forced to live in. Carry on.

63

No, I’m pretty sure he IS calling you a liar.

That is, if we are defining a liar as someone who regularly uses dishonesty.

At least, that’s how I read it.

64

Elvis:

Yes. I am aware of that. It is however, totally pointless. December did not blame 9/11 on Clinton either.

You did not accuse him. You accused Age.

You made it up, pulled it out of your fundament, and attributed it to Age falsely.

When called for doing so, you evaded and impugned Age to uphold your position. If it was an honest mistake up to this point (which I strongly doubt,) then it became a lie as you attempted to deceit to make it seem true.

Even now, you continue to evade, distract and post misinformation to avoid acknowledging that you made a bad.

You are doing a fine job of proving that you are prone to false attributions and bad faith.

Here’s my advice:

  1. stop telling people what to do.
  2. Don’t deliberately misrepresent their arguments (quoting directly prevents this. It’s why we have a quote function.)
  3. If you do it accidently, do not attack your opponent to hide your mistake. Do not evade. Simply acknowledge the error and move on.
65

wring:

Don’t know 'bout that, wring. You seemed just a bit less tolerant here. “Patently dishonest” is the term you used. :smiley:

I think those debates might be different in that many no doubt intended to say that your attitude had the (unintended) effect of supporting Saddam or even helping him kill and torture, as opposed to claiming that your position was that Saddam was a good guy. If you have some examples of the latter I would agree that they are analogous.

ElvisL1ves:

I see you only have one game to play, and won’t stop playing it.

I do not claim that I am not accusing you of being a liar. Quite to the contrary, in fact. But what I most recently objected to as another of your lies was your statement in this thread that I “claim[ed] that those who do recognize that [i.e. “sexuality as a basic part of one’s identity”] are “lying” about it”. I was quite specific in outlining your various lies in the OP (& the other thread), and I’ve not said anything that might honestly be construed as meaning that those who recognize that etc. are lying about it.

I also object to your latest formulation: that I’ve accused you of lying “about the basic topic”. My accusations were specific and detailed. You’ve not addressed any of them. Not surprising.

66

Almost forgot:

  1. If the thread pitting you is at the bottom of the page, it’s usually not a good idea to bring it back to the top.

That’s just my opinion, though.

67

elvis is deceased , people claiming he is alive are just american money grabbers milking money out of the king so everyone shut the hell up:o

68

IzzyR, I’m having trouble sorting out the convoluted multiple negatives and subordinate clauses in your Johnny One-Note posts. I second the request for a flowchart.

Scylla, you still aren’t reading your own damn cite. december said nobody could have guessed Afghanistan (meaning Al Qaeda and 9/11, obviously) would be a problem. I replied that anyone who had listened to the briefings they were given might have guessed. Age made his own reply, to which I replied, at which point he hotly denied that the subject he’d hijacked was 9/11 and even accused me of lying about that. You now see fit to use that as a cite - and apparently the only thing you have that comes close.

Well, that’s only one cite anyway, albeit the only one you’ve brought up despite its proven falsity. You do claim countless others, no doubt equally good, right? As your hero says, “Bring 'em on.”

Oh, one more point: If you don’t want your own lies and slanders pointed out to you, don’t write them in the future.

Now have a quick read, then a look in the mirror:
Narcissitic Personality Disorder

69

**

Yes, I have. I’m just not trying to pretend it says something it doesn’t so I can weasel out acknowledging an error.

**

But at no point in here was anybody blaming 9/11 on Clinton. In fact, they were doing exactly the opposite as you’ve just shown. You have just proven you understand it. having proven that how do you justify saying Age or December are blaming 9/11 on Clinton?

That is what you said.

I chose this cite because it’s very simple. As much as you are prone to trying to confuse and obfuscate issues to hide your lies and misstatements, I wanted simplicity.

Here are the facts. I don’t think they are subject to dispute.

  1. You characterized Age’s argument as blaming 9/11 on Clinton.

  2. Age did no such thing.

  3. December did no such thing.

  4. Nobody did any such thing in that thread at the point you made the characterization.

  5. That characterization was false.

  6. You have demonstrated understanding of what was actually said.

  7. Since you understand what was meant, and characterized it falsely anyway, that was a deliberate misatribution. A deliberate misattribution is a lie.

  8. Your attempts to defend it by obfuscation are also dishonest.

  9. You are therefore a liar.

Since you ask nicely, I’ll be happy to. Let’s finish with this one first.

As I’ve said, it’s a very simple and straightforward one, and your dishonest attempts to evade acknowledging the fact serve my point further.

I’d like to ask you to questions though:

  1. Do you beleive your characterization of Age’s argument as “blaming Clinton for 9/11” is accurate?

If so, please quote the exact words where the blame is cast.

It’s a simple test, and if you fail it, I see no third alternative other than that you are perpetuating a lie.

Of course, you could also just admit that the characterization was innacurate, and that you were in error to make it.

It’s up to you.

Then we can move on to the next one.

I want to go one at a time to keep things simple and unconfused. being a narcissist I can only focus on one thing other than myself at any given point in time.

70

IZzy hence my statement above that this is my generally preferred way. I admit that when having to say essentially the same thing over and over to the same person, there are times I don’t use the tacticts described here. again, though, not always. I’ve been taking more or less of a ‘december’ break for a while to see how that effects the phenomenon.

a less nice person would suggest that your selection of statement here and that particular statement in another thread was less than honest representation of my position (since you specifically avoided the part where I said “Generally” I try to do this). Good thing I’m more nice, right? :smiley:

71

Elvis:

I will also point out that your attempt to characterize me as a narcissist is a deliberate and shallow mischaracterization.

It is a deliberate falsehood, and yet another lie.

72

Very convenient. Nonetheless, on the off-chance that my post was in fact convoluted, I’ll try to make it simpler.

You said:

“that” meaning “sexuality as a basic part of one’s identity”.

This is a blatantly false statement. I have never said that those who do recognize “that” are lying about it, nor said anything that might be reasonably misconstrued as such. I have accused you of being a liar, and stand by this accusation, but it is based on other statements, as enunciated in the OP.

I pointed this out in the response to your post. You responded:

No, I am still accusing you of being a liar. But for a different reason than you gave. Not because you are one of the people who recognize sexuality as a basic part of one’s identity. But because of your deliberate distortions of my positions, as described in the OP.

But just to see if you’re willing to back up anything you say, let’s see you point to a statement of mine which implies that those who recognize sexuality as a basic part of one’s identity are liars.

I don’t really think so, because that claim would be a stretch. Fact is that far from “specifically avoid[ing] the part where [you] said “Generally””, I actually quoted your entire response to my question, which did not include the word “generally”. What you are pointing out is that you used “generally” in a previous post, and that I failed to remember that. Valid point, but it would not support an accusation of “less than honest”, nice person or no. So there! :smiley:

In any event, you agree that when faced with repeated misrepresentation of your positions, you sometimes make accusations of dishonesty (you had not previously acknowledged this). Well so do I, on occasion.

73

But, I think there’s a difference still - I do not claim he’s a ‘liar’ (which to me includes a sense of knowingly telling a falsehood’, but that he does dishonest representations of others positions, in that the representations themselves are dishonest, but I do not claim to know that he’s knowingly subverting the text, or just so blinded by his own stance that he cannot see others correctly.

pbtththththththththt.

74

Still waiting for an example that holds up to even cursory examination, lamers.

Ignorance does hate being exposed, doesn’t it? Makes the fight against it that much harder.

75

Where’s that quote where Age blames Clinton for 9/11?

I’ll repeat:

Address my points and answer my questions directly and then we can move on to the next one.

I prefer you only evade one at a time.

76

Well, Elvis, I see no accusations of slander there. I don’t see anything I said that could be described as “slanderous.” Lord Derfel correctly pointed out that Canada by 12/7/41 had not quite had “thousands” of deaths, as I had erroneously claimed - it was at that point only about 1000-1500 or so. So it was thousand, not thousands. I was in error; I’d overestimated 1939-1941 casualties. (I have to admit I should have confirmed Derfel’s correction but didn’t for what reason I can’t recall.) How that constitutes “slander” I cannot imagine, though, unless you are using a definition of “slander” that differs from the rest of the English-speaking world.

As to your point here seems to rest on the notion that U.S. intervention in Haiti, Kosovo et al. was not done out of self-interest. Well, I disagree, I think self-interest had quite a bit to do with those things. As to your comment about other countries acting in THEIR self-interest, I said so before you did. So where’s the lie, buckwheat? I’ll stand by my record of honesty, thank you. Your accusations here are without any logic or merit.

Now, back to the topic, which is your repeated dishonesty; are you going to admit you lied about my comments in the other thread, or do you plan to keep lying about it? According to you no accusation “Stands up to cursory examination” but that’s a lie too… mine is absolutely iron-clad. You specifically claimed that “I do understand that you (IzzyR), RickJay, and others have been maintaining so strenuously for so long that we all really just hate conservatives…” I did not claim, assert, maintain, imply, or even vaguely suggest, in any manner whatsover, such a thing about anyone. You weaselled, and lied. It’s not open to debate. It’s observable fact. I challenge you to provide evidence your claim is true.

Feel free to either retract your accusation or continue melting. However, please see the post above; you might want to explain these rather obvious lies one at a time.

77

The same could be said about his defenders. What does that tell you?

78

You seem completely unable to grasp the concept that my first post in this thread was to express my agreement with the OP and others that feel you’re a liar. It was two sentences, can you not comprehend two very simply sentences?

It appears to me as if Elvis is acting like his dear friend december.

79

Imagine my surprise upon learning that others were as frustrated with ElvisL1ves’s debating tactics as I. And imagine my surprise upon learning that I was involved in an example given in venting that frustration. I was going to keep to the high road and stay out of the Pit until I saw that ElvisL1ves had engaged in his 2nd favorite debating tactic – slandering his opposition. He even took it a step further when he slandered me in absentia.

While I realize this is the Pit, I’d really prefer not to get into the name calling. However, I will say that I’d put my record for avoiding “simple falsehoods” up against ElvisL1ves’s any day. And I have no problem coming up with a few more examples of EvlisL1ves’s misrepresentations.

Here is a thread in which I (perhaps rashly) implied that ElvisL1ves was lying on numerous matters. The topic for debate was whether Bush had done anything that benefitted most Americans. The war against terrorism and the funds contributed to Africa were brought up as examples. This led to the following exchanges (I’ve reorganized them for the readers’ ease).

On overthrowing the Taliban and Iraq:

On aid to Africa:

On the creation of the Department of Homeland Security:

On the war against terrorism:

Unfortunately, I’ve reached the conclusion that ElvisL1ves contributes little to debates. I often disagree with many of the more reputable posters on this board – elucidator, wring, and minty green come to mind – but they are always cogent and reasonable in their analysis, and they provide an excellent sounding board against which to test the veracity of my own beliefs. Frankly, ElvisL1ves does nothing of the sort. That is not to say that ElvisL1ves is a liar, but that (in my opinion) he offers very little in the way of helpful dialogue. I’ve certainly misunderstood other people’s arguments and responded inappropriately. But ElvisL1ves does it with suspicious frequency.

But calling ElvisL1ves a liar probably does just as little to affect constructive debate. In fact, wring has cogently stated my position with regard to ElvisL1ves.

Although I should point out that our (your and my) definition of lying doesn’t jibe with ElvisL1ves’s.

80

One last time, just for amusement’s sake:

RickJay, thanks for admitting that you had made factual errors of such a magnitude that they discredited your multiple posts entirely. You asked what is “slanderous” (although I had only suggested that you were far more provably “lying” than I had ever been) next. Perhaps I can help there anyway. You seem to overlook your repeated hammering on the point that the my country never (your word) acts except out of self-interest. You walked away from that one too when challenged, in what appears to be part of a behavior pattern. Yet you take it upon yourself to pile on?

Scylla, you still refuse to read your own cite. I already led you by the hand through the key points, which are as I stated. The point-by-point “rebuttal” you demand was in fact a prebuttal, which you also have not read. Either you do know better, or you should but refuse to - that makes you a liar and a slanderer.

Now, where’s any of all the endless examples of my mendacity you claim? You say you got 'em, but they ain’t there, pardner, are they? Ergo, you are a liar and a slanderer on that count as well. But you can keep trying to loudly assert the legitimacy of the Nigerien uranium bill of sale, er, make that the Age cite even he’s backing away from, if you really enjoy looking this foolish. But, as you said back on Page 1, I’m not worth your time and trouble, am I?

However, in your favor, it has been highly amusing being lectured about appropriate board behavior by someone with as many official warnings as you. I know of no one with your total who has not yet been banned, do you?

Age, you do acknowledge now that your calling me a liar was “perhaps rash”. That was unexpected but welcome, however your admission (or RickJay-style ducking) was unavoidable given the flat proof of it. So a half-point for you, with a note from Teacher that you could do so much better if you only applied yourself. Nice comment about my contributions to threads, though - how do yours compare, do ya think?

monster104, you do know, don’t you, that saying something louder and longer doesn’t make it so? To convince grownups, you need some facts. Now, try to spend less time masturbating in your bedroom in anticipation of sophomore algebra class and go interact with the real world a little more.

wring, you’ve also taken it upon yourself to make disparaging statements about me that, sadly, are not based in fact or cite. There’s a word for that - several, actually. Now, do you really intend to play the busybody spinster aunt here? The one who has an underinformed but bitter opinion about everyone else, and eventually the rest of the family just ignores her and wishes she’d keep them to herself? If that’s what you want, you’re on the way, sweetums.
Well, folks, this has been highly amusing, but not terribly illuminating of the character of anyone else but you few, and a couple of others who’ve already walked away.