That’s not the requirement to challenge whether it was a lie. The specfic sentences that Lobohan is fixated on relate to Bricker’s statement that Lobohan ‘*loves it *[actions of Mass legislature]’. That he ‘loves it!’ It’s like a school yard taunt that’s being held to a standard of rhetorical genius.
Imagine this conversation:
B: Let’s go out to eat.
L: Okay, but I’m a vegetarian so we have to pick somewhere that has vegetarian food
B: Really? have you ever had meat?
L: I tried bacon once, it was fine, but I’m still a vegetarian
B: No way! Bacon is gooooood. You love bacon!
L: I dont
B: How can you not? You love it!
L: You are a dirty liar!
“Praise” implies approval, and Lobo is only identified as “loving”. If I were to borrow Bricker’s zircon-encrusted semantic parsing tweezers, I would point out that those are not necessarily the same! For instance, I love my cousin John Wesley, but he is a bit of a scoundrel and a ne’er do well. I cannot say I approve, nor would I be inclined to praise. Even forgave him for Laura Jean DuPree, but it took twenty years…
Besides, IIRC, Bricker’s original complaint was to the effect that even while we may have expressed disapproval of such maneuvers, our disapproval was muted and restrained in the face of such a dire and ghastly rape of legislative propriety and function. My own description of the events as “sordid” being interpreted as praising with faint damn.
Which is to say that** Lobo’s** slobbering adoration exceeded even my bounds, and my own were simply insufficient. Places me a bit higher on the scrotum pole of Bricker’s disapproval list.
In fact, I’ll just cut and paste what I said last, when you last farted out this nonsense: <–mockery
I’ll note, that like a bitch, you didn’t respond to that post. <– mockery
Also, I could make a poll asking if angels are real, the results wouldn’t have impact on the factual question. So I don’t think a poll is necessary.
Also, consider this:
Lobohan: X is a bad thing. Bricker: You like X, so it can’t be bad! Lobohan: I don’t like X. Bricker: Yes you do. Lobohan: Please cite that I do. Bricker: You haven’t said you don’t like it. So you do. Lobhan: Please stop lying about my position. Bricker: You like it. Lobohan: You’re lying. Bone: NO HE ISN’T!!11!
Someone woke up on the wrong side of the trailer this morning. I tell you what, head down to the stripmall and have them trim your bangs and tighten up that mullet. It’s my treat.
No response was necessary since your post was nonsense. Like the whole point of this thread - it’s better for people to ignore obvious garbage. Litter - like your posts.
Here’s what I do - if there are multiple ways to interpret a statement, I take the one favorable to my opponents, or I ask for clarification. Not some childish game of gotcha where you hone in on a mispoken phrase or a misunderstood exchange. Try it, you’ll be less angry. It’s certainly less douchey.
You’re saying that he lied. I’m saying he didn’t. I’m content with leaving it at that. Alternatively I can say it over and over and over like you have done. You can conclude however you like which of those choices is acting like a bitch.
Address the points, don’t dismiss reflexively. Domo.
I asked for clarification you fucking imbecile. I asked for it several times. Bricker just kept on lying. Read the thread, start with the first linked post in my upthread link. If you are’t stupid (and I don’t think you actually are) you’ll see it, unless you’re invested in the concept that by necessity Bricker is too awesome to lie.
He did. And I cited it. In words. In English, a language you can demonstrably read.
I know, because you’ve come to your conclusion without reading the evidence.
I can’t make you think. I can only provide clear evidence that you’re coming to your conclusion errantly.
I’m sorry, I can’t hear you over the sound of your bitchery.
Back from the barber college already? And you’re still grouchy?
Did those kids mess up your mudflap? Oh shit, has the party in the back been cancelled?
I’m sorry. But maybe this is a blessing in disguise! Maybe without that chucklefuck mullet of yours, you’ll finally make shift leader. Wouldn’t that be nice? I hear that comes with a nice 50¢ an hour raise.
Oh, I knew you couldn’t stay mad all day. I tell you what, the next time I’m down in your shitty flyover state, we’ll get waffles at the IHOP, kay?
FWIW I’m with Bone on this one. While I don’t think Bricker should necessarily include those posts in his “Bricker’s Proudest Moments on the Internet” list, I’m not sure it rises to the level of outright lying.
He started it when I said something to the effect of, “if the Dems did it, I’d be against that too”.
He then asserted, in all seriousness, that I was for the Mass legislature switcharoo.
Mind you, his response was to undercut my assertion that I don’t dislike voter ID for partisan reasons. His whole point is that I am okay with partisan chicanery when “my side” benefits from it.
He’s actually making an argument there, and using my being okay with the Mass Legislature to show that his being okay with voter ID as a partisan weapon is normal. Both sides do it.
I get mockery, he doesn’t like me. Sure, but he’s actually trying to make a point with his, in my opinion, dishonest assertion.
For instance when I mocked Shodan above, I wouldn’t actually assert that he really lives in a trailer and has a mullet. I wouldn’t base arguments on that premise, because I have no idea what his hair actually looks like.
Y’know, after I posted that, I went back and read that section of the thread, focusing on posts by you or Bricker starting with what you posted and then for another 3-4 pages. And on reflection, especially looking at it from your perspective, yeah. I was wrong. Not only does it appear that Bricker was lying about you, he was actually doing the commandment-breaking kind of lie, the false witness kind. I think he was doing it in a slightly hyperbolic sense, but the hyperbole was in service of a fundamentally dishonest assertion about your character, an assertion for which the only proof he offered was that you’d complained about one thing but not another. This evidence is not remotely persuasive, to the extent that I can’t believe it was offered honestly.
So, barring further clarification, yeah, it looks like he lied about you in this instance, and I apologize for my previous statement.
I suppose one could put it at the level of an eight year-old who says “you’re a poopy-head!” over and over while putting his fingers in his ears to demonstrate an unwillingness (indeed, inability) to hear disagreement on the issue.
For an adult who does this sort of thing, it might actually be generous to suggest mendaciousness instead of childishness.
He’s not claiming that you’ve expressed support for the MA laws. He’s saying based on what he knows and has seen of you he’s very confident that you would love them.
Extremely annoying, no doubt. But not quite the same thing as lying, IMHO.
I don’t remember Bicker actually saying it was a matter of confidence, rather that Lobohan loving the actions of the Mass. Legislature was an inescapable fact. So much so the Bricker confidently stated “You loved it” or blunt variations six or seven times.
There’s not a lot of hedging in there. You’re being generous. Anyway, whether Bricker actually believed it was true, I gather he figured it annoyed Lobohan and continued on that basis alone.
Do you think he was taunting him with something he believed was true? Or did the truth not really matter to Bricker, even when presented with evidence that it was not true?
