How could I acknowledge his help, when he had refused any further correspondence on that particular matter?
And when I say that particular matter I mean the legal qurestion I has asked him.
And when I say that he had refused further correspondence, I mean in private messages.
This should be obvious from the context, but since you are a pedant I have to spell it out to you.
Doubtless you will find yet another way to misinterpret my words.
Peter, I’m going to try one more time. In my post above (#334), I offered a potential conversation. Are you honestly saying that you feel that had you responded with:
“Well, I’d really prefer not to open a GQ thread on it because any time I talk about Randi I get accused of being obsessed and “stalking” him, but thanks for the information you did give. I really appreciate it.”, Prin would have written back with “Dammit. I told you never to talk to me about this subject again! May you be cursed for all eternity, you scourge of hell.” rather than something substantial similar to my sample? Really, really, I would like to know.
Let’s go back to where it began
here
**Princhester : ** I said I didn’t want to and wouldn’t debate you in PM and that if you wanted to take the question further, I suggested you go to GQ where I would endeavour to help you get answers and where there were lawyers who knew Florida law. I suggested that twice. You haven’t taken me up on it.
** Peter ** : Exactly. You told me not to contact you through PM’s any more.
**jerk : ** Peter’s lying. Princhester didn’t refuse to accept any correespondence from Peter, he refused to accept any private messages.
**Peter : ** that’s what I said. Ptrinchester refused any private messages from me.
** moron : ** You’re claiming he refused ALL correspondence from you. You’re wrong again. Ha ha.b I’ve finally got something that you’re wrong about. I’m so happy I could piss myself laughing.
** Peter : ** No, you’re lying. I sdpecifically spoke about private messages on that particular subject.
** pathetic creep : ** You said he refused all correspondence. That doesn’t match the quote. He only refused to debate that particular subject in private messages.
** Peter ** As I said, he refused to debate that particular subject in private messages.
etc, etc, etc.
I said that Princhester refused any further correspondence on that particular subject in private messages. This is 100% true.
You keep twisting my words, desperate to find error on my part.
Look at the way Princhester behaves.
And that’s just one post. He asked me not to debate it in private messages, then gives out that crap when I follow his wishes.
Can you imagine what he would have done if I had replied? It doesn’t bear thinking about.
Oh, for goodness sake.
I mentioned earlier that this was my first foray into the Pit - I wish I hadn’t bothered.
Peter, I’ll repeat; please don’t call me a liar again. I have read this whole thread and only butted in when I felt an observation of mine might be useful. I have tried to accurately represent what I think has been said here. You disagree. I’ll have to leave others to judge this.
There has been bad blood on both sides of this discussion, I admit. I myself called you a wally and a ninconpoop. I apologise if this caused offense - it was said because I do think you are acting in a foolish manner; I often say wallyish things myself.
I really don’t see where this is getting you though. You have made several assertions and we can all see the evidence one way or another. I, for one, disagree with those assertions on the evidense presented. Others who have posted seem to agree with me. I don’t know where we can go from there. Nowhere, I expect.
This mainly seems pointless now, so I’m off for a bath and then to watch the Leonard Cohen tribute on BBC4. I’ll see if this has gone any further tomorrow.
Oh, so you think you can get away scott free with lies?
But you ignore the evidence and make up stuff to suit you. You accuse me of saying things I never said, and hurl abuse at me based ion your own inventions.
I never accused Princhester of refusing all correspondence with me. I always said that he refused any further discussion through private messages on that subject.
If you admit that you misrepresented me, and apologise, I can respect you for that. Don’t do so, and you will still be a liar.
Finally, some progress. Limited progress, but progress. Had he responded that way to a “thanks for the info, but I have reasons for not wanting to take it to GQ”, I would assist you in pitting him. He didn’t. He never had the opportunity to, because somehow you translated “He asked me not to debate it in private messages” as “Never write to me again”. Let me offer another little sample exchange:
PM: Zak, what time is it?
Zak: Peter, my watch isn’t running correctly right now, but it looks like it’s about noon. You may want to check with someone who has a functioning watch.
PM: <No response>
–much later–
PM’s Friend: Peter, do you remember Zak? He said he talked with you about the time once.
PM: Yeah, he was rude about it.
Zak: You idiot, I wasn’t rude, I said I didn’t have the correct time.
PM: No, you didn’t. You told me never to talk to you about the time again.
Zak: Arggghhhhh!
Contrast that with:
PM: Zak, what time is it?
Zak: Peter, my watch isn’t running correctly right now, but it looks like it’s about noon. You may want to check with someone who has a functioning watch.
PM: Well, I really have to run so I probably won’t be able to do that, but thanks anyway.
Zak: No prob.
–much later–
PM’s Friend: Peter, do you remember Zak? He said he talked with you about the time once.
PM: Yeah, I remember. Your watch was broken, right? Thanks again for trying to help me out though.
Zak: Again, no sweat. Were you ever able to find some who had the time?
etc…
Jesus H. Christ. How many times do I have to say this?
I have never accused Princhester of saying “never write to me again” That is your lie. You keep producing the same lie, over and over.
I state, as I have always stated : Princhester refused any further correspondence in private messaages on that particular subject.
I said that from the start. What does it take to get that into your head?
Actually, that is exactly what he did do. I have asked questions on forums before. Princhester hurls abuse at me because I asked those questions. Go read what he says, in response to times when I did take the question to GQ, (or similar forums.)
Gosh, Peter, you make it too easy.
So, is this “particular subject” qualifier an afterthought, or something?
You can’t get something straight if you start with a crooked ruler. As should be obvious, “Randi fan” is not a term of abuse, but your repeated coupling of “Randi fan” with terms of abuse, and your generous labeling of anyone who disagrees with you as a Randi fan is not helping to convince anyone that your cause is just.
Just what is your point? I specifically state private messages.
How many times do I have to say this?
It looks as if Peter was right after all. This afternoon 12 holes were dug in my back yard. (Approximately 30 meters square.) Six of these holes I dug as footings for a small deck I am building. Three of the holes were for bushes I am transplanting. The other three holes were dug by my Jack Russels for reasons of their own. I believe these last three qualify as “random” and so can be considered “controls” for the sake of the experiment. Here is the startling news–All of holes were dry!! Not one gallon per minute, not one ounce per minute, not even one drop per minute! As hard as it is to believe, Randi was wrong wrong wrong. It is extremely easy to find a dry spot. Even my dogs can do it. I will be submitting my results to the JREF and expect to qualify for the Challenge as noted by our esteemed Mr. Morris; i.e., anytime the word “challenge” is used it must refer to the $1 Million Paranormal Challenge. A successful result is a foregone conclusion. I will use part of my winnings to travel to the various continents occupied by Princheste****r, Bryan Ekers, Priceguy, and **Sentient Meat ** so we can quaff a commiserative beer, or pint, or draught, or whatever the fuck they call it over there.
In fact, I label someone a Randi fan when he quotes Randi with admiration.
The lie is where you claim that he was unwilling to talk about his own area of expertise. His transcript of the exchange, which you agree is accurate, shows the opposite to be true. He may have been unwilling to talk further, in that particular forum, but he was by no means unwilling to talk about it. A question and response constitutes communication, whether you accept it or not. You claim that he was unwilling. He was not unwilling. You lied. QED.
No amount of after-the-fact repetition is going to allow you to affect the space-time continuum and retroactively change something in the past.
And that’s a major flaw in your debating technique. You find a tenuous reason to apply a label (surely someone can express admiration for something Randi said without necessarily feeling admiration for Randi himself) then use that label disparagingly in an attempt to discredit. Heck, I despise the concept of Marxism, but I’ve no doubt Marx made the occasional bon mot.
The lie is when you accuse me of saying things I never said.
** Peter : ** Princhester refused to talk about the matter in private messages.
** troll : ** I’'l just change that, ho, ho, it becomes : “Princhester refused to talk about the matter” Scream, the facts are different. He only refused to talk about it in private messages.
** Peter : ** As I said, Princhester refused to talk about the matter in private messages.
** troll : ** I’'l just change that, ho, ho, it becomes : "Princhester refused to talk about any matter whatsoever on any forum at all. " You said that. It’s a lie.
** Peter : ** I didn’t say that, I said Princhester refused to talk about the matter in private messages.
** troll : ** I don’t care. I’ll keep reporting you as saying : "Princhester refused to talk about any matter whatsoever on any forum at all. " That’s a lie.
** Peter : ** I didn’t say that.
** troll : ** I don’t care what you said. I’m going to keep cutting out the bit you said about private messages. When I’ve altered what you say, it becomes a lie.
Geez, you make even Princhester seem half way honest.
Exactly. No matter how often you deny it, I made it clear from the very start that Princhester refused any further private messages from me.
No matter how often you quote me with that bit snipped, no matter how often you add things that I never said, you won’t alter the fact that I specified private messages, and meant private messages.
is not the same as
So which is it? The former isn’t supported by the relevant quotes, and the qualification (“that particular subject”) was absent “at the very start” when you first discussed the subject.
And in addition to my recommendation about cooling it with the “Randi fans” stuff, I really suggest you relax with the “troll” stuff.
Ok this is just weird. Let’s go to the videotape.
Princhester’s transcript of his communication with you. (Post #307)
Firstly, I really think you'd be better off asking this in GQ on the 'dope. I'd be quite prepared to keep it on the straight and narrow legal question and not go off to GD (if you would!). The problem with asking me is that while there is much commonality of legal principle in the Western world,"consideration" is one of those topics where the finer details may just be different in Florida, and wagering is often statutorily regulated. But for what it's worth...
Secondly, I’m not going to debate you in Private Messaging for two reasons. If there’s going to be a debate on the legal niceties I’d rather do it in an open forum than get into a personal spat. And also, there’s not much point in getting into too much of a debate when I’m not sure of the details anyway (see point one). So I’ll give you an answer and that’s it. What I will say is, if you want to debate, by all means open a thread somewhere suitable and ask your question again and quote my answer and we can go from there.
A direct quote from your post #322
Following Princhesters suggestion to put my question in GQ would only fuel their hate. I attempted to discuss the matter privately with Princhester, hoping that he would be willing to talk about his own area of expertise. He wasn’t, so I didn’t persue it.
Your own little fantasy dialogue with me notwithstanding, (Calling me a troll ,are you? Man that’s dicey), it is clear that he was willing to discuss the matter with you. Start with "The problem with… " and end with “But for what it’s worth…” To portray that exchange as anything but a willingess to discuss the matter* in the * *private message forum * is lying. He says that you would be better off somewhere else, but nonetheless he responds. He talked about his own area of expertise. You said he would not do so. Yet he did. We can all see that. Why is it that you cannot?
I don’t give a damn what crap you write. What you write is usually untrue. If you said the pope was catholic, I’d be checking the news for a story that he’d converted to buddhism.
Cites, quotes or shut up.