Your refusal to say he’s not wearing a blue shirt means you MUST think he’s wearing a blue shirt.
And he posts yet another outright lie.
Steophan said that Andy is wearing a blue shirt.
Do you not understand that your post will be read in the context of the thread it was posted in, the discussion you were part of, and the totality of all your posts? That is the context, and anyone who cares can read those threads and all your other posts. That is the cite - your posts and the threads you post in, to give context to your posts.
This isn’t difficult stuff, this is literally how communication works. Stop with the gaslighting and answer the simple question.
Ah, more gaslighting. I’m sure you think you’re very clever.
So cite them then. Give us links and quotes - links to the posts that show this supposed context.
That you refuse to do this shows that you’re just making this shit up. It has nothing to do with me or what I’ve posted and everything to do with you and whatever weird stuff is going on with your brain.
What drives one to lie so freely and obviously? I don’t know. It’s kind of fascinating to watch.
I don’t think you know what gaslighting means if you think this is gaslighting.
No, actually, on a message board, when you’re asked for a cite you should give a cite. “Just go read all the other posts he’s ever made” isn’t a cite. That is not how communication works.
Since you seem oddly unable to remember what you posted a short while ago…
I even just got a warning from Discourse that you’d already posted the link. One of the delights of the internet is that anyone can go back to the thread and see the context, it’s included in the link. So there we have it, again. Third time in this thread.
Now that’s dealt with, answer the question. Do you think they’re murderers?
Oooh, meta-gaslighting! Clever 
Which words, specifically? Provide a specific quote as to what I said about Rittenhouse and Zimmerman. What context, specifically, with links? I said nothing about Rittenhouse and Zimmerman in the post you linked.
It’s literally my post right before your one. Are you OK? Do you have some sort of memory issue? If not this is clearly gaslighting, you are trying to convince me that your post wasn’t a reply to mine and doesn’t say what it says.
If it’s deliberate you should stop, and just answer the question. If you genuinely don’t think you’re doing it, maybe open a window and get a Carbon Monoxide detector? This is going beyond fun and games into worrying territory.
You’ve posted that quote multiple times. He doesn’t call Zimmerman or Rittenhouse murderers in that quote, nor does he say anything that could be remotely construed as implying that.
That context was about what others had said, not anything I said. I was explaining that people can legitimately believe someone is a murderer even if they are not convicted - that murderer is not just a legal term. I made absolutely no characterization of Rittenhouse or Zimmerman, none at all. I made a purely factual claim, which described no one specifically aside from KKK killers of the early 20th.
Your claim about what I said is factually false. You’ve now given a cite, but that cite does not support your claim at all.
Besides, why would it be so horrible if he did call them murderers? People are allowed to disagree with jury verdicts. I’m not familiar with this Dunn case, but it appears that in that case you feel the jury got it wrong. Why is it OK for you to disagree with a jury, but not for someone else to do so?
Yes, in reply to my posting that Rittenhouse and Zimmerman are not murderers. You posted to refute that, by saying that my reasoning for saying they are not murderers is flawed.
So, do you think they are murderers? If not, you posted an irrelevant and misleading post. If so, you’ve falsely accused me of lying as I correctly interpreted your post. “Don’t know” is not an option, as that means that they are not, due to the rpesumption of innocence.
This is some dumb shit right here.
Ignoring the obvious typo, you DO understand that iiandyiiii is a poster on a message board, not an officer of the court, and thus isn’t bound by any kind of presumption of innocence, right?
I don’t know why he feels it’s horrible to call them murderers here when he’s already done so elsewhere. And yes, people can disagree with jury verdicts if the law and the evidence supports that disagreement. A good example of that is the killers of Emmett Till, where the evidence proves they were murderers, but wasn’t presented to the jury due to a racist, corrupt legal system. I don’t accept that one should disagree with an acquittal when there’s been a fair trial, though.
Steophan. Seriously. That is where you are claiming he called them murderers? He didn’t. He said many people that can be legitimately described as murderers aren’t ultimately convicted. Full stop. That’s all he said. If that is what you are basing all of this on, you are seriously delusional.
You have this entire board against you. That’s some feat because we generally argue about everything. It’s because you are so simply, glaringly, obviously wrong it’s baffling. “Water will burn up wood until you put it out with fire,” kind of wrong.
That’s embarrassing. Like walking around all day without any pants on, ignoring everyone asking you to put on some clothes, and then getting testy when someone in authority demands you cover up. That’s the sort of thing most people would apologize profusely for and probably slink away for a while, if not forever. Wow.