Thanks for the clarification. Though I fear it has been somewhat of a diversion.
Actually, it does not at all surprise me that you would equate the two ideas. It seems to coincide with the way you think.
Had I spoken of you having a mendacious personality or had I claimed that you had a habit of dishonesty or had I posted that you frequently or always lie, I would certainly own up to having called you a liar. However, just as Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton probably had days when they spoke the truth, George Washington and Abraham Lincoln probably had moments when they told lies. The telling of a lie does not make one a liar.
To recap, we had an exchange in which you misrepresented my position, recast our exchange so that you could pretend that I misspoke “after” you “corrected” me–a point that can be defended only by sqinting at the actual exchange in a particularly odd manner. So, now, ignoring the more salient point that your characterization fo Der Trihs is not merely wrong, but based on bad logic and bad information, you want to take the thread in a new direction, making a big deal that I objected to your mischaracterization of my posts with a particular word, ignoring the fact that you were the one who first decided to make the whole issue personal (as you are wont to do) and insulting.
I’m glad we could get that straightened out. 
Yet, if you claimed that I lied in just one particular instance, and it turns out that you are wrong, you give yourself a pass on the oh-so-painful act of apologizing. How very gracious of you—to you.
Onward.
I didn’t see where I was wrong–only where I was misled by your confused recollection of events.
If my Post #104 didn’t lay things out plainly enough for you, there truly is no hope. I must say, even given your previous similar behavior along these lines, that I am surprised that you would stoop so low as you have here. You are morally bankrupt, utterly bereft of any degree of honesty or sense of honor. The only justice in this is that you have to go through life as yourself, carrying around a blackness that will fester and become more fetid as you attempt to ignore it. But at some point even you will not be able to ignore it.
Enjoy.
Are you calling me a liar? 
Do I appear to be ignoring you. 
Two things:
First of all: I stabbed someone in the hand with a ballpoint pen once. Therefore, the term “handstabber” is offensive to my people and can never be used by anyone anywhere.
Second of all: tomndebb, you have an electron microscope? That’s so cool!
His relentless “what’d you just call me?” argument faltering, magellan01 attempts a desperate final stroke with the well-worn but perennially deadly “yeah? Well you’re a poopy-head!” attack.
Glad that’s all sorted out. So what’s this I hear about hand-stabbing?
If you say a prayer, does that make you a Christian?
It makes you a pray-er. As far as I know English, an X-er is someone who does X. So someone who sits is a sitter, someone who walks is a walker, someone who drinks is a drinker, and someone who lies is a liar.
So, I also don’t get the distinction between “You’re telling a lie” vs. “You’re a liar.” If you tell a lie, you’re a liar. There’s a difference, of course, between “You’re telling a lie” and “You’re a habitual liar”, or “You have a mendacious personality”. So, I guess I see things exactly the opposite of Tomndebb. Ehh, isn’t the first time.
Well, well. I hear this cry for reading comprehension lessons, so here you go.
- Tom claimed that I lied
- I showed him, specifically and clearly (Post 104) why he was wrong.
- After much weaseling, he finally admitted the he claimed that I lied, yet refused/refuses to retract the accusation and apologize.
Now, given the cheap shot you try to inject here with this little post of yours, you might condone such behavior. For your sake I hope that is not the case, but it appears to be so. I can just go by what you wrote.
On to the other aspect of your weighty contribution. If I would now call you an idiot, or an asshat, or moron, or a mother fucker, or, yes, a poopy-head, I would indeed be guilty of stooping to the lazy, catch-all schoolyard-level insults you attempt to convey. The fact that those generic descriptors might be 100% accurate in your specific case would be beside the point, as I am sure you would agree. Right?
If, on the other hand, I made the point that you have reading comprehension problems, or have a poor vocabulary (“faltering”? Not close to what transpired), or have a poor grasp of logic (which, hopefully, will be improved by the end of this paragraph) or that you are an obsequious punk* seeking to ingratiate himself with Tom and his pals by coming in to take a cheap shot at me and lick his balls in the process, those descriptors would be not be of the generic variety. They would be specific claims made about you which are directly tied to the specific behaviors you displayed.
See? See the difference between calling someone a poopy-head and calling someone who refuses to apologize morally bankrupt? Or the difference between calling someone a poopy-head and calling someone who is guilty of the behavior described in the previous paragraph a reading-challenged, illogical, obseqious cheap-shot ball-licker?
Do you see the differnce now?
*Admittedly, this term does fall into the generic, but it helped with the writing, I needed a noun and “sycophant” just didn’t sound as good as “obsequious punk”. That, and I was concerned about your vocabulary limitations. I felt even “obsequios” was pushing it, but took a chance that you’d be familiar with the term, especially when followed by the more generic catch-all: “punk”. Ditto for “ball-licker”.
Good spin.
Not accurate, of course, but good spin.
(For one thing, I never denied saying you had lied, so your claim that I “finally admitted” something is in error. Is that a lie, perhaps?
Hmm? Sorry, guess I drifted off there… what were you saying? Something about crying lessons?
It’s like watching a megatherium sinking slowly into a tar pit. Except I don’t know who’s the megatherium and who’s the tar pit.
So, in the real world your “not accurate” equals 100% accurate? I’m catching on now to The World According To The Boy Of Poor Breeding Who Became Mod.
Let’s look at the facts, my morally bankrupt Mod. I didn’t say you denied it, did I? Nope. I said “After much weaseling, he finally admitted the he claimed that I lied,”, which is precisely what happened. You weaseled around the issue and then finally admitted it. Still waiting for the clear admission of error on your part and that apology, though. Post 104, tommy, Post 104.
Oh what’s that? Crickets! Lots and lots of crickets.
And pleeeeeeeeease, continue with your desperate attempts to contort the facts. I know I suggested a backhoe, but I didn’t think you’d actually take my advice!
By the way, aren’t you a Christian? Rather devout, if I recall. Do you really think that making a mistake and accusing someone of lying—and then NOT owning up to it and apologizing—is the Christian thing to do? Maybe Der Trihs has been right all along. :eek:
You must do better than that. And after the education I’ve given you! Kids these days…
Fuck it. This thread was supposed to be all about ME…and it’s gotten so freakin’ derailed that even Lib couldn’t make it about HIM.
Something’s rotten in Denmark and it ain’t just the cheese.
Magellan, would you by any chance be an on-line bot? Or are you really this dense IRL? Inquiring minds really don’t want to know. So spare me a scroll or ten.
Take the left ball, Vinyl Turnip already has the right one.
Hey Liberal, even though neither of us is in the mood, maybe we should disagree some more. I think everyone will admit it was slightly more interesting than this mag vs. tom thing. YAAAAWN! Take it to email, you windy motherfuckers.
Or, you know, whatever.
Definitely. I even got helpful e-mail about it. (Someone told me where they thought Dick Pomerantz is now working, but I already knew about it and he’s not there anymore. Minnesota. Hasn’t been for some time.)