If you can’t even be bothered to assure me that you were posting in good faith, I will not apologize for calling you a liar in your Democratic bigotry thread. Given that you had earlier in the same thread admitted to intentionally falsifying facts, I’m neither retracting nor apologizing for the comment until you tell me you wrote the following with no intent to falsify, mislead, or stretch the truth:
I have no idea whether you are “such an idiot” that you would “post the cite that proves [you’re] wrong immediately following a deliberate lie.” I just know you’ve deliberately lied elsewhere in the thread, and you appeared to be doing so again.
So, as you once told me, ball’s in your court. Please assure me you posted that statement in good faith and with no intent to deceive or stretch the truth, and I will happily retract and apologize.
He already stated that from his persepctive, he made only two mistatements, both of which he acknowledged. He has also accused you of falsely calling him a liar.
You will now apologize for that if he affirms that he wasn’t lying. Hasn’t he already effectively done that? You either believe him or you don’t. What does his further assurance do?
Man o man o man. I find Scylla’s posts in BBQ pit, his parodies, his essays, to be well-written and hilarious.
I’m gonna have to learn to stay away from him in Great Debates. He puts forth an argument; you rebut it; he calls you a contemptible hypocrite for not rebutting his argument.
December misrepresented my posts a couple of times, but he’s not as doggedly stubborn about ignoring rebuttals. On the balance, he does conservative thought more credit, I think.
My cite directly supports that quote, as I’ve shown and you conceded.
Shall I follow your example, and call this a deliberate mistatement, a lie, and you a liar, or should I assume it was an accident?
If I do call it a lie, should I demand some kind of disclaimer, a protestation of innocence before I retract my accusation?
I think what I’ll do in this case is attempt to lead by example. I’ll assume this mistatement was accidental, and forgo the casual accusations, and immature requests for protestations of innocence.
I’ll presume it was an accident and demonstrate a good faith that is not reciprocated.
Of what worth is the good faith assurance of a liar? Because if he is one, he would certainly not hesitate to provide further assurance just because that assurance would also be false.
And if he is not a liar (as he has stated), then why would you need an assurance of good faith?
No sir. Your blogcite does not support your assertions. It comes close on the photography comment, though not even the blog author claims that Gore “repeatedly” told black Secret Service agents to stay away from him in photos. And neither that cite nor any other you provided claims that racist jokes were told in the presence of Al Gore (and presumably the black agents) and that he did nothing about it. You may recall claiming something about how you were mistaken, and that was really Marilyn Quayle, yes?
Maybe you’re posting this stuff in perfect good faith. If so, it is far from self-evident.
(Incidentally, lest anyone be misled by the unsupported assertion in that blogcite, I have found nothing whatsoever to indicate that its description of the contents of the lawsuit are correct. No news story that I have found about the lawsuit says anything at all about any allegation that Al Gore told black Secret Service agents to stay out of photos with him, and the plaintiff’s own lawyer says that Gore was blameless in the suit, which was against the Treasury Department.)
This is not the issue,you claimed I was lying about. You retracted that allegation in the other thread, IIRC.
Your confusing me by retracting and reinstating your accusations. You seem to do it quite often as you had seemed to me to retract your charge of “lying,” about another issue earlier in the thread, only to throw it back in my face a few pages later.
Now it seems you’re doing it with this one.
The innacuracy that you are calling me a liar about, and that we were talking about, and that I assume this thread was about, was the one with Al Gore and the racist jokes.
I acknowledged that I was in error when you pointed that out. This does not satisy your standard, and you maintain that I’m a liar unless I protest my innocence.
I’ve made two misstatements in a heated 10 page thread (three with “repeatedly”). I’ve acknowledged them.
You’ve casually and repeatedly called me a liar despite the fact that you have occasionally misstated yourself as well.
I’m not going to jump through hoops to appease your immature hypocrisy especially when it is you who are in the wrong for your casual and unwarranted accusations.
According to dictionary.com, reportedly means By report; supposedly. So, that word seems exactly right. Scylla accurately said that there was a report, but s/he didn’t vouch for its accuracy.
“Reportedly” that is what I said isn’t it. Not “repeatedly.”
I guess I was in error to take you in good faith and assume you had quoted me accurately.
Unfortunately I cannot accept your apology, as you seem prone to misstating things in your favor for advantage.
I must hold you to your own standard and assuming you are lying, unless you post a lengthy disclaimer assuring me it was purely accidental.
(Gaudere’s law seems to be all over your ass today, doesn’t it)
The other choice is that we could act like gentlemen, and consider this much ado about nothing.
You could retract your accusations as being heated hyperbole with apologies. Than, being the gentleman that I am, I could say it was no big deal, things obviously got heated, and my error was obvious and egregious and you were quite right to point it. Then we can post smilies at each other and be on our way, an example to all.
The other choice is the ten page train wreck.
I’m confused. I believe minty is conceding that you never asserted that Gore “repeatedly” committed the alleged offense. That would seem to let all of the air out of minty’s outrage, but what do I know.
As you may recall, I never retracted my page 5 decription of you as lying about the facts of the Sister Souljah incident. You claimed it was self-evident hyperbole and compared it to when you said in another thread that a truck cab had been so high you’d had to rappel out of it. I described that as lying to, and left it at that.
I accused you of lying about both that and the photography thing. I retracted the photography statement when you showed where it came from, so the charge there has gone from intentional lying to reckless spreading of another person’s lie.
On the racist joke charge, however, none of your sources support the notion that Al Gore was ever present when such jokes were told and failed to do anything about it. Given that your sources don’t support your claim, and given that you had intentionally falsified the facts on page 5, I called you a liar.
Knee jerk? You bet. Unjustified? I dunno. Tell me you posted that in perfectly good faith and I’ll apologize. If not, no way.
It seemed to me like you had accepted it. Looks like I was wrong to presume good faith.
For all I know that report comes from a reporter in good standing, possibly one with credentials. You seem to assume the reporter is lying simply because you have not found corroboration yet.
I think it’s becoming very clear that you throw the accusation of lying around pretty casually.
No. Your standard is ridiculous, immature, and hypocritical.
Your accusations are frequent and without merit. I believe it is you who are in the wrong in this particular instance.
I accepted that you apparently had no malicious motive when you lied. I did not accept that you had not lied, and in fact told you that the truck cab thing was another example of a lie.
So you’re pleading intentional ignorance? You just post whatever you find out there on the web, with no regard for its truth or falsity? Good lord, it really is taking longer than we though.
No, I assume he (blogwriter =! “reporter”) is making shit up because he purports to describe–without citing any source whatsoever–an accusation of an incident so offensive that any legitimate news organization would have reported it if the lawsuit had actually made such an accusation. The news media wrote a large number of articles about that lawsuit, but none of them report any such thing.
Have some fucking credulity, man. Do you believe every piece of glurge that shows up in your inbox?
This is going to end with one of them starting to slap the other, but having it stopped as his wrist is grabbed, leading to glares dissolving in a sudden passionate kiss, isn’t it?
And I find that ridiculous (for those of your reading the “truck thing” refers to another thread where I state that the truck was so high I had to rappel out of the cab in an obvious attempt at hyperbole and humor.)
Minty apparently considers this a lie. When he’d first called it so, I assumed he was being facetious and conceding there was no malignant intent in either post, and retracting his allegation.
I see that i was mistaken and it considers this some kind of offense.
This goes to my thesis that Minty is casual and without merit in his accusations, and therefore at fault in this.
Calling someone a liar is serious.
I said “reportedly.”
I’m not familiar with “blogwriter.” Why are you baselessly assaulting this man’s integrity? Are there other innacuracies in his report? Does he have a history of lying?
All you’ve done is insult him with what I assume is a perjorative simply because you don’t like what he said.
I would support a skeptical stance on his statement. I think it’s merited.
Just calling this reporter an outright liar because you don’t like his content is uncalled for.
It would be another example of the type of casual and unwarranted accusations that you are prone to making.
I am coming to the conclusion that you are in the habit of calling people liars baselessly simply to discredit them and put them on the defensive.
“The most mischievous liars are those who keep sliding on the verge of truth.”
– Augustus William Hare
So Scylla demonstrated this was reported; yes, but by a blogster. It is possibly the truth. No shit Sherlock! It is more possible it is a bald faced lie, especially after we consider what all the other sources say about that case.
In light of the reality that no other reliable source has appeared with confirmation, I have to agree with minty green and I will add the now educated guess that your source is a pile of shit, Time to let it go, unless you are willing to wallow in it.
Hasn’t he already effectively done that? You either believe him or you don’t. What does his further assurance do?