Childish little prick

Post #28,899 by drewk 2/19/02 9:39:57 AM Reply	Childish little prick Jawohl! The State is never wrong! Hmmmmm, maybe you're right. So, why don't we let a jury settle it? Hmmmmmmm? Or is it that you're afraid that another trial will find him not guilty? Your fear makes you weak. I've read the case. And if you're right, then there's nothing you have to be afraid of. But you are afraid. You're afraid that he might be found innocent. Really, what's the harm in another trial? Your fear speaks. There. The entire contents of your three responses to Bill before revealing that you were just "giving him enough rope." And, not so incidentally, your entire contribution to this thread to that point. Where in there does it say anything about the company not being responsible for the actions of what of its officers. I'll answer for you. Nowhere. Here, I'll quote you again, since you seem to think that's meaningful. Jawohl! The State is never wrong! Hmmmmm, maybe you're right. So, why don't we let a jury settle it? Hmmmmmmm? Or is it that you're afraid that another trial will find him not guilty? Your fear makes you weak. I've read the case. And if you're right, then there's nothing you have to be afraid of. But you are afraid. You're afraid that he might be found innocent. Really, what's the harm in another trial? Your fear speaks. See? Still nothing about your supposed "real point." Three posts in a row insisting that your "point" had something to do with the case Bill mentioned. Nothing at all about your other point. Did you change topics in the middle of the discussion? Oh no, not you! You were merely "giving him enough rope" so that you could say, "HA HA HA, that's not really what I was talking about!" So much for your right to ever criticize anyone for changing topics mid-stream. We have to fight the terrorists as if there were no rules and preserve our open society as if there were no terrorists. -- [link\|http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/05/opinion/BIO-FRIEDMAN.html\|Thomas Friedman]
Post #28,901 by boxley 2/19/02 9:41:45 AM Reply	how do you know he's little ? ]:-> "I'm selling a hammer," he says. "They can beat nails with it, or their dog." Richard Eaton spy software innovator
Post #28,939 by Brandioch 2/19/02 1:16:09 PM Reply	You can quote, but you lack understanding. Duh! Did you not read my last posts? Did you not SEE where I said that the posts you quoted we intended to manipulate Bill? Yet you think they have some value other than that? Let me clarify this for you. They don't. Did you miss that? Let me say it again. They don't have any value OTHER than manipulating Bill. I posted them to manipulate Bill into admitting he was WRONG on his INITIAL statement. Where in there does it say anything about the company not being responsible for the actions of what of its officers. Hello? knock knock! Any one home, Drew? Tell you what. Let me quote MYSELF to you: I was giving you a trail to follow BECAUSE YOU ALWAYS WEASEL ABOUT WHAT YOU'VE SAID. There. Do you remember that? I know it might be hard for you. It was so long ago (in the post you replied to). Now, do you want to know WHY I did that? I don't think you do, but I'll tell you anyway. [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=28120\|http://z.iwethey.or...tentid=28120] Look at that exchange. See how I directly quoted Bill's words back to him showing the contradiction in plain english and he still denied it. So, LIKE I SAID BEFORE, (you do understand what "comprehension" is, don't you), I was giving Bill the tangent he wanted that was obviously WRONG(do I have to state that AGAIN? You CAN read, right?) so he could, comfortably, admit that he was wrong. That's ALL that those postings were. Can I make this any PLAINER to you? Well, I know I can't. I remember that you're also one who likes to get lost in tangents instead of addressing the original statement. So sad for you. But you have Bill for company. Allow me to summarize the discussion. I said that B&J are an example of how a company can be operated with ethics. Bill said that B&J's "ethics" allowed them to contribute money to free a cop killer. ***THIS STATEMENT BY BILL IS INCORRECT*** Now, let's look at Bill's past with regards to obviously incorrect statements he makes: [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=28120\|http://z.iwethey.or...tentid=28120] So, I feed Bill a line I know (from past experience) he'll fall for. The exchange goes until I have him hooked. Then I point out that his original statement was incorrect. He admits it (A FUCKING FIRST!!!!!!) but wants to pursue the incorrect statements I made. Drew, THAT'S WHY I MADE THOSE STATEMENTS. Deal with it. You don't like to see Bill manipulated into admitting he's wrong. That's very commendable of you.
Post #28,941 by drewk 2/19/02 1:35:34 PM Reply	You don't need to be manipulated You prove on your own that you can be a raving asshole without the common decency to hold a civil discussion. So I won't try. We have to fight the terrorists as if there were no rules and preserve our open society as if there were no terrorists. -- [link\|http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/05/opinion/BIO-FRIEDMAN.html\|Thomas Friedman]
Post #28,943 by Brandioch 2/19/02 2:00:23 PM Reply	Don't hate me because I'm beautiful. Hate me because I'm better than you. You don't like my public demonstration of the techiques for manipulating the small minded? Deal with it. Bill is not interested in holding a civil discussion with me. Support for that statement can be found in the url I referenced in my preceeding post. Review it. Learn from it. And try to work on your comprehension skills.
Post #28,949 by drewk 2/19/02 2:32:38 PM Reply	Oh, no wonder you're so upset I finally read that link you pointed me to. Looks to me like Bill refused to accept your requirement of stating a binary position. When he insists on a nuanced position you accuse him of weasling. When he acceptsyour proposed binary deinition for the sake of argument, you accuse him of a binary worldview and shoot down your own straw man. You: "I just want to see you say that a sales tax is non-regressive." Bill: "By itself, a sales tax, even one that exempts clothing and food, >is< regressive. However, I did not say that sales tax alone should be used, did I?" See? He uses your definition for the sake of argument, then points out that it was, in fact, your argument, not his. We have to fight the terrorists as if there were no rules and preserve our open society as if there were no terrorists. -- [link\|http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/05/opinion/BIO-FRIEDMAN.html\|Thomas Friedman]
Post #28,953 by Brandioch 2/19/02 2:56:20 PM Reply	Let's go over that again. So, he admits that a sales tax is regressive. Then he wants to combine a REGRESSIVE tax with a FLAT tax and have the RESULT be a PROGRESSIVE tax. Would >YOU< care to explain how that is possible? A regressive tax PLUS a flat tax == a progressive tax. Feel free to explain this. He couldn't. Then he ran away.
Post #28,958 by bepatient 2/19/02 3:19:37 PM Reply	Don't bother DK... He apparently has a bug up his ass about me. It must be love. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #28,959 by bepatient 2/19/02 3:20:01 PM Reply	Don't bother DK... He apparently has a bug up his ass about me. It must be love. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]

Welcome to IWETHEY!