John H wrote:
On 3 Mar 2005 05:43:38 -0800, wrote:
John H wrote:
On 2 Mar 2005 12:03:46 -0800, wrote:
Now. No one has said you beat your wife,
Hmm, so you think, that if someone asks "do you STILL beat your
wife",
that that wouldn't conotate a lie????
That is correct.
Now, notice, John, he didn't ask
IF I had ever beat my wife. If he had, I would have answered. But,
being how Fritz isn't very bright, he IMPLICATED me, which is a
total
lie. Do you condone that behavior? Do you think someone who would
implicate me in a total fabrication would have integrity?
He could have tremendous integrity and be pulling your chain just to
see how
loudly you ring.
nor smoke pot,
Not true. Jim has, several times. Go look. Fritz even accused me of
smoking pot with my kids. Go look again. Jim has accused me of
growing
pot, of growing pot with my kids' knowledge, of buying seeds on the
internet, of having a "crop" of pot, and on and on. All lies. Do you
condone his lying about such? Do you think a person that would post
such lies would have integrity?
Show me where Jim has said that you smoke pot.
Here is where Smithers has STATED that I have a crop of pot, and suffer
from substance abuse, a TOTAL LIE:
Dr. Jonathan Smithers, MD Phd. wrote:
I am very concerned about his inability to control his temper, he
seems to
be snapping at everyone lately. I know this can be a side effect of
FAS,
but I think the drug abuse has aggravated it.
I hope no one turns him into Child Services. They would freak if
they found
his garden full of weed.
nor do nasty things with
your kids,
Nobody said "nasty things". See above.
nor live in a trailer,
Show me one instance where they've said you live in a trailer.
Again, Smithers, and NOYB have, without any facts.
nor any of the other multitude of things with
which you take issue.
Again, I see that you apparently don't understand "implication". It
is
a lawfully binding statement, so, that in turn means that those
three
are nothing short of liars.
You're missing the point, and you're trying my patience.
Suppose I said, "Basskisser, have you stopped eating what you pick
out of your
nose?"
There would be an *implication* that you had been eating whatever you
picked out
of your nose. Now, you know that you've *never* even picked your
nose, and
therefore the implication is patently ridiculous. It can't be true or
false.
It's not a statement of fact. It's a question.
But, the implication was still there, John. That is the part you aren't
grasping. An implication IS an accusation, and fully admissible in a
court of law. As such, Fritz, JimH, and Smithers are low class liars.
You see, by implication, if one is asked if he has *stopped* something,
it is then IMPLIED that he is doing that, or how else could he STOP?
It's not hard, I know it's going over Fritz's head, he doesn't realize
that by implication, he is a low life liar, but honestly, I thought
you'd have enough intelligence to understand.
Should you ask me such a question, I would not accuse you of lying.
You simply
asked me a question. If you asked me the question, I could:
- do nothing
- respond with something like, "I've never eaten the stuff I pick out
of my
nose."
Ah, so you DO condone, tolerate, and even like the idea of people lying
about other people?