Originally Posted by wrightme

To claim that, you have to take it out of the context of the rest of his sentences about it. You assume too much.

Nope. Your statement is definitive. His was not. Nothing taken out of context and nothing assumed.

Originally Posted by wrightme

What you feel is such, isn't.

Yes, you have stated your opinion over and over. It still is just your opinion.

Originally Posted by wrightme

And, I bolded a part that didn't say what you claimed it did. It isn't 'playing dumb' to not agree with you about what a statement means. But, it is disingenuous to continually refuse to link to the portions of posts that you feel DO mean what you claim they mean.

No, it is not disingenuous to refuse to play your game. What is disingenuous is for you to pretend that your position is the same as Neil's. What is disingenuous is to continually ask questions that you know the answer to.

Originally Posted by wrightme

In other words, 'show your work.'

The problem is, you fail to bother yourself to actually point out where you feel someone isn't agreeing with you, and simply attempt to proclaim them incorrect.

False.

Originally Posted by wrightme

Direct questions are not 'obtuse questions.'

Direct questions can absolutely be obtuse. In your case they often are.
for example, "Really? Where did he say that?" When you know exactly where he said it. This is why most won't debate you for long.

Originally Posted by wrightme

Declarations are not answers.

Declarations of opinion are not fact.

Originally Posted by wrightme

Then link to that discussion so we can see that my statement was false.
We 'discussed' it. You didn't discuss specifics that you felt actually contradicted Z's version of events, other than speculations. IOW, you had an opinion that speculations contradicted, and felt that they were also 'testimony' that contradicted. Go ahead, prove me wrong instead of waffling and proclaiming.

Are you reading the posts or just looking for key words? Refusing to play your game is not waffling or proclaiming.

Originally Posted by wrightme

Yes, it IS a fact. Show the portions that aren't speculation, that you feel are contradictory.

No it is not a fact. It is your bare opinion.

Originally Posted by wrightme

Instead of empty rhetoric, post something substantive.

Avoiding your games is not empty rhetoric. It is just good decision making.

Originally Posted by Sherlock

Avoiding your games is not empty rhetoric. It is just good decision making.

The empty rhetoric is your attempts to 'declare' something that isn't; such as 'the gf's testimony contradicts Z's version of events.'

That is empty rhetoric, and not supported by facts. AND, you have yet to present any specifics that might.


The gameplayer is you. The game is 'declare and avoid.'

Originally Posted by wrightme

The empty rhetoric is your attempts to 'declare' something that isn't; such as 'the gf's testimony contradicts Z's version of events.'

That is empty rhetoric, and not supported by facts. AND, you have yet to present any specifics that might.

False. It is a statement about something we have already discussed and it is supported by facts. Refusal to go over it again with you does not indicate empty rhetoric.

Originally Posted by wrightme

The gameplayer is you. The game is 'declare and avoid.'

False. I know it is irritating that I won't do as you ask. It is not avoidance to refuse to rehash a topic that we have already covered.

Originally Posted by Sherlock

False. It is a statement about something we have already discussed and it is supported by facts. Refusal to go over it again with you does not indicate empty rhetoric.



False. I know it is irritating that I won't do as you ask. It is not avoidance to refuse to rehash a topic that we have already covered.

Once again, it was discussed. It wasn't 'covered,' it was avoided with your gymnastics.


But, if you don't want to actually discuss it, I see no reason for you to continue posting in the thread. You did already say you were going to drop it earlier. I guess you changed your mind.

Originally Posted by wrightme

Once again, it was discussed. It wasn't 'covered,' it was avoided with your gymnastics.


But, if you don't want to actually discuss it, I see no reason for you to continue posting in the thread. You did already say you were going to drop it earlier. I guess you changed your mind.

Correct, I don't want to discuss it again with you. It really is a lost cause given that you keep calling your opinion a "fact". I know your opinion, you know mine. You are just going to have to live with that.

Originally Posted by Sherlock

Correct, I don't want to discuss it again with you. It really is a lost cause given that you keep calling your opinion a "fact". I know your opinion, you know mine. You are just going to have to live with that.

Yet you have been okay with it, if it is your opinion in question.


I know you don't want to discuss the facts with me. You have always failed to do such, including in the previous discussions about the gf testimony.
Your failure to point out what you feel contradicts Z's version of events is key in this. You desire to proclaim that something actually does contradict, but never present the specific points of testimony that you actually think does contradict.


So, yes, it is easy to see why you don't want to discuss the facts with me.