100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Can an honest person not know what a lie is? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
I don't claim to speak for Joe, so stop lying.
I say that an answer of "no, of course not" should be Joe's honest answer.
LOL, you're making yourself appear as though you cannot form the words to refute me. Just let it go, your argument is pathetic and misguided. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your words are self-refuting. I gave you enough rope, and you hung yourself with it. I'm just taking pictures.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
creativesoul
on
Sun 04/01/12 11:31 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I know, more dishonesty instead of answering a direct question.
I'll just predict now that you'll continue to avoid it and repost my honest quotes over and over... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Do you acknowledge that the question as stated was not clear and required assumptions? " Yes or No? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The question was resolved long ago by your acknowledgement of what the question meant - as posed. The meaning of the question is not a matter of contention.
-- ac·knowl·edge Definition of ACKNOWLEDGE 1: to recognize the status of 2: to disclose knowledge of or agreement with -- You agreed to what it meant and have breached the agreement since. Your word is worthless. Your participation is cancerous to meaningful and honest discussion. I'm not trying to make the question a contentious matter.
I know the meaning of the question. Exactly as you stated it's meaning.
I acknowledged that the question as posed meant "Jill notwithstanding.[emphasis mine]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I know, more dishonesty instead of answering a direct question.
I'll just predict now that you'll continue to avoid it and repost my honest quotes over and over... My gawd... So now you think that your prophetic? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, I am... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you're so prophetic, why is it that you did not see the self-refuting content of your own words before you stated them?
Delusional is more like it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you're so prophetic, why is it that you did not see the self-refuting content of your own words before you stated them? Delusional is more like it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Have fun living in your imagination Pan. I'm outta here, as you've nothing resembling intelligibility to offer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Once again your entire argument is reduced to a mere emoticon. Good job, pan... good job.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Have fun living in your imagination Pan. I'm outta here, as you've nothing resembling intelligibility to offer. You ability to recognise intelligibility is severely lacking... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Coming from you - one who has not offered a coherent argument for anything he has claimed - that charge has the force of a wet spaghetti noodle slapping up against the side of a moving freight train.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Di got it, Jeannie got it, even you got it.
But you will continue to claim I'm wrong which by your definition is a lie. Face it, it was your words that were self-refuting. You really deserve nothing except laughter, but thank you for the entertainment. By letting your emotions take control of your thoughts, you've exposed how you cannot distinguish honest testimony.
Better luck next time! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Coming from you - one who has not offered a coherent argument for anything he has claimed - that charge has the force of a wet spaghetti noodle slapping up against the side of a moving freight train.
Coherency comes when you understand what literal means.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The question was resolved long ago by your acknowledgement of what the question meant - as posed. The meaning of the question is not a matter of contention. -- ac·knowl·edge Definition of ACKNOWLEDGE 1: to recognize the status of 2: to disclose knowledge of or agreement with -- You agreed to what it meant and have breached the agreement since. Your word is worthless. Your participation is cancerous to meaningful and honest discussion. I'm not trying to make the question a contentious matter.
I know the meaning of the question. Exactly as you stated it's meaning.
I acknowledged that the question as posed meant "Jill notwithstanding.[emphasis mine]
Again, your opinion is worthless as you've demonstrated. For those playing at home, I know you see the dishonesty in paraphrasing my quotes and taking them out of context but I'll repost the originals yet again for the blind people. Bold is his misrepresentation, blue is my explaination as to Joe's possible reasoning. I know the meaning of the question. Exactly as you stated it's meaning.
This isn't about me or you. It's about Joe, period. You expect people to assume things. I do not. I am capable of infering meanings, an "innocent" person is not. Some people do simply "read 'em as they see 'em". I really don't know how to make this any simpler for ya.
I acknowledged that the question as posed meant "Jill notwithstanding. It is not my opinion that matters, it is Joe's opinion that determines his honesty. Why is that so hard to comprehend? I do not pretend to speak for Joe as you do. How do you reconcile the fact that you keep misrepresenting my words? Do you deny it? Or do you correct your mistakes? He denies it... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pearls to swine...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now, riddle Panny-wanny, tell all the lovely folk exactly what the agreement was regarding what the question meant, as it was posed...
...then go on to explain how it follows from that meaning that "no" is an honest answer. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here... I'll help you out...
I'm not trying to make the question a contentious matter.
I know the meaning of the question. Exactly as you stated it's meaning.
I acknowledged that the question as posed meant "Jill notwithstanding.[emphasis mine]
...there it is. Your words acknowledging the meaning of the question as it was posed. There is no misrepresentation involved, Those are your words verbatim. So, how does it follow from this agreement that "no" should be Joe's honest answer? Incoherent rubbish. |
|
|
|
|
