Results 1 to 30 of 44

Thread: hello

Threaded View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #22
    Iron Fist Senior Member Husar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    15,617

    Default Re: wow.

    Quote Originally Posted by Legs View Post
    Is there any reason why you chose to omit the words other than to change the meaning?
    Is an accident a choice?
    Am I an omnipotent, perfect god who cannot miss something without bad intentions?
    I'm flattered but I'm afraid I have to disappoint you.

    Also, which words? I'm not sure anymore whether you are referring to the quoted part or to the quoted part of the quoted part that the quoted part referred to orthe other quoted part that the part quoted in the quoted part referred to or something else entirely.

    Quote Originally Posted by Legs View Post
    Well that's simple.
    If someone makes a claim about the content of a video then the video is irrefutable proof of its contents.
    If the video does not contain what people claim it contains then the claims are false.
    When challenged on the actual content you get further denials(excuse the pun) in response and insults.
    Now if someone claims something isn't in a video when it is, and claims that they have watched the video then something doesn't ring true.
    If that person then says that the lengthy interview is only 10minutes long it proves that they have neither watched the video or are aware of its contents.
    Therefore everything that person has written on the subject is completely false and they have knowingly chosen to simply lie throughout the entire exchange
    At this point I cannot answer you because I have not watched said video, I can neither confirm nor deny anything about these allegations.
    You are however the first person I'm aware of who seems to demand that someone get punished for lying in a discussion. It's not something we ever did as far as I'm aware and I think if taken too far, it gets way too subjective given the subjects discussed in the Backroom. I mean, technically we might have to ban everything the people on the "wrong side" of a political discussion say if we assume they have evil intentions (an easy assumption in a political debate...). I'm also not sure if that is intended by the spirit of the rules, I understand them more in the way of don't spread false information with the intention of harming other members.
    Either way it does not excuse personal attacks. Two wrongs still don't make a right.
    Last edited by Husar; 08-29-2016 at 16:18.


    "Topic is tired and needs a nap." - Tosa Inu

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO