On 8/28/23 6:06 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <280820231825298905%nope@noway.com>,
> A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <uci2be$1m4mo$8@dont-email.me>, Ubiquitous
>> <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>>
>>> atropos@mac.com wrote:
>>>> A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>>>>> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> I'll bet you said exactly the same when the Dixie Chicks were spouting
>>>>>> there opinions too, right? Oh wait, they were on the side of the angels
>>>>>> so they get a pass. In fact they got major kudos for "speaking truth to
>>>>>> power", right?
>>>>>
>>>>> You've accused him here of saying something he in fact did not say, and
>>>>> then you attack him for having said it.
>>>>
>>>> Dude, look in the mirror. You've done that to me several times over the
>>>> last several months.
>>>
>>> #MeToo
>>
>>
>> Still no cites from either of you. Of course, that's because I didn't
>> do it.
>
> No, as I said earlier, I'm waiting for a guarantee from you that when
> cites are provided, you won't just say they don't count as you're wont
> to do.

Wow, you're as cowardly with the truth as you are with your own
identity. I guess that tracks.

On 8/28/23 5:25 PM, A Friend wrote:
> In article <uci2be$1m4mo$8@dont-email.me>, Ubiquitous
> <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>
>> atropos@mac.com wrote:
>>> A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>>>> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> I'll bet you said exactly the same when the Dixie Chicks were spouting
>>>>> there opinions too, right? Oh wait, they were on the side of the angels
>>>>> so they get a pass. In fact they got major kudos for "speaking truth to
>>>>> power", right?
>>>>
>>>> You've accused him here of saying something he in fact did not say, and
>>>> then you attack him for having said it.
>>>
>>> Dude, look in the mirror. You've done that to me several times over the
>>> last several months.
>>
>> #MeToo
>
>
> Still no cites from either of you. Of course, that's because I didn't
> do it.

Pubie said something true once and has been all fucked up ever since.

On 8/28/23 10:16 PM, A Friend wrote:
> In article <atropos-0B1798.16062828082023@news.giganews.com>, BTR1701
> <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <280820231825298905%nope@noway.com>,
>> A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <uci2be$1m4mo$8@dont-email.me>, Ubiquitous
>>> <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> atropos@mac.com wrote:
>>>>> A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> I'll bet you said exactly the same when the Dixie Chicks were
>>>>>>> spouting
>>>>>>> there opinions too, right? Oh wait, they were on the side of the
>>>>>>> angels
>>>>>>> so they get a pass. In fact they got major kudos for "speaking truth
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> power", right?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You've accused him here of saying something he in fact did not say, and
>>>>>> then you attack him for having said it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dude, look in the mirror. You've done that to me several times over the
>>>>> last several months.
>>>>
>>>> #MeToo
>>>
>>>
>>> Still no cites from either of you. Of course, that's because I didn't
>>> do it.
>>
>> No, as I said earlier, I'm waiting for a guarantee from you that when
>> cites are provided, you won't just say they don't count as you're wont
>> to do.
>
>
> Hilarious. Please, keep 'em comin'. Just make sure the cites are
> relevant, as you have a bit of a problem with that.
>

Thanny isn't lying. Just make sure you're guarantees are notarized and
written in the proper size font. They have to be verified first, of course.

Have your people call his people.

--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC
Bible 25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0

On 8/29/23 5:01 AM, FPP wrote:
> On 8/28/23 10:16 PM, A Friend wrote:
>> In article <atropos-0B1798.16062828082023@news.giganews.com>, BTR1701
>> <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <280820231825298905%nope@noway.com>,
>>>   A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <uci2be$1m4mo$8@dont-email.me>, Ubiquitous
>>>> <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> atropos@mac.com wrote:
>>>>>> A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'll bet you said exactly the same when the Dixie Chicks were
>>>>>>>> spouting
>>>>>>>> there opinions too, right? Oh wait, they were on the side of the
>>>>>>>> angels
>>>>>>>> so they get a pass. In fact they got major kudos for "speaking
>>>>>>>> truth
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> power", right?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You've accused him here of saying something he in fact did not
>>>>>>> say, and
>>>>>>> then you attack him for having said it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dude, look in the mirror. You've done that to me several times
>>>>>> over the
>>>>>> last several months.
>>>>>
>>>>> #MeToo
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Still no cites from either of you.  Of course, that's because I didn't
>>>> do it.
>>>
>>> No, as I said earlier, I'm waiting for a guarantee from you that when
>>> cites are provided, you won't just say they don't count as you're wont
>>> to do.
>>
>>
>> Hilarious.  Please, keep 'em comin'.  Just make sure the cites are
>> relevant, as you have a bit of a problem with that.
>>
>
>
> Thanny isn't lying.  Just make sure you're *(sic) guarantees are notarized and
> written in the proper size font.  They have to be verified first, of
> course.
>
> Have your people call his people.
>

**Make that "your". Wouldn't want to trigger Captain Nitpick again.

--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC
Bible 25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0

edstasiak1067@gmail.com wrote:

>> Carlos Santana gives anti-trans speech during New Jersey concert
>
>"In the clip, which can be seen across several outlets, including
>Consequence, the “Smooth” musician can be heard saying: “When God made
>you and me, before we came out of the womb, you know who you are and what
>you are. Later on, when you grow out of it, you see things, and you start
>believing that you could be something that sounds good, but you know it
>ain’t right. Because a woman is a woman and a man is a man. That’s it.
>Whatever you wanna do in the closet, that’s your business. I’m OK with
>that.”

So much for his "anti-trans" speech! [rolls eyes]

>During the same concert, Santana also stopped to express support for
>comedian Dave Chappelle, who has made several inflammatory comments about
>the trans community in recent years. In the clip, Santana is heard saying
>as a follow-up to his previous statement,”I am like this with my brother
>Dave Chappelle,” as reported by Rolling Stone."

Anyone who claims Dave Chappelle is "anti-trans" is merely repeating what
they were told and have never actually seen The Closer.

>The Dems need that "Latinx" vote but Hispanics tend to be socially
>conservative and don't go for chopping their kid's dick off and shooting
>them up with female hormones, to get upvotes on Reddit.

I am waiting for leftists to claim Hispanics are white supremists.

--
Let's go Brandon!

"trotsky" wrote:
> On 8/28/23 6:41 PM, Ed Stasiak wrote:

>> The Dems need that "Latinx" vote but Hispanics tend to be socially
>> conservative and don't go for chopping their kid's dick off and shooting
>> them up with female hormones, to get upvotes on Reddit.
>
>Right. Conservatives just prefer shooting them up at their schools instead.

In English, please.

--
Let's go Brandon!

atropos@mac.com wrote:
> A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>>> atropos@mac.com wrote:
>> > > A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>> > >> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > >>> I'll bet you said exactly the same when the Dixie Chicks were spouting
>> > >>> there opinions too, right? Oh wait, they were on the side of the angels
>> > >>> so they get a pass. In fact they got major kudos for "speaking truth to
>> > >>> power", right?
>> > >>
>> > >> You've accused him here of saying something he in fact did not say, and
>> > >> then you attack him for having said it.
>> > >
>> > >Dude, look in the mirror. You've done that to me several times over the
>> > >last several months.
>> >
>> > #MeToo
>>
>>
>> Still no cites from either of you. Of course, that's because I didn't
>> do it.
>
>No, as I said earlier, I'm waiting for a guarantee from you that when
>cites are provided, you won't just say they don't count as you're wont
>to do.

Yeah, good luck with that.
That's one of their main "debating" methods!

--
Let'sa go Brandon!

In article <uckq3i$28tfb$1@dont-email.me>, Ubiquitous
<weberm@polaris.net> wrote:

> atropos@mac.com wrote:
> > A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
> >> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
> >>> atropos@mac.com wrote:
> >> > > A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
> >> > >> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >>> I'll bet you said exactly the same when the Dixie Chicks
> >> > >>> were spouting there opinions too, right? Oh wait, they were
> >> > >>> on the side of the angels so they get a pass. In fact they
> >> > >>> got major kudos for "speaking truth to power", right?
> >> > >>
> >> > >> You've accused him here of saying something he in fact did
> >> > >> not say, and then you attack him for having said it.
> >> > >
> >> > >Dude, look in the mirror. You've done that to me several times
> >> > >over the last several months.
> >> >
> >> > #MeToo
> >>
> >>
> >> Still no cites from either of you. Of course, that's because I didn't
> >> do it.
> >
> >No, as I said earlier, I'm waiting for a guarantee from you that when
> >cites are provided, you won't just say they don't count as you're wont
> >to do.
>
> Yeah, good luck with that.
> That's one of their main "debating" methods!

"Still no cites from either of you. Of course, that's because I didn't
do it."

BTW I don't know if I've ever said anything one way or the other about
the Dixie Chicks.

A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
> In article <uckq3i$28tfb$1@dont-email.me>, Ubiquitous
> <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>
>> atropos@mac.com wrote:
>>> A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>>>> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>>>>> atropos@mac.com wrote:
>>>>>> A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'll bet you said exactly the same when the Dixie Chicks
>>>>>>>> were spouting there opinions too, right? Oh wait, they were
>>>>>>>> on the side of the angels so they get a pass. In fact they
>>>>>>>> got major kudos for "speaking truth to power", right?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You've accused him here of saying something he in fact did
>>>>>>> not say, and then you attack him for having said it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dude, look in the mirror. You've done that to me several times
>>>>>> over the last several months.
>>>>>
>>>>> #MeToo
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Still no cites from either of you. Of course, that's because I didn't
>>>> do it.
>>>
>>> No, as I said earlier, I'm waiting for a guarantee from you that when
>>> cites are provided, you won't just say they don't count as you're wont
>>> to do.
>>
>> Yeah, good luck with that.
>> That's one of their main "debating" methods!
>
> "Still no cites from either of you. Of course, that's because I didn't
> do it."

That's because you still have yet to guarantee you won't say they won't
'count' if provided.

Should be a simple thing to do. The fact that you're dancing around it
speaks volumes.

On 8/29/2023 3:06 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>> In article <uckq3i$28tfb$1@dont-email.me>, Ubiquitous
>> <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>>
>>> atropos@mac.com wrote:
>>>> A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>>>>> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>>>>>> atropos@mac.com wrote:
>>>>>>> A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'll bet you said exactly the same when the Dixie Chicks
>>>>>>>>> were spouting there opinions too, right? Oh wait, they were
>>>>>>>>> on the side of the angels so they get a pass. In fact they
>>>>>>>>> got major kudos for "speaking truth to power", right?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You've accused him here of saying something he in fact did
>>>>>>>> not say, and then you attack him for having said it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dude, look in the mirror. You've done that to me several times
>>>>>>> over the last several months.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> #MeToo
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Still no cites from either of you. Of course, that's because I didn't
>>>>> do it.
>>>>
>>>> No, as I said earlier, I'm waiting for a guarantee from you that when
>>>> cites are provided, you won't just say they don't count as you're wont
>>>> to do.
>>>
>>> Yeah, good luck with that.
>>> That's one of their main "debating" methods!
>>
>> "Still no cites from either of you. Of course, that's because I didn't
>> do it."
>
> That's because you still have yet to guarantee you won't say they won't
> 'count' if provided.
>
> Should be a simple thing to do. The fact that you're dancing around it
> speaks volumes.

When did it become okay to make an accusation and then demand payment
for the proof of it? ...proof which, if it existed, should've
accompanied the original accusation?

In article <FuOcnZlJUf9X3HP5nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@giganews.com>, BTR1701
<no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
> > In article <uckq3i$28tfb$1@dont-email.me>, Ubiquitous
> > <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
> >
> >> atropos@mac.com wrote:
> >>> A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
> >>>> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
> >>>>> atropos@mac.com wrote:
> >>>>>> A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I'll bet you said exactly the same when the Dixie Chicks
> >>>>>>>> were spouting there opinions too, right? Oh wait, they were
> >>>>>>>> on the side of the angels so they get a pass. In fact they
> >>>>>>>> got major kudos for "speaking truth to power", right?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> You've accused him here of saying something he in fact did
> >>>>>>> not say, and then you attack him for having said it.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Dude, look in the mirror. You've done that to me several times
> >>>>>> over the last several months.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> #MeToo
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Still no cites from either of you. Of course, that's because I didn't
> >>>> do it.
> >>>
> >>> No, as I said earlier, I'm waiting for a guarantee from you that when
> >>> cites are provided, you won't just say they don't count as you're wont
> >>> to do.
> >>
> >> Yeah, good luck with that.
> >> That's one of their main "debating" methods!
> >
> > "Still no cites from either of you. Of course, that's because I didn't
> > do it."
>
> That's because you still have yet to guarantee you won't say they won't
> 'count' if provided.
>
> Should be a simple thing to do. The fact that you're dancing around it
> speaks volumes.

Still no cites, yadda yadda yadda. *That* speaks volumes.

In article <290820231828241361%nope@noway.com>,
A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:

> In article <FuOcnZlJUf9X3HP5nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@giganews.com>, BTR1701
> <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> > A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
> > > In article <uckq3i$28tfb$1@dont-email.me>, Ubiquitous
> > > <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >> atropos@mac.com wrote:
> > >>> A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
> > >>>> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
> > >>>>> atropos@mac.com wrote:
> > >>>>>> A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> I'll bet you said exactly the same when the Dixie Chicks
> > >>>>>>>> were spouting there opinions too, right? Oh wait, they were
> > >>>>>>>> on the side of the angels so they get a pass. In fact they
> > >>>>>>>> got major kudos for "speaking truth to power", right?
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> You've accused him here of saying something he in fact did
> > >>>>>>> not say, and then you attack him for having said it.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Dude, look in the mirror. You've done that to me several times
> > >>>>>> over the last several months.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> #MeToo
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Still no cites from either of you. Of course, that's because I didn't
> > >>>> do it.
> > >>>
> > >>> No, as I said earlier, I'm waiting for a guarantee from you that when
> > >>> cites are provided, you won't just say they don't count as you're wont
> > >>> to do.
> > >>
> > >> Yeah, good luck with that.
> > >> That's one of their main "debating" methods!
> > >
> > > "Still no cites from either of you. Of course, that's because I didn't
> > > do it."
> >
> > That's because you still have yet to guarantee you won't say they won't
> > 'count' if provided.
> >
> > Should be a simple thing to do. The fact that you're dancing around it
> > speaks volumes.
>
> Still no cites, yadda yadda yadda. *That* speaks volumes.

Still no guarantee, yadda yadda yadda.

On 8/29/23 3:06 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>> In article <uckq3i$28tfb$1@dont-email.me>, Ubiquitous
>> <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>>
>>> atropos@mac.com wrote:
>>>> A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>>>>> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>>>>>> atropos@mac.com wrote:
>>>>>>> A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'll bet you said exactly the same when the Dixie Chicks
>>>>>>>>> were spouting there opinions too, right? Oh wait, they were
>>>>>>>>> on the side of the angels so they get a pass. In fact they
>>>>>>>>> got major kudos for "speaking truth to power", right?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You've accused him here of saying something he in fact did
>>>>>>>> not say, and then you attack him for having said it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dude, look in the mirror. You've done that to me several times
>>>>>>> over the last several months.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> #MeToo
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Still no cites from either of you. Of course, that's because I didn't
>>>>> do it.
>>>>
>>>> No, as I said earlier, I'm waiting for a guarantee from you that when
>>>> cites are provided, you won't just say they don't count as you're wont
>>>> to do.
>>>
>>> Yeah, good luck with that.
>>> That's one of their main "debating" methods!
>>
>> "Still no cites from either of you. Of course, that's because I didn't
>> do it."
>
> That's because you still have yet to guarantee you won't say they won't
> 'count' if provided.
>
> Should be a simple thing to do. The fact that you're dancing around it
> speaks volumes.
>

"The fact that you're dancing around it
speaks volumes."

You really aren't self-aware, are you?

--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC
Bible 25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0

On 8/29/23 4:39 PM, moviePig wrote:
> On 8/29/2023 3:06 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>>> In article <uckq3i$28tfb$1@dont-email.me>, Ubiquitous
>>> <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> atropos@mac.com wrote:
>>>>> A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> atropos@mac.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'll bet you said exactly the same when the Dixie Chicks
>>>>>>>>>> were spouting there opinions too, right? Oh wait, they were
>>>>>>>>>> on the side of the angels so they get a pass. In fact they
>>>>>>>>>> got major kudos for "speaking truth to power", right?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You've accused him here of saying something he in fact did
>>>>>>>>> not say, and then you attack him for having said it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dude, look in the mirror. You've done that to me several times
>>>>>>>> over the last several months.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> #MeToo
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Still no cites from either of you. Of course, that's because I didn't
>>>>>> do it.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, as I said earlier, I'm waiting for a guarantee from you that when
>>>>> cites are provided, you won't just say they don't count as you're wont
>>>>> to do.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, good luck with that.
>>>> That's one of their main "debating" methods!
>>>
>>> "Still no cites from either of you. Of course, that's because I didn't
>>> do it."
>>
>> That's because you still have yet to guarantee you won't say they won't
>> 'count' if provided.
>>
>> Should be a simple thing to do. The fact that you're dancing around it
>> speaks volumes.
>
> When did it become okay to make an accusation and then demand payment
> for the proof of it? ...proof which, if it existed, should've
> accompanied the original accusation?
>
>

Why, when you CAN'T back up what you say, like a normal person. Deny
and deflect is the "go-to" when challenged.

--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC
Bible 25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0

On 8/29/23 6:41 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <290820231828241361%nope@noway.com>,
> A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <FuOcnZlJUf9X3HP5nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@giganews.com>, BTR1701
>> <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>>>> In article <uckq3i$28tfb$1@dont-email.me>, Ubiquitous
>>>> <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> atropos@mac.com wrote:
>>>>>> A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> atropos@mac.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'll bet you said exactly the same when the Dixie Chicks
>>>>>>>>>>> were spouting there opinions too, right? Oh wait, they were
>>>>>>>>>>> on the side of the angels so they get a pass. In fact they
>>>>>>>>>>> got major kudos for "speaking truth to power", right?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You've accused him here of saying something he in fact did
>>>>>>>>>> not say, and then you attack him for having said it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Dude, look in the mirror. You've done that to me several times
>>>>>>>>> over the last several months.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> #MeToo
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Still no cites from either of you. Of course, that's because I didn't
>>>>>>> do it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, as I said earlier, I'm waiting for a guarantee from you that when
>>>>>> cites are provided, you won't just say they don't count as you're wont
>>>>>> to do.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, good luck with that.
>>>>> That's one of their main "debating" methods!
>>>>
>>>> "Still no cites from either of you. Of course, that's because I didn't
>>>> do it."
>>>
>>> That's because you still have yet to guarantee you won't say they won't
>>> 'count' if provided.
>>>
>>> Should be a simple thing to do. The fact that you're dancing around it
>>> speaks volumes.
>>
>> Still no cites, yadda yadda yadda. *That* speaks volumes.
>
> Still no guarantee, yadda yadda yadda.
>

Lots of big-talk from the Beta Male... but still short on proof. Keep
tap-dancing... it really is kind of entertaining.

Let's all watch the Pretzel man keep on twisting.

--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC
Bible 25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0

In article <atropos-D5252F.15411729082023@news.giganews.com>, BTR1701
<atropos@mac.com> wrote:

> In article <290820231828241361%nope@noway.com>,
> A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <FuOcnZlJUf9X3HP5nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@giganews.com>, BTR1701
> > <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > > A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
> > > > In article <uckq3i$28tfb$1@dont-email.me>, Ubiquitous
> > > > <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> atropos@mac.com wrote:
> > > >>> A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
> > > >>>> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
> > > >>>>> atropos@mac.com wrote:
> > > >>>>>> A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> I'll bet you said exactly the same when the Dixie Chicks
> > > >>>>>>>> were spouting there opinions too, right? Oh wait, they were
> > > >>>>>>>> on the side of the angels so they get a pass. In fact they
> > > >>>>>>>> got major kudos for "speaking truth to power", right?
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> You've accused him here of saying something he in fact did
> > > >>>>>>> not say, and then you attack him for having said it.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Dude, look in the mirror. You've done that to me several times
> > > >>>>>> over the last several months.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> #MeToo
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Still no cites from either of you. Of course, that's because I didn't
> > > >>>> do it.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> No, as I said earlier, I'm waiting for a guarantee from you that when
> > > >>> cites are provided, you won't just say they don't count as you're
> > > >>> wont
> > > >>> to do.
> > > >>
> > > >> Yeah, good luck with that.
> > > >> That's one of their main "debating" methods!
> > > >
> > > > "Still no cites from either of you. Of course, that's because I didn't
> > > > do it."
> > >
> > > That's because you still have yet to guarantee you won't say they won't
> > > 'count' if provided.
> > >
> > > Should be a simple thing to do. The fact that you're dancing around it
> > > speaks volumes.
> >
> > Still no cites, yadda yadda yadda. *That* speaks volumes.
>
> Still no guarantee, yadda yadda yadda.

This is your obsession, not mine. I'm not required to "guarantee" a
thing here. Read me or don't read me. Cite me or don't cite me. It
doesn't matter at all. The reasonable people reading this already
understand that you won't cite because you can't.

On Aug 29, 2023 at 7:23:54 PM PDT, "A Friend" <nope@noway.com> wrote:

> In article <atropos-D5252F.15411729082023@news.giganews.com>, BTR1701
> <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <290820231828241361%nope@noway.com>,
>> A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>>
>> > In article <FuOcnZlJUf9X3HP5nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@giganews.com>, BTR1701
>> > <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> >
>> > > A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>> > > > In article <uckq3i$28tfb$1@dont-email.me>, Ubiquitous
>> > > > <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >> atropos@mac.com wrote:
>> > > >>> A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>> > > >>>> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>> > > >>>>> atropos@mac.com wrote:
>> > > >>>>>> A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>> > > >>>>>>> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>> > > >>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>>> I'll bet you said exactly the same when the Dixie Chicks
>> > > >>>>>>>> were spouting there opinions too, right? Oh wait, they were
>> > > >>>>>>>> on the side of the angels so they get a pass. In fact they
>> > > >>>>>>>> got major kudos for "speaking truth to power", right?
>> > > >>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>> You've accused him here of saying something he in fact did
>> > > >>>>>>> not say, and then you attack him for having said it.
>> > > >>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>> Dude, look in the mirror. You've done that to me several times
>> > > >>>>>> over the last several months.
>> > > >>>>>
>> > > >>>>> #MeToo
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>> Still no cites from either of you. Of course, that's because I didn't
>> > > >>>> do it.
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> No, as I said earlier, I'm waiting for a guarantee from you that when
>> > > >>> cites are provided, you won't just say they don't count as you're
>> > > >>> wont
>> > > >>> to do.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Yeah, good luck with that.
>> > > >> That's one of their main "debating" methods!
>> > > >
>> > > > "Still no cites from either of you. Of course, that's because I didn't
>> > > > do it."
>> > >
>> > > That's because you still have yet to guarantee you won't say they won't
>> > > 'count' if provided.
>> > >
>> > > Should be a simple thing to do. The fact that you're dancing around it
>> > > speaks volumes.
>> >
>> > Still no cites, yadda yadda yadda. *That* speaks volumes.
>>
>> Still no guarantee, yadda yadda yadda.
>
> This is your obsession, not mine. I'm not required to "guarantee" a
> thing here.

You are if you want me to go to trouble to dig up the proof. Your previous
"those don't count because I don't read that newspaper, magazine, etc."
responses to citations you demanded have used up all the good will.

You don't get the benefit of the doubt anymore.

In article <P66cnXn-k_UlKXP5nZ2dnZfqn_ednZ2d@giganews.com>, BTR1701
<atropos@mac.com> wrote:

> On Aug 29, 2023 at 7:23:54 PM PDT, "A Friend" <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <atropos-D5252F.15411729082023@news.giganews.com>, BTR1701
> > <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <290820231828241361%nope@noway.com>,
> >> A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > In article <FuOcnZlJUf9X3HP5nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@giganews.com>, BTR1701
> >> > <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
> >> > > > In article <uckq3i$28tfb$1@dont-email.me>, Ubiquitous
> >> > > > <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > >> atropos@mac.com wrote:
> >> > > >>> A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
> >> > > >>>> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
> >> > > >>>>> atropos@mac.com wrote:
> >> > > >>>>>> A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
> >> > > >>>>>>> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>> I'll bet you said exactly the same when the Dixie Chicks
> >> > > >>>>>>>> were spouting there opinions too, right? Oh wait, they were
> >> > > >>>>>>>> on the side of the angels so they get a pass. In fact they
> >> > > >>>>>>>> got major kudos for "speaking truth to power", right?
> >> > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>> You've accused him here of saying something he in fact did
> >> > > >>>>>>> not say, and then you attack him for having said it.
> >> > > >>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>> Dude, look in the mirror. You've done that to me several times
> >> > > >>>>>> over the last several months.
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > > >>>>> #MeToo
> >> > > >>>>
> >> > > >>>> Still no cites from either of you. Of course, that's because I
> didn't
> >> > > >>>> do it.
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> No, as I said earlier, I'm waiting for a guarantee from you that
> >> > > >>> when
> >> > > >>> cites are provided, you won't just say they don't count as you're
> >> > > >>> wont
> >> > > >>> to do.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> Yeah, good luck with that.
> >> > > >> That's one of their main "debating" methods!
> >> > > >
> >> > > > "Still no cites from either of you. Of course, that's because I
> >> > > > didn't
> >> > > > do it."
> >> > >
> >> > > That's because you still have yet to guarantee you won't say they
> >> > > won't
> >> > > 'count' if provided.
> >> > >
> >> > > Should be a simple thing to do. The fact that you're dancing around it
> >> > > speaks volumes.
> >> >
> >> > Still no cites, yadda yadda yadda. *That* speaks volumes.
> >>
> >> Still no guarantee, yadda yadda yadda.
> >
> > This is your obsession, not mine. I'm not required to "guarantee" a
> > thing here.
>
> You are if you want me to go to trouble to dig up the proof. Your previous
> "those don't count because I don't read that newspaper, magazine, etc."
> responses to citations you demanded have used up all the good will.
>
> You don't get the benefit of the doubt anymore.

What doubt? I'm sure I've never said anything about the Dixie Chicks
that was worth remembering. As for "those don't count because I don't
read that newspaper, magazine, etc.," I have no idea what you're
talking about.

It doesn't matter to me (or anyone else here, I reckon) if you don't
want to take the trouble to provide evidence that would prove your
point. It's your credibility that's at stake, not mine.

On 8/29/23 11:17 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> On Aug 29, 2023 at 7:23:54 PM PDT, "A Friend" <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <atropos-D5252F.15411729082023@news.giganews.com>, BTR1701
>> <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <290820231828241361%nope@noway.com>,
>>> A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > In article <FuOcnZlJUf9X3HP5nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@giganews.com>, BTR1701
>>> > <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>>> > > > In article <uckq3i$28tfb$1@dont-email.me>, Ubiquitous
>>> > > > <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>>> > > >
>>> > > >> atropos@mac.com wrote:
>>> > > >>> A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>>> > > >>>> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>>> > > >>>>> atropos@mac.com wrote:
>>> > > >>>>>> A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>>> > > >>>>>>> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>> > > >>>>>
>>> > > >>>>>>>> I'll bet you said exactly the same when the Dixie Chicks
>>> > > >>>>>>>> were spouting there opinions too, right? Oh wait, they were
>>> > > >>>>>>>> on the side of the angels so they get a pass. In fact they
>>> > > >>>>>>>> got major kudos for "speaking truth to power", right?
>>> > > >>>>>>>
>>> > > >>>>>>> You've accused him here of saying something he in fact did
>>> > > >>>>>>> not say, and then you attack him for having said it.
>>> > > >>>>>>
>>> > > >>>>>> Dude, look in the mirror. You've done that to me several times
>>> > > >>>>>> over the last several months.
>>> > > >>>>>
>>> > > >>>>> #MeToo
>>> > > >>>>
>>> > > >>>> Still no cites from either of you. Of course, that's because I didn't
>>> > > >>>> do it.
>>> > > >>>
>>> > > >>> No, as I said earlier, I'm waiting for a guarantee from you that when
>>> > > >>> cites are provided, you won't just say they don't count as you're
>>> > > >>> wont
>>> > > >>> to do.
>>> > > >>
>>> > > >> Yeah, good luck with that.
>>> > > >> That's one of their main "debating" methods!
>>> > > >
>>> > > > "Still no cites from either of you. Of course, that's because I didn't
>>> > > > do it."
>>> > >
>>> > > That's because you still have yet to guarantee you won't say they won't
>>> > > 'count' if provided.
>>> > >
>>> > > Should be a simple thing to do. The fact that you're dancing around it
>>> > > speaks volumes.
>>> >
>>> > Still no cites, yadda yadda yadda. *That* speaks volumes.
>>>
>>> Still no guarantee, yadda yadda yadda.
>>
>> This is your obsession, not mine. I'm not required to "guarantee" a
>> thing here.
>
> You are if you want me to go to trouble to dig up the proof. Your previous
> "those don't count because I don't read that newspaper, magazine, etc."
> responses to citations you demanded have used up all the good will.
>
> You don't get the benefit of the doubt anymore.
>
>

Sez the guy who never backs up what he says. You sure talk a lot
without saying anything. Well, anything you can back up anyway.

Keep tap dancing and whinging... it's the most interesting stuff you've
posted in quite a while.

--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC
Bible 25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0

On 8/29/23 11:49 PM, A Friend wrote:
> In article <P66cnXn-k_UlKXP5nZ2dnZfqn_ednZ2d@giganews.com>, BTR1701
> <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>
>> On Aug 29, 2023 at 7:23:54 PM PDT, "A Friend" <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <atropos-D5252F.15411729082023@news.giganews.com>, BTR1701
>>> <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <290820231828241361%nope@noway.com>,
>>>> A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > In article <FuOcnZlJUf9X3HP5nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@giganews.com>, BTR1701
>>>> > <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > > A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>>>> > > > In article <uckq3i$28tfb$1@dont-email.me>, Ubiquitous
>>>> > > > <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > >> atropos@mac.com wrote:
>>>> > > >>> A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>>>> > > >>>> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>>>> > > >>>>> atropos@mac.com wrote:
>>>> > > >>>>>> A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>>>> > > >>>>>>> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>>> > > >>>>>
>>>> > > >>>>>>>> I'll bet you said exactly the same when the Dixie Chicks
>>>> > > >>>>>>>> were spouting there opinions too, right? Oh wait, they were
>>>> > > >>>>>>>> on the side of the angels so they get a pass. In fact they
>>>> > > >>>>>>>> got major kudos for "speaking truth to power", right?
>>>> > > >>>>>>>
>>>> > > >>>>>>> You've accused him here of saying something he in fact did
>>>> > > >>>>>>> not say, and then you attack him for having said it.
>>>> > > >>>>>>
>>>> > > >>>>>> Dude, look in the mirror. You've done that to me several times
>>>> > > >>>>>> over the last several months.
>>>> > > >>>>>
>>>> > > >>>>> #MeToo
>>>> > > >>>>
>>>> > > >>>> Still no cites from either of you. Of course, that's because I
>> didn't
>>>> > > >>>> do it.
>>>> > > >>>
>>>> > > >>> No, as I said earlier, I'm waiting for a guarantee from you that
>>>> > > >>> when
>>>> > > >>> cites are provided, you won't just say they don't count as you're
>>>> > > >>> wont
>>>> > > >>> to do.
>>>> > > >>
>>>> > > >> Yeah, good luck with that.
>>>> > > >> That's one of their main "debating" methods!
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > "Still no cites from either of you. Of course, that's because I
>>>> > > > didn't
>>>> > > > do it."
>>>> > >
>>>> > > That's because you still have yet to guarantee you won't say they
>>>> > > won't
>>>> > > 'count' if provided.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > Should be a simple thing to do. The fact that you're dancing around it
>>>> > > speaks volumes.
>>>> >
>>>> > Still no cites, yadda yadda yadda. *That* speaks volumes.
>>>>
>>>> Still no guarantee, yadda yadda yadda.
>>>
>>> This is your obsession, not mine. I'm not required to "guarantee" a
>>> thing here.
>>
>> You are if you want me to go to trouble to dig up the proof. Your previous
>> "those don't count because I don't read that newspaper, magazine, etc."
>> responses to citations you demanded have used up all the good will.
>>
>> You don't get the benefit of the doubt anymore.
>
>
> What doubt? I'm sure I've never said anything about the Dixie Chicks
> that was worth remembering. As for "those don't count because I don't
> read that newspaper, magazine, etc.," I have no idea what you're
> talking about.
>
> It doesn't matter to me (or anyone else here, I reckon) if you don't
> want to take the trouble to provide evidence that would prove your
> point. It's your credibility that's at stake, not mine.
>

People who can't back up what they post, or provide any context are
about as informative as Ubi. Trolls all have the same goal.

And, as I've posted before, THIS describes both of them to a "t":

> One can see the sheen of desperation in the world of self-identified conservatives who make a living by "triggering" the liberals. The usual dose of outrage bait isn't working as well any longer. These are the people who claim not to be partisan Republicans or MAGA sympathizers, but whose online existence is largely, often exclusively, built around baiting liberals with reactionary opinions or disinformation.
>
> Their existence is defined by drawing negative attention from liberals. Second, by feeding off liberal outrage.
>
> These folks, by design, are annoying all of the time, but lately, things seem to be getting worse. Trolls are getting more extreme and desperate. The pool of people available to get attention from is shrinking, so the only way to keep the engagement rates as high is to say wilder and nastier things. But eventually, there will be so few people left to aggravate that even white nationalist dogwhistling and Holocaust denialism won't work.

Thanny badly needs the outrage to validate his sense of purpose. It
must be tough to go throughout the day looking for things to be outraged
about.

Just today we visited his latest outrages in Australia and Norway. As
if anybody here gives two shits about some random minor occurrence none
of us will remember tomorrow.

A real 'Douche Canoe'.
--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC
Bible 25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0

On 8/29/23 7:34 PM, FPP wrote:
> On 8/29/23 3:06 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>>> In article <uckq3i$28tfb$1@dont-email.me>, Ubiquitous
>>> <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> atropos@mac.com wrote:
>>>>> A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> atropos@mac.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'll bet you said exactly the same when the Dixie Chicks
>>>>>>>>>> were spouting there opinions too, right? Oh wait, they were
>>>>>>>>>> on the side of the angels so they get a pass. In fact they
>>>>>>>>>> got major kudos for "speaking truth to power", right?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You've accused him here of saying something he in fact did
>>>>>>>>> not say, and then you attack him for having said it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dude, look in the mirror. You've done that to me several times
>>>>>>>> over the last several months.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> #MeToo
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Still no cites from either of you. Of course, that's because I didn't
>>>>>> do it.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, as I said earlier, I'm waiting for a guarantee from you that when
>>>>> cites are provided, you won't just say they don't count as you're wont
>>>>> to do.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, good luck with that.
>>>> That's one of their main "debating" methods!
>>>
>>> "Still no cites from either of you. Of course, that's because I didn't
>>> do it."
>>
>> That's because you still have yet to guarantee you won't say they won't
>> 'count' if provided.
>>
>> Should be a simple thing to do. The fact that you're dancing around it
>> speaks volumes.
>>
>
>
> "The fact that you're dancing around it
> speaks volumes."
>
> You really aren't self-aware, are you?

Those must be super little "volumes."

On 8/29/23 10:17 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> On Aug 29, 2023 at 7:23:54 PM PDT, "A Friend" <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <atropos-D5252F.15411729082023@news.giganews.com>, BTR1701
>> <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <290820231828241361%nope@noway.com>,
>>> A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > In article <FuOcnZlJUf9X3HP5nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@giganews.com>, BTR1701
>>> > <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>>> > > > In article <uckq3i$28tfb$1@dont-email.me>, Ubiquitous
>>> > > > <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>>> > > >
>>> > > >> atropos@mac.com wrote:
>>> > > >>> A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>>> > > >>>> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>>> > > >>>>> atropos@mac.com wrote:
>>> > > >>>>>> A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>>> > > >>>>>>> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>> > > >>>>>
>>> > > >>>>>>>> I'll bet you said exactly the same when the Dixie Chicks
>>> > > >>>>>>>> were spouting there opinions too, right? Oh wait, they were
>>> > > >>>>>>>> on the side of the angels so they get a pass. In fact they
>>> > > >>>>>>>> got major kudos for "speaking truth to power", right?
>>> > > >>>>>>>
>>> > > >>>>>>> You've accused him here of saying something he in fact did
>>> > > >>>>>>> not say, and then you attack him for having said it.
>>> > > >>>>>>
>>> > > >>>>>> Dude, look in the mirror. You've done that to me several times
>>> > > >>>>>> over the last several months.
>>> > > >>>>>
>>> > > >>>>> #MeToo
>>> > > >>>>
>>> > > >>>> Still no cites from either of you. Of course, that's because I didn't
>>> > > >>>> do it.
>>> > > >>>
>>> > > >>> No, as I said earlier, I'm waiting for a guarantee from you that when
>>> > > >>> cites are provided, you won't just say they don't count as you're
>>> > > >>> wont
>>> > > >>> to do.
>>> > > >>
>>> > > >> Yeah, good luck with that.
>>> > > >> That's one of their main "debating" methods!
>>> > > >
>>> > > > "Still no cites from either of you. Of course, that's because I didn't
>>> > > > do it."
>>> > >
>>> > > That's because you still have yet to guarantee you won't say they won't
>>> > > 'count' if provided.
>>> > >
>>> > > Should be a simple thing to do. The fact that you're dancing around it
>>> > > speaks volumes.
>>> >
>>> > Still no cites, yadda yadda yadda. *That* speaks volumes.
>>>
>>> Still no guarantee, yadda yadda yadda.
>>
>> This is your obsession, not mine. I'm not required to "guarantee" a
>> thing here.
>
> You are if you want me to go to trouble to dig up the proof. Your previous
> "those don't count because I don't read that newspaper, magazine, etc."
> responses to citations you demanded have used up all the good will.
>
> You don't get the benefit of the doubt anymore.

Holy fuck that sounds tough. A lashes with a wet noodle next?

On 8/30/23 1:18 AM, FPP wrote:
> On 8/29/23 11:17 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> On Aug 29, 2023 at 7:23:54 PM PDT, "A Friend" <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <atropos-D5252F.15411729082023@news.giganews.com>, BTR1701
>>> <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>   In article <290820231828241361%nope@noway.com>,
>>>>    A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>>>>   > In article <FuOcnZlJUf9X3HP5nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@giganews.com>, BTR1701
>>>>   > <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>   >
>>>>   > > A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>>>>   > > > In article <uckq3i$28tfb$1@dont-email.me>, Ubiquitous
>>>>   > > > <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>>>>   > > >
>>>>   > > >> atropos@mac.com wrote:
>>>>   > > >>> A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>>>>   > > >>>> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>>>>   > > >>>>> atropos@mac.com wrote:
>>>>   > > >>>>>> A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>>>>   > > >>>>>>> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>>>   > > >>>>>
>>>>   > > >>>>>>>> I'll bet you said exactly the same when the Dixie Chicks
>>>>   > > >>>>>>>> were spouting there opinions too, right? Oh wait,
>>>> they were
>>>>   > > >>>>>>>> on the side of the angels so they get a pass. In fact
>>>> they
>>>>   > > >>>>>>>> got major kudos for "speaking truth to power", right?
>>>>   > > >>>>>>>
>>>>   > > >>>>>>> You've accused him here of saying something he in fact
>>>> did
>>>>   > > >>>>>>> not say, and then you attack him for having said it.
>>>>   > > >>>>>>
>>>>   > > >>>>>> Dude, look in the mirror. You've done that to me
>>>> several times
>>>>   > > >>>>>> over the last several months.
>>>>   > > >>>>>
>>>>   > > >>>>> #MeToo
>>>>   > > >>>>
>>>>   > > >>>> Still no cites from either of you. Of course, that's
>>>> because I didn't
>>>>   > > >>>> do it.
>>>>   > > >>>
>>>>   > > >>> No, as I said earlier, I'm waiting for a guarantee from
>>>> you that when
>>>>   > > >>> cites are provided, you won't just say they don't count as
>>>> you're
>>>>   > > >>> wont
>>>>   > > >>> to do.
>>>>   > > >>
>>>>   > > >> Yeah, good luck with that.
>>>>   > > >> That's one of their main "debating" methods!
>>>>   > > >
>>>>   > > > "Still no cites from either of you. Of course, that's
>>>> because I didn't
>>>>   > > > do it."
>>>>   > >
>>>>   > > That's because you still have yet to guarantee you won't say
>>>> they won't
>>>>   > > 'count' if provided.
>>>>   > >
>>>>   > > Should be a simple thing to do. The fact that you're dancing
>>>> around it
>>>>   > > speaks volumes.
>>>>   >
>>>>   > Still no cites, yadda yadda yadda. *That* speaks volumes.
>>>>   Still no guarantee, yadda yadda yadda.
>>>
>>> This is your obsession, not mine. I'm not required to "guarantee" a
>>> thing here.
>>
>> You are if you want me to go to trouble to dig up the proof. Your
>> previous
>> "those don't count because I don't read that newspaper, magazine, etc."
>> responses to citations you demanded have used up all the good will.
>>
>> You don't get the benefit of the doubt anymore.
>>
>>
>
> Sez the guy who never backs up what he says.

I'll bet he had the reverse mode removed from his vehicle because he's
so opposed to backing up anything.

You sure talk a lot
> without saying anything.  Well, anything you can back up anyway.
>
> Keep tap dancing and whinging... it's the most interesting stuff you've
> posted in quite a while.
>

On 8/29/23 10:49 PM, A Friend wrote:
> In article <P66cnXn-k_UlKXP5nZ2dnZfqn_ednZ2d@giganews.com>, BTR1701
> <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>
>> On Aug 29, 2023 at 7:23:54 PM PDT, "A Friend" <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <atropos-D5252F.15411729082023@news.giganews.com>, BTR1701
>>> <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <290820231828241361%nope@noway.com>,
>>>> A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > In article <FuOcnZlJUf9X3HP5nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@giganews.com>, BTR1701
>>>> > <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > > A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>>>> > > > In article <uckq3i$28tfb$1@dont-email.me>, Ubiquitous
>>>> > > > <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > >> atropos@mac.com wrote:
>>>> > > >>> A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>>>> > > >>>> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>>>> > > >>>>> atropos@mac.com wrote:
>>>> > > >>>>>> A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>>>> > > >>>>>>> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>>> > > >>>>>
>>>> > > >>>>>>>> I'll bet you said exactly the same when the Dixie Chicks
>>>> > > >>>>>>>> were spouting there opinions too, right? Oh wait, they were
>>>> > > >>>>>>>> on the side of the angels so they get a pass. In fact they
>>>> > > >>>>>>>> got major kudos for "speaking truth to power", right?
>>>> > > >>>>>>>
>>>> > > >>>>>>> You've accused him here of saying something he in fact did
>>>> > > >>>>>>> not say, and then you attack him for having said it.
>>>> > > >>>>>>
>>>> > > >>>>>> Dude, look in the mirror. You've done that to me several times
>>>> > > >>>>>> over the last several months.
>>>> > > >>>>>
>>>> > > >>>>> #MeToo
>>>> > > >>>>
>>>> > > >>>> Still no cites from either of you. Of course, that's because I
>> didn't
>>>> > > >>>> do it.
>>>> > > >>>
>>>> > > >>> No, as I said earlier, I'm waiting for a guarantee from you that
>>>> > > >>> when
>>>> > > >>> cites are provided, you won't just say they don't count as you're
>>>> > > >>> wont
>>>> > > >>> to do.
>>>> > > >>
>>>> > > >> Yeah, good luck with that.
>>>> > > >> That's one of their main "debating" methods!
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > "Still no cites from either of you. Of course, that's because I
>>>> > > > didn't
>>>> > > > do it."
>>>> > >
>>>> > > That's because you still have yet to guarantee you won't say they
>>>> > > won't
>>>> > > 'count' if provided.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > Should be a simple thing to do. The fact that you're dancing around it
>>>> > > speaks volumes.
>>>> >
>>>> > Still no cites, yadda yadda yadda. *That* speaks volumes.
>>>>
>>>> Still no guarantee, yadda yadda yadda.
>>>
>>> This is your obsession, not mine. I'm not required to "guarantee" a
>>> thing here.
>>
>> You are if you want me to go to trouble to dig up the proof. Your previous
>> "those don't count because I don't read that newspaper, magazine, etc."
>> responses to citations you demanded have used up all the good will.
>>
>> You don't get the benefit of the doubt anymore.
>
>
> What doubt? I'm sure I've never said anything about the Dixie Chicks
> that was worth remembering. As for "those don't count because I don't
> read that newspaper, magazine, etc.," I have no idea what you're
> talking about.

Speaking of the Dixie Chicks, wasn't that just an early example of right
wing cancel culture?

> It doesn't matter to me (or anyone else here, I reckon) if you don't
> want to take the trouble to provide evidence that would prove your
> point. It's your credibility that's at stake, not mine.

In article <geEHM.669712$TCKc.376701@fx13.iad>, trotsky
<gmsingh@email.com> wrote:

> Speaking of the Dixie Chicks, wasn't that just an early example of right
> wing cancel culture?

It was. I don't have a good grasp on how much damage they suffered, or
if they've recovered at least somewhat from that, but they took a very
hard hit.