@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
sceletera wrote:oralloy wrote:My error about "mental illness" verses "mental disability" does not justify a claim that I've made other untrue statements.
I certainly didn't make that claim.
"
Did you deny you were wrong about other things that I have shown you to be wrong about? Yes."
http://able2know.org/topic/131081-70#post-6603457
That statement of mine has nothing to do with all your errors being based on your confusion of mental illness and mental disability. I have pointed out other errors on your part that have nothing to do with that.
Quote:
sceletera wrote:I listed 4 other instances of you telling untruths with citations of why they were untrue.
So you did make that claim.
sceletera wrote:None of them relied on your error of "mental illness" versus "mental disability".
In Post: # 6,603,680 I complained about your above-quoted claim about alleged
other instances of my being wrong.
In Post: # 6,603,799 you responded to my complaint by repeatedly citing my error about mental illness verses mental disability.
http://able2know.org/topic/131081-70#post-6603799
sceletera wrote:Here they are again. They stand on their own and clearly point to your statements being untrue according to facts.
My error about "mental illness" verses "mental disability" does not justify a claim that I've made
other untrue statements.
You are simply repeating your confusion here. Let's go through the other 4 untruths I pointed out. All of them are proven untrue without even considering mental illness vs mental disability.
Quote:2.)
oralloy wrote:No. The rule covered everyone who receives social security checks and can't handle their financials. No limitations to mental illness.
No, the rule did not cover everyone.
Quote:(4) Has attained age 18, but has not
attained full retirement age; and
ibid. Page 91714
It exempted everyone under 18 and those that had reached retirement age. (Retirement is different based on when a person was born.)
That is even before we get to the other tests for who is adjudicated as a mental defective.
Let me make the statement large so you can see it. Your claim highlighted in blue is untrue because no one over the age 66 or under the age of 18 is subject to the regulation. We can ignore any reference to mental disability or mental illness to prove your statement to be untrue. The fact that you mention mental illness in the next sentence is irrelevant and has nothing to do with the lack of veracity in the blue sentence. "everyone who receives social security checks" was your statement. It is disproven by pointing out a group of people that receive social security checks not subject to the regulation.
Quote:3.)
oralloy wrote:Nope. I post facts. You're the one who is ignoring them.
Your statement about the rule covering everyone is clearly not a fact. This comment was referring to that statement.
This is based on #2. Your untrue statement of only posting facts is disproven without relying on your confusion of mental illness and mental disability.
Quote:4.)
oralloy wrote:No such focus. It covered people who receive Social Security for any reason, if they do not handle their own finances.
This statement is also not true. The first requirement is
Quote:(1) Has filed a claim based on
disability;
ibid Page 91714
Only those that have filed a disability claim are covered under the regulation
Once again, your statement, highlighted in blue, about SS recipients is untrue. People receive SS for retirement, survivor benefits, disabilities that are not classified as mental disabilities. Retirees who have not filed for disability would not be covered under the regulation. Survivors under the age of 18 would not be covered. Your statement is untrue for many reasons.
Quote:sceletera wrote:Your statement contains 2 untruths. The EO vs executive action confusion is only one of them.
Unless it really was an executive order and you are the one who is wrong.
At the moment it is still unclear which of us is wrong.
It's actually quite clear which of us is correct on this. A search of this website revealed you have not linked to any EO. A search of the Obama EOs reveal there is no EO that deals with SS and guns. Your refusal to provide any supporting evidence for your opinion speaks volumes. Denial in the face of facts doesn't do you any service. There is no question you are wrong on it. Your denial only proves my previous statement to be true about how you will deny you were wrong even when shown you are.
Quote:sceletera wrote:You claimed to have repeatedly linked to it. The failure to find any link to whitehouse.gov posted by you shows your statement about linking to it repeatedly to be an untruth.
No. All that shows is that you failed to find my post. It doesn't show that I didn't make the post.
Actually, it does start to prove my point by the weight of the evidence. A search for "whitehouse.gov" reveals many pages of results. A search for "oralloy" reveals many pages of results. A search for "oralloy" & "whitehouse.gov" reveals one page of results and none of the results are you linking to an EO. You deny but don't provide any evidence to back up your denials. It would be easy to prove you have linked to the EO by providing evidence if you had actually done it.
Quote:sceletera wrote:If you wish to show this is not an untruth on your part you can falsify it by providing 2 instances of your linking to a statement or an EO by Obama on whitehouse.gov. Those instances must be before today's date and specific about the SS regulation.
True. But I'm not sure I really want to spend a lot of time searching for years-old posts when I can't see why it even matters.
Are you going to pay me for the time I spend searching?
I don't need to pay you. Your failure to do it shows you to be a liar that doesn't care if everyone knows he lied.
