CREEPY SOCIAL MEDIA

No, not 3, but 4 or 5.
As I remember, I posted about 5.
U distorted what I said.





O, yes. Comrade Murray was VOCAL in his support for Stalin.
On summer evenings, he woud not shut up about it.







Again, u twist
and distort my post, Setanta. U r good at that, from doing it so much.
I was in a state of alarm, not "in tears" as u falsely allege.
I did not need to run home, in that I was standing in my driveway
when he scandalized me. I just went inside, hoping for a denial,
which, sadly was not forthcoming. (I knew not of the 2nd Amendment for the next 4 years.)






WHAT is your reasoning????
When it happened, no one considered it strange nor weird.
He was anti-gun and he asserted his approval of the Sullivan Law.
U think that 's implausible. We conversed very ofen; he was my next door neighbor.

At the age of about 5, I had several imitation revolvers visibly
in my possession; he took notice of them and made that comment.






I did NOT say that I was a virgin at the time. U just made that up, Setanta.

If I understand u accurately, it is YOUR position (implied position)
that teenaged girls (17) and women in their early 2Os cannot
have any erotic interest in boys of 11.

Unless u claim to have met me and SEEN me when I was 11,
and from that, u know that my appearance was so bad
that no female coud POSSIBLY have any attraction to me, your position is illogical.






That 's a damn lie, Setanta,
from a damn liar. I did not change any "details".
I challenge u to prove your lie. U cannot.
U will claim that u just don't feel like it,
but u cannot because I have not changed anything.





Yeah, u wanna just hit and run
because u need to run from your lies.
It coud be possible that maybe I will follow u
and haunt u in A2K, pointing out your lies against me.
We know that your malice is only born of MY support of personal liberty
and your loathing of freedom, in favor of collectivist-authoritarianism.


Hitting and running is DISHONORABLE, Setanta.


I guess that for liberals, being DISHONORABLE and untruthful is perfectly OK; standard operating procedure.





David

Why should liberals be held to a higher standard than the conservatives are dwelling at?

Liberalism involves DEVIATION from something,
as distinct from orthodoxy, or from literalism.
I brought that up in an effort to provoke Setanta.





David

Raamen, bro.

I don't need sermons about honor from the likes of you--i've addressed your obvious lies more than once, and i'll not feed the trolls.

Do you have anything relevant to say on the subject of social media, especially in regard to its use by children? If not, don't waste the band width here.

"David happens."

I hear that . . .

That 's a LIE, Setanta,
except when u have been equally vague and general in your defamations, with NO evidence.

I challenge u on your personal veracity:
show us when u have offered evidence that I
was inconsistent in describing these incidents: u CANNOT and u WILL NOT.

LIAR !

If I really HAD changed details in describing these incidents,
then that really woud be evidence that I had been untruthful.
So u just lie about it in a completely vague and general way
with NOT the slightest iota of any trace of such evidence in your effort to defame me.

The more I think about it, the more I like the idea
of bringing this up repeatedly, on a continuing basis, to embarrass u
with your defamatory lies. U shoud be ASHAMED of yourself,
ostensibly a man of learning,
preferring to attack someone on an ad hominem basis
rather than to address differences of philosophy, on the actual merits.



I do. Yes. I will post on that.
I 'm giving u notice NOW, that unless u APOLOGIZE
and unless u ADMIT that I have NOT been inconsistent
in describing those incidents (either that, or prove that u r correct)
I will begin a long-term practice of raising the question of your
personal veracity -- the ABSENCE thereof-- frequently,
VERY frequently, pointing out your hypocritical prevarication,
mendacity, deception, personal dishonesty and fraud.
I will say it to your face, in posts directed to u.

I will TRUTHFULLY, always TRUTHFULLY, mention it in posts to other people,
on threads to which u have posted
and on threads to which u have not posted.
Maybe I 'll START some threads on the topic of your dishonesty.
(Please note that u r MORE than welcome to retaliate in kind; I 'd LOVE that.)

I will TRUTHFULLY point out to everyone
the moral vacancy that is Setanta, and your bad character in dishonestly defaming me.
I will TRUTHFULLY, always TRUTHFULLY, have fun with u.
Let 's see how creative I can be (always consistent with the truth).

Note that I am not assuming a DUTY to bring it up in every single post.
It coud be possible that a few might slip thru without my bringing up your dishonesty.
I 'll try to keep those to a minimum.




If u explain your reasoning,
showing any implausibility in regard to these incidents
and
if u show inconsistencies in my descriptions of these incidents,
then I might re-consider my plans.

If not, then u can accept this as my Declaration of FUN on u;
truthful fun, always truthful !



I 'd rather resolve this quickly and amicably.






Setanta: I don 't take orders from U.





David

Do you have anything relevant to say on the subject of social media, especially in regard to its use by children? If not, don't waste the band width here.

I do, O, dishonest one:
the First Amendment has no age limits on it.
All citizens have the same rights of free speech.

In the interest of safety, when using social media
people of all ages shoud not reveal personal information (e.g., no street addresses).

Women and children might wish to observe caution
qua meeting anyone in the real world,
in contemplation of the fact that this has had lethal results
in some cases (as it probably did before the Internet was invented).

(Forgive me for getting off to a slow start.)





David

Thank you, O shameless liar. I really have no need to read your implausible stories again and again, and prefer something on topic.

O, most foul defamer,
u know damn well that u 'd find nothing to support your lies.
U r just not enuf of a man to admit it.
U DO have a need to do so, to wit:
to save your reputation for honesty.
As of now, everyone knows that u r very rude & abrasive, verbally an ugly brute,
but u have not yet become known as a liar (so far as I am aware).


R u alleging that my last post was OFF TOPIC??
It concerned use of social media.





David

Hey liar, i'm not intested in your self-serving delusions. Do you have anything relevant to say on the subject of social media, especially in regard to its use by children? If not, don't waste the band width here.

Oh, and i did want to thank you for absolutely trashing this thread with your peurile, self-centered maundering and your attempt to marshall a pack of lies to make yourself look wise and important. What would i do without you?

Yeah, what a shame as it is such an important topic - for all of us who are concerned about children.

Defining trolls in a way that every one of the reasonable posters can accept is an impossibility. So, the trolls, they rolls, unabated.

You're right, edgar. We have to try to ignore whomever we consider a troll -
which is quite individually perceived here.

I have no qualms about putting posters who make my a2k experience unpleasant on ignore. This does not mean that I do not like some of the ignored. I just don't need the constant turmoil.

U keep SAYING THAT, over and over like a broken record.

Here it is AGAIN. R u blind, as well as deceptive???

SECOND PRINTING:

" I do, O, dishonest one:
the First Amendment has no age limits on it.
All citizens have the same rights of free speech.

In the interest of safety, when using social media
people of all ages shoud not reveal personal information (e.g., no street addresses).

Women and children might wish to observe caution
qua meeting anyone in the real world,
in contemplation of the fact that this has had lethal results
in some cases (as it probably did before the Internet was invented).

(Forgive me for getting off to a slow start.)





David "

Well, and it apparently has not sunk in with everyone here that the subject is social media and children and how it can affect them. I can't do anything about that, though, and don't intend to worry about it.