You accused me of lying, knowing full-well that I hadn't. Then after I explained to you why I hadn't lied, you came back and said I lied in my explanation. You never did explain that one ... just accused me of lying a second time. Bizarre.
This is patently a lie. I did not know whether you had lied, or were simply experiencing a brain fart, so i set out to see if i could determine that. Your explanations were bootless, and did not cover the quoted material, which is why i accused you of further lies. Again, i stand by that assessment.
Another accusation of lying from Setanta. Boy this comes easy for you, doesn't it? But upon review, it is evident that it is you who is lying.
After accusing me of lying, you came back later and admitted, "I did not in fact consider that a lie." Now you say you "didn't know" whether I had lied?
Let's take a look:
[quote="On Page 30 of the "A new low...even for liberal anti-war protesters" thread, Setanta"]It's not about winning. Tico made a stupid mistake in his initial characterization of my remark. He's been backpedaling furiously since then. Unable to support the substance of his stupid error, but also unable for his pride's sake to acknowlege any error, he's simply piled on more feeble justification.
On page 24, I wrote:
Ah, the conservatives do love diversion and false analogies. Miss Healy's son died in a worthy cause in what has properly been seen since the outset as the war on terrorism--in Afghanistan. That is not the case with the son of Miss Sheehan.
This apparently rankled, because . . .
On page 28, Tico wrote:
I did not in fact consider that a lie, just a sloppy, gross error on his part, because he was so eager to smear me for an hypocricy which was not in fact supported by the text.[/color]
Because we're talking about Ms. Sheehan, not Bush. But I see your point. Why, then, did you accuse me of diversion when I posted the view of a mother who lost her son in the military who did not think Sheehan spoke for her. That's precisely on point. A different grieving mother with the same "moral authority" as Sheehan telling her to put a sock in it. If you felt so inclined, you might have pointed out a distinction to be made in that the son of the mother who is the subject of the article I posted did not die in Iraq, but you instead chose to accuse me of diversion and false analogy.
Now, embarrassed, but too proud, and too motivated by partisan contempt to admit he's made an error, he abandons his normal terse style to marshall entire regiments of words, in a failed attempt to justify his error. In the first instance, i don't in fact consider that he lied--he just stumbled badly. Since then however, all his unsuccessful attempts to change the meaning of what he wrote with long-winded justification constitutes an extended lie.
I'll not clutter the thread with this any longer, and i have lost what little respect i previously had for Tico's contribution.
This entire discussion from the time Miss Sheehan was introduced has been a typical diversion--the topic of the thread is a handful of pathetic protesters at a hospital. No one seems to remember that in their passion to attack one another. Y'all have nice lives . . .[/quote]
I've highlighted the important part for emphasis. So you accused me of lying, came back and said you never did think I was lying, and now claim you didn't know whether I was lying ... and can accuse ME of lying yet again? LOL.
Which is it, Setanta? Were you lying then, or are you lying now?
I'm not saying that, but I am saying that your anecdote of the two non-aggressive pits didn't do the trick.
Which is why i went looking for the data which i knew was there to back up my position. I long voluteered in the Bondville Animal Shelter, which serves Champaign County, Illinois, home to the University of Illinois. University towns are notorious for abandoned animals, and untrained dangerous animals--many college students love to have a "cool" dog or cat, but find them a burden upon graduation, and dump them--sometimes in the country, but often just in an alley on the other side of town. We dealt with those animals on a regular basis, and put down about five or six adult dogs a day--we had no choice, as we couldn't house or feed them, and the state required us to destroy any animals for whom we could not provide minimum standards of shelter and feeding. When i worked at Southern Illinois University, i lived in the country outside of town. A friend i made there used to go out along the roads with a rifle, and shoot the feral cats and dogs which abounded there, having been abandoned by the college students. It was an act of pure mercy on his part--when brought to shelters, they are typically malnourished, often starving, and almost invariably disease- and parasite-ridden.
What the hell does your volunteering at an animal shelter have to do with the issue of whether pit bulls are dangerous dogs?
It might be snide and belittling -- and you deserve every bit that is -- but it's not inaccurate.
It was completely inaccurate--it was patently a lie.
Another accusation of lying from Set the liar, to be given the consideration it deserves. Your credibility is in the toilet at this stage.