Setanta wrote:Ticomaya wrote:And you made an assumption. You also failed to address why you calling someone ignorant is not similarly "name-calling."
It was no assumption, it was the direct and clear understanding of what you wrote. You wrote nothing about my treatment of others. You just trot that out after the fact to attempt to justify your name calling. I did not call anyone in this thread or any other ignorant. I pointed out in another thread that claiming that a President can force UN sponsored gun control on the United States is an example of ignorance. The member in question may well be well-informed on many topics, but obviously not in such a matter as that.
Nope, pure assumption on your part. If you took offense it was merely because of your exceedingly thin skin. (Note: I'm referring to your skin, not you.)
Following a post from Baldimo, you replied: "
A stunning display of ignorance." Apparently you contend this does not equate to calling Baldimo "ignorant." And, again, I fail to see the difference between that, and my referring to your belly as a "stunning display of girth." I didn't call you fat, but you catch my drift.
Quote:Quote:I never said my contention proved my case, but it met my burden of production and moved the burden of proof from me over to you. I have made a prima facia showing. Your refusal to respond at this point means you lose by default.
There is no "winning" or "losing" here. You made a contention, and you have failed to demonstrate the truth of your contention. I don't have anything to prove--i made no contention about the relative honesty of anyone. You did, and you've not proven your case.
But when in a court of law, there is a "winner" and a "loser," and if a party meets their burden of persuasion, and the other party presents nothing in rebuttal, they lose.
You haven't proven Bush to be a liar, yet not only can I prove Clinton to be a liar, I can prove that he admits to being a liar, and I can prove that he lied
under oath. You have provided nothing of substance in response. As I said, you lose.
Quote:Quote:You're running. Either provide something of substance to this thread or move on. Your just taking up space as it is.
No, i've not run. I've provided as much substance as this pathetic attempt to derail this thread constitutes. You made a contention, and you have not supported your contention.
The only one attempting to derail the thread it you, in a pathetic display of hypocrisy.
Quote:Quote:And I suppose you think "whatever passes for a brain in your head" is not an insult? What a pathetic display you're putting on.
That is high praise indeed, coming from the master of pathetic displays. You made a contention,and you have failed to support your contention.
Nice comeback.
Quote:Quote:Why you're here remains a mystery.
So now you assume the mantle of Judge of Relevance? Why are you here, Tico. Why do you continue these exchanges if you are so devoted to relevance to the topic? You have made a contention, and you have failed to support your contention.
Excellent question. You're obviously going to dodge any attempt on my part to goad you into providing anything of substance, and you're apparently unwilling to either "put up" or "shut up." So I guess my continuing to post serves only to highlight your pathetic showing in this thread.
I'm safe in saying that it must be proved the person intended to deceive before perjury kicks in.
