Re: They actual truth is that ...

On 10/10/2024 8:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/10/24 6:19 PM, olcott wrote:

On 10/10/2024 2:26 PM, wij wrote:

On Thu, 2024-10-10 at 17:05 +0000, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote:

On 2024-10-09 19:34:34 +0000, Alan Mackenzie said:

>

Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> wrote:

On 10/8/24 8:49 AM, Andy Walker wrote:

... after a short break.

>

     Richard -- no-one sane carries on an extended discussion with
someone they [claim to] consider a "stupid liar".  So which are you?
Not sane?  Or stupid enough to try to score points off someone who is
incapable of conceding them?  Or lying when you describe Peter? You
must surely have better things to do.  Meanwhile, you surely noticed
that Peter is running rings around you.

>

In other words, you don't understand the concept of defense of the truth.

>

Maybe, but continuously calling your debating opponent a liar, and doing
so in oversized upper case, goes beyond truth and comes perilously close
to stalking.

>

Calling a liar a liar is fully justified. I don't know how often it
needs be done but readers of a liar may want to know that they are
reading a liar.

>
We know Peter Olcott has lied in things that matter.  However, I believe
his continual falsehoods are more a matter of delusion than mendacity.
As Mike Terry has said, OP's intellectual capacity is low.  Calling him
a liar in virtually every post is, I think, unwarranted.
>

It detracts from the substance of your posts, and makes
them, for me at least, thoroughly unpleasant to read.

>

You probably needn't read them.

>
As I said, I mostly don't - which is a pity, since Richard Damon often
posts stuff worth reading.
>

As soon you find out that they repeat the same over and over, neither
correcting their substantial errors nor improving their arguments you
have read enough.

>

-- Mikko

>
olcott deliberately lies (he knows what is told, he choose to distort). olcott

>
When the behavior of DDD emulated by HHH is the measure then:

>
But since it isn't, your whole argument falls apart.
>

 Ah a breakthrough.