God is a Fake

[SurveyMack10]

You were obviously implying my beliefs in God were nonsense since that is what we were discussing, denying it is a technicality and basically a lie.

An implication, (which is open to interpretation since is is not an explicit claim), is not equivalent to making an explicit claim.  If it were, I could simply greet a neighbor with a "good morning" and he'd be free to interpret that as a grave insult which resulted in inaccurately characterizing my greeting as hostile.  Back to your sophist conclusion that the distinction between "implicit" and "explicit" is some sort of "technicality and basically a lie"; this is another of your false conclusions based upon a faulty premise.  As there IS a valid distinction between "implicit" and "explicit" claims, this is no mere technicality, (therefore, your premise is false).  Since your premise is false, the fabricated conclusion you based it on is false.  Secondarily, you false conclusion that I lied is, itself, a lie.  You do have an established propensity for lying, as can be easily requoted from two D+D threads, (and thus, substantiated).  Is this complusive or, pathological for you?

When you said nonsense you were referring to my God. Anyone who reads that post can see that for themselves, therefore your attempt at using a technicality to prove your point has failed.

[SurveyMack10]

He has many times accused me of believing in something that cannot be substantiated and on another thread compared God to invisible unicorns

Since you've repeatedly obfuscated the distinction between whether or not your "belief" is real and whether or not _what_ that belief is in is real, clarification was sought.  Only _after_ your contention that you "believe god is real" was the burden of proof to substantiate your claim that "god is real" established.  As to the unicorn analogy, you misrepresent what the analogy described; which was a comparison of 'belief itself' and _not_ particularly in WHAT was being believed in.  This distinction has been intentionally blurred by "SurveyMack10" in her attempts at deception.

It isn't the equivalent of making an implicit claim just because you incorrectly interpret the analogy that way.  As you conceded, it also does not constitute an explicit claim therefore, I am not required to support a claim never made.

In the quote you provided he openly claimed that belief in God is a "baseless belief"

Quote where I "openly claimed that belief in god is a baseless belief" or, own your lie.

I am not claiming God is or is not real, I believe He is, but I did not get on this thread and start asserting that I am right and everyone else is wrong. I am simply asking the person who claimed it was a fact that God does not exist to prove it.

Stating a belief that something is "real" is the same thing a claiming something is real.  There is no need to overtly assert that such a claim is "right" since making a claim one believes is tacitly wrong would be even more irrational than going around making unsubstantiated claims which rest upon baseless belief.  Regardless, you are again requesting that someone else prove a negative.  This isn't how reasoning works; it is however, how those who eschew reasoning work.  It's a sad state of affairs but, since the original claim/belief that "god(s)" exist remains unsubstantiated, it's a moot point.

Yes, as the quote clearly shows, (no need for "SurveyMack10" to reinterpret it to force-fit it into her false assertion); the statement emphasizes that the _basis_ for an unspecified belief is not substantiated, (it relies upon "faith", which is equally baseless in that "faith" is that for which there is no evidence).  It also re-emphasizes the contention that those who made the Initial claim that "god exists" by asserting that they "believe that god exists", (whether or not the that person's "belief" exists is irrelavent), continue to fail to substantiate such an initial claim.  By dodging this and demanding that opposing arguments instead substantiate a negative, ("prove that god doesn't exist"), those who hope such dodging constitutes 'debate' are sadly mistaken.

I provided direct quotes as to where you referred to my belief in God as a baseless belief and as nonsense, yes you still assert that I have not - you seem desperate for a way out of this debate and cannot find one without admitting that you did make the assertion that my God is not real, and therefore can be called on to prove such a claim. Your attempts at evading this are amusing to watch though.

[falcon9]

You were obviously implying my beliefs in God were nonsense since that is what we were discussing, denying it is a technicality and basically a lie.

An implication, (which is open to interpretation since is is not an explicit claim), is not equivalent to making an explicit claim.  If it were, I could simply greet a neighbor with a "good morning" and he'd be free to interpret that as a grave insult which resulted in inaccurately characterizing my greeting as hostile.  Back to your sophist conclusion that the distinction between "implicit" and "explicit" is some sort of "technicality and basically a lie"; this is another of your false conclusions based upon a faulty premise.  As there IS a valid distinction between "implicit" and "explicit" claims, this is no mere technicality, (therefore, your premise is false).  Since your premise is false, the fabricated conclusion you based it on is false.  Secondarily, you false conclusion that I lied is, itself, a lie.  You do have an established propensity for lying, as can be easily requoted from two D+D threads, (and thus, substantiated).  Is this complusive or, pathological for you?

When you said nonsense you were referring to my God. Anyone who reads that post can see that for themselves, therefore your attempt at using a technicality to prove your point has failed.

As shown in the text quoted, the reasoning used does not constitute a "technicality" despite your continued insistance upon this falsehood.  As for your 'interpretation', (based upon that false premise), the "nonsense" referred to was to the "belief" itself, as repeated clarified and ignored by you.  The pattern you've established by way of your own words in at least two D+D threads has been to obfuscate, ignore challenges to claims you made, lie, attempt to divert the debate away from you not supporting your claims and launch specious counter-attacks in lieu of rebuttal.  This pattern is readily shown by your quoted replies and does not rely upon interpretations, but rather upon your direct statements.

[SurveyMack10]

As shown in the text quoted, the reasoning used does not constitute a "technicality" despite your continued insistance upon this falsehood.  As for your 'interpretation', (based upon that false premise), the "nonsense" referred to was to the "belief" itself, as repeated clarified and ignored by you.  The pattern you've established by way of your own words in at least two D+D threads has been to obfuscate, ignore challenges to claims you made, lie, attempt to divert the debate away from you not supporting your claims and launch specious counter-attacks in lieu of rebuttal.  This pattern is readily shown by your quoted replies and does not rely upon interpretations, but rather upon your direct statements.

You just admitted that "the nonsense referred to was the belief itself"- that belief being God. Therefore you admitted referring to my belief in God as nonsense.

[falcon9]

Since you've repeatedly obfuscated the distinction between whether or not your "belief" is real and whether or not _what_ that belief is in is real, clarification was sought.  Only _after_ your contention that you "believe god is real" was the burden of proof to substantiate your claim that "god is real" established.  As to the unicorn analogy, you misrepresent what the analogy described; which was a comparison of 'belief itself' and _not_ particularly in WHAT was being believed in.  This distinction has been intentionally blurred by "SurveyMack10" in her attempts at deception.

It isn't the equivalent of making an implicit claim just because you incorrectly interpret the analogy that way.  As you conceded, it also does not constitute an explicit claim therefore, I am not required to support a claim never made.

In the quote you provided he openly claimed that belief in God is a "baseless belief"

Quote where I "openly claimed that belief in god is a baseless belief" or, own your lie.

I am not claiming God is or is not real, I believe He is, but I did not get on this thread and start asserting that I am right and everyone else is wrong. I am simply asking the person who claimed it was a fact that God does not exist to prove it.

Stating a belief that something is "real" is the same thing a claiming something is real.  There is no need to overtly assert that such a claim is "right" since making a claim one believes is tacitly wrong would be even more irrational than going around making unsubstantiated claims which rest upon baseless belief.  Regardless, you are again requesting that someone else prove a negative.  This isn't how reasoning works; it is however, how those who eschew reasoning work.  It's a sad state of affairs but, since the original claim/belief that "god(s)" exist remains unsubstantiated, it's a moot point.

Yes, as the quote clearly shows, (no need for "SurveyMack10" to reinterpret it to force-fit it into her false assertion); the statement emphasizes that the _basis_ for an unspecified belief is not substantiated, (it relies upon "faith", which is equally baseless in that "faith" is that for which there is no evidence).  It also re-emphasizes the contention that those who made the Initial claim that "god exists" by asserting that they "believe that god exists", (whether or not the that person's "belief" exists is irrelavent), continue to fail to substantiate such an initial claim.  By dodging this and demanding that opposing arguments instead substantiate a negative, ("prove that god doesn't exist"), those who hope such dodging constitutes 'debate' are sadly mistaken.
[/quote]

I provided direct quotes as to where you referred to my belief in God as a baseless belief and as nonsense, yes you still assert that I have not

That's because the quote actually states, "... going around making unsubstantiated claims which rest upon baseless belief ... " and _not_ the direct or explicit claim you asserted.  Therefore, you did NOT provide a direct quote of mine claiming a specific belief of yours was baseless; instead, you provided a quote stating that you made an unsubstantiated claim and tried to base it on "belief".

- you seem desperate for a way out of this debate and cannot find one ...[/claim]

On the contrary, your various weak prevarications strongly suggest a hypocritical degree of desparation.  Regardless of such repeated failed attempts of yours of diversion, prevarication and ironic evasions you keep trying to use them.

Your attempts at evading this are amusing to watch though.

Your hypocrisy is unamusing.

[falcon9]

As shown in the text quoted, the reasoning used does not constitute a "technicality" despite your continued insistance upon this falsehood.  As for your 'interpretation', (based upon that false premise), the "nonsense" referred to was to the "belief" itself, as repeated clarified and ignored by you.  The pattern you've established by way of your own words in at least two D+D threads has been to obfuscate, ignore challenges to claims you made, lie, attempt to divert the debate away from you not supporting your claims and launch specious counter-attacks in lieu of rebuttal.  This pattern is readily shown by your quoted replies and does not rely upon interpretations, but rather upon your direct statements.

You just admitted that "the nonsense referred to was the belief itself"- that belief being God. Therefore you admitted referring to my belief in God as nonsense.

Once again, the context was and is, 'belief itself', not _what_ is allegedly believed in, (not "The" belief itself - although I realize that either this distinction escapes you entirely or, you're being intentionally obstuse).  Therefore, I "admitted" no such thing and I'd greatly appreciate it if you'd cease this endless faulty translation of what I actually state into some skewed version you fervently wish I had meant. 

[SurveyMack10]

As shown in the text quoted, the reasoning used does not constitute a "technicality" despite your continued insistance upon this falsehood.  As for your 'interpretation', (based upon that false premise), the "nonsense" referred to was to the "belief" itself, as repeated clarified and ignored by you.  The pattern you've established by way of your own words in at least two D+D threads has been to obfuscate, ignore challenges to claims you made, lie, attempt to divert the debate away from you not supporting your claims and launch specious counter-attacks in lieu of rebuttal.  This pattern is readily shown by your quoted replies and does not rely upon interpretations, but rather upon your direct statements.

You just admitted that "the nonsense referred to was the belief itself"- that belief being God. Therefore you admitted referring to my belief in God as nonsense.

Once again, the context was and is, 'belief itself', not _what_ is allegedly believed in, (not "The" belief itself - although I realize that either this distinction escapes you entirely or, you're being intentionally obstuse).  Therefore, I "admitted" no such thing and I'd greatly appreciate it if you'd cease this endless faulty translation of what I actually state into some skewed version you fervently wish I had meant. 

The belief we were discussing is God, therefore the belief itself IS God.

[falcon9]

The belief we were discussing is God, therefore the belief itself IS God.

Once again, the analogy was comparing _belief_ itself, (NOT in _what_ was being believed in), by substituting the _what_ in order to emphasize that the "belief" itself was irrational.  Any false conclusions _you_ fabricate are not ones I'm obligated to refute.

The pattern you've established by way of your own words in at least two D+D threads has been to obfuscate, ignore challenges to claims you made, lie, attempt to divert the debate away from you not supporting your claims and launch specious counter-attacks in lieu of rebuttal.  This pattern is readily shown by your quoted replies and does not rely upon interpretations, but rather upon your direct statements.

[SurveyMack10]

The belief we were discussing is God, therefore the belief itself IS God.

Once again, the analogy was comparing _belief_ itself, (NOT in _what_ was being believed in), by substituting the _what_ in order to emphasize that the "belief" itself was irrational.  Any false conclusions _you_ fabricate are not ones I'm obligated to refute.

The pattern you've established by way of your own words in at least two D+D threads has been to obfuscate, ignore challenges to claims you made, lie, attempt to divert the debate away from you not supporting your claims and launch specious counter-attacks in lieu of rebuttal.  This pattern is readily shown by your quoted replies and does not rely upon interpretations, but rather upon your direct statements.

I made 2 claims-
1) that I believe in God (not that he is real by fact)
2) that you asserted that God was not real (as you have now admitted to comparing Him to unicorns you have proven that you did assert that He is not real)
I have answered the challenges you made to both of these claims by
1) Proving that I do believe in God (by telling you)
2)Showing where you compared God to unicorns (by quoting you and also getting you to admit comparing "the belief" in God to such invisible unicorns- this comparison is equivalent to asserting that God does not exist depsite your attempt to use a technicality as support that it is not)

I have not lied.
I have not attempted to divert the debate away from any claim as I answered all challenges to my claims (shown above)

My direct statements have been truthful and any comment made otherwise by you is false. Whether or not something is truthful is not an opinion, so unless you are ready to show me where I lied then do not make that claim again.


If you feel that I have not answered any challenges to a claim please state so DIRECTLY (do not dance around the issue as you have been) and I will answer that claim now.

[falcon9]

I made 2 claims-
1) that I believe in God (not that he is real by fact)

Then by inference, if your belief is _in_ something which you are not contending is "real", your belief is _in_ something which isn't real.  This inference does not constitute a contending claim on my part as it follows logically from your admitted claim.

2) that you asserted that God was not real

This claim from you has been proven to be false therefore, you did lie.

I have answered the challenges you made to both of these claims by
1) Proving that I do believe in God (by telling you)

That wasn't the challenge; that was you failed attempt at misdirection.  The challenge was not to prove whether or not you _have_ any particular belief but, that you failed to substantiate _what_ that belief was in.  You therefore failed to answer the actual challenge, as opposed to the one you fabricated.

I have not lied.

Your own words betray your lie.  "you asserted that God was not real" - SurveyMack10

I have not attempted to divert the debate away from any claim as I answered all challenges to my claims (shown above)

There are numerous examples of your attempts to divert this discussion, (it is only half debate since I have been debating and you have been diverting), which can be requoted for you to ignore again.  Therefore, your contention that you have not attempted to divert is once again betrayed by your own words.

My direct statements have been truthful and any comment made otherwise by you is false.

Your flat denial with nothing but your unsupported opinion is false and thus, you've lied again, (and once again provided evidence of your lie here).  Further, your bare assertion that "any comment made otherwise by you is false" is an empty (unsupported) accusation.  There is abundant evidence consisting of your own words to support the contention that you make many unsupported claims.

Whether or not something is truthful is not an opinion, so unless you are ready to show me where I lied then do not make that claim again.

Since I have demonstrated where and how you've lied, (by quoting your exact words, without 'translating' them as you are wont to do), I choose not to comply with your 'terrorist demands' to cease making you eat your own words.  You're a proven hypocrit, prevaricator, liar and maker of unsupported claims.  It's probably far too late to 'stick a fork in you' because you've been done (and overdone) for awhile.


If you feel that I have not answered any challenges to a claim please state so DIRECTLY (do not dance around the issue as you have been) and I will answer that claim now.
[/quote]

[SurveyMack10]

I made 2 claims-
1) that I believe in God (not that he is real by fact)

Then by inference, if your belief is _in_ something which you are not contending is "real", your belief is _in_ something which isn't real.  This inference does not constitute a contending claim on my part as it follows logically from your admitted claim.

2) that you asserted that God was not real

This claim from you has been proven to be false therefore, you did lie.

I have answered the challenges you made to both of these claims by
1) Proving that I do believe in God (by telling you)

That wasn't the challenge; that was you failed attempt at misdirection.  The challenge was not to prove whether or not you _have_ any particular belief but, that you failed to substantiate _what_ that belief was in.  You therefore failed to answer the actual challenge, as opposed to the one you fabricated.

I have not lied.

Your own words betray your lie.  "you asserted that God was not real" - SurveyMack10

I have not attempted to divert the debate away from any claim as I answered all challenges to my claims (shown above)

There are numerous examples of your attempts to divert this discussion, (it is only half debate since I have been debating and you have been diverting), which can be requoted for you to ignore again.  Therefore, your contention that you have not attempted to divert is once again betrayed by your own words.

My direct statements have been truthful and any comment made otherwise by you is false.

Your flat denial with nothing but your unsupported opinion is false and thus, you've lied again, (and once again provided evidence of your lie here).  Further, your bare assertion that "any comment made otherwise by you is false" is an empty (unsupported) accusation.  There is abundant evidence consisting of your own words to support the contention that you make many unsupported claims.

Whether or not something is truthful is not an opinion, so unless you are ready to show me where I lied then do not make that claim again.

Since I have demonstrated where and how you've lied, (by quoting your exact words, without 'translating' them as you are wont to do), I choose not to comply with your 'terrorist demands' to cease making you eat your own words.  You're a proven hypocrit, prevaricator, liar and maker of unsupported claims.  It's probably far too late to 'stick a fork in you' because you've been done (and overdone) for awhile.


If you feel that I have not answered any challenges to a claim please state so DIRECTLY (do not dance around the issue as you have been) and I will answer that claim now.

[/quote]

Claiming to believe in something is not the same as claiming it as fact. It is simply me saying I choose to believe in something (as I am free to do). I am not claiming it as fact and am acknowledging your choice to believe otherwise. I am not claiming God is real or not real, simply that I believe in him by choice. Point being, I am not trying to convince you of God’s existence as I cannot even pretend to care about your religious faith as it has no bearing on my life (as mine has no bearing on yours although you act as if it is offensive for me to have religious faith). So, to summarize my claim is that I BELIEVE IN GOD it is not that GOD IS REAL therefore I have proven that I believe in God, I  have not proven that God is real because I have not made that claim.

Furthermore, if you are going to assert that by saying that I believe in God that I am claiming God is real then you are also asserting that when you claim belief is nonsense that you are claiming the belief in God to be nonsense. ( you cannot have it both ways) If I cannot claim to believe in God and without claiming he is real then you cannot claim belief is nonsense and say you were not referring to any belief at all but belief in general.

You equated God with invisible unicorns, so unless you are saying that invisible unicorns are real then you did assert that God is not real simply by equating Him with invisible unicorns. Therefore, I did not lie.

You say that I must prove that God exists. I know that you REQUESTED that I prove that God exists. However, since I never claimed that he exists I do not bear that burden. Therefore, I did not fail to answer any challenges to any CLAIMS THAT I MADE. I may have failed at a challenge to a claim I did not make, but since I did not EVER claim on this thread that God is real I do not have to prove his existence.

I have not lied as I proved were you asserted that God was not real multiple times, you just choose to ignore it and divert the attention away from being proven wrong by using technical terms that you feel are impressive but actually are not and can easily be recognized as a defense tactic.

Stating an opinion does not require proven evidence. I have openly stated that my belief in God is simply a personal choice. Holding this opinion does not require me to prove his existence to you as I am not claiming that he is real, simply that I choose to believe in him. You said that I lied by making unsubstantiated opinions. This does not make sense as opinions are simply that, opinions.

To summarize
-you did NOT prove that I lied as I have not lied.
(all you have proved is that anytime you disagree with an opinion of mine you call it a lie.)
-you did not prove that I was  a hypocrite and actually did not even address that issue so adding that into your closing statement was based on no support shown in your argument
-I am not a (prevaricator, liar, and maker of unsupported claims) for all the reasons stated above. Also, it is unnecessary to use 3 diff words with the same meaning to make a point.

Your opinion that I am done seems more like a hope of yours because you cannot outwit me as you wish you could.

Also, I know you are not mature enough to agree to disagree, but it would be much more becoming of you to find the adulthood in you to admit I never claimed God was real and that I have a right to my own religion. Also, I am aware we are not going to agree in this debate- but I will not let you make defamatory marks about me and all of the things you are saying are completely false as I have proven repeatedly and you continue to ignore.

[falcon9]

I have answered the challenges you made to both of these claims by
1) Proving that I do believe in God (by telling you)

That wasn't the challenge; that was your failed attempt at misdirection.  The challenge was not to prove whether or not you _have_ any particular belief but, that you failed to substantiate _what_ that belief was in.  You therefore failed to answer the actual challenge, as opposed to the one you fabricated.

If you feel that I have not answered any challenges to a claim please state so DIRECTLY (do not dance around the issue as you have been) and I will answer that claim now.

I have stated so directly, (as the above quoted direct statement shows) however, you've repeatedly 'danced around' such challenges so often that I don't believe your intention to answer them now.

[SurveyMack10]

I have answered the challenges you made to both of these claims by
1) Proving that I do believe in God (by telling you)

That wasn't the challenge; that was your failed attempt at misdirection.  The challenge was not to prove whether or not you _have_ any particular belief but, that you failed to substantiate _what_ that belief was in.  You therefore failed to answer the actual challenge, as opposed to the one you fabricated.

If you feel that I have not answered any challenges to a claim please state so DIRECTLY (do not dance around the issue as you have been) and I will answer that claim now.

I have stated so directly, (as the above quoted direct statement shows) however, you've repeatedly 'danced around' such challenges so often that I don't believe your intention to answer them now.

You challenged be to prove the existence of God, however I never claimed this existence to be fact so no matter how much you want me to prove his existence I have no responsibility to do so.

That is like me randomly pulling something off the top of my head and asking you to prove it just because I want you to- you would have no responsibility to do so as it was not a claim that you made.

[SurveyMack10]

I have answered the challenges you made to both of these claims by
1) Proving that I do believe in God (by telling you)

That wasn't the challenge; that was your failed attempt at misdirection.  The challenge was not to prove whether or not you _have_ any particular belief but, that you failed to substantiate _what_ that belief was in.  You therefore failed to answer the actual challenge, as opposed to the one you fabricated.

If you feel that I have not answered any challenges to a claim please state so DIRECTLY (do not dance around the issue as you have been) and I will answer that claim now.

I have stated so directly, (as the above quoted direct statement shows) however, you've repeatedly 'danced around' such challenges so often that I don't believe your intention to answer them now.

I have not and will not ever danced around a challenge. That state is false.

[falcon9]

I made 2 claims-
1) that I believe in God (not that he is real by fact)

Then by inference, if your belief is _in_ something which you are not contending is "real", your belief is _in_ something which isn't real.  This inference does not constitute a contending claim on my part as it follows logically from your admitted claim.

Claiming to believe in something is not the same as claiming it as fact. It is simply me saying I choose to believe in something
I am not claiming God is real or not real, simply that I believe in him by choice.
So, to summarize my claim is that I BELIEVE IN GOD it is not that GOD IS REAL therefore I have proven that I believe in God, I  have not proven that God is real because I have not made that claim.

Then, to summarize; your belief is either in a real or, unreal god.  If it is in a real god, then your initial claim of belief inherently consists of a belief in a real god.  If that belief is in an unreal god, then the inherent claim contains an even deeper irrationality than previously inferred.

You equated God with invisible unicorns, so unless you are saying that invisible unicorns are real then you did assert that God is not real simply by equating Him with invisible unicorns. Therefore, I did not lie.

No, as the actual posted replies show, (as opposed to the twisted version you fabricate); I didn't equate _what_ was being believed, I equated the 'act of believing', (regardless of whether that act of belief is in unicorns, gods, impending alien invasion fleets, etc.).  If you are presenting additional evidence of your deficient comprehension ability, it is accepted as evidence of such.

You say that I must prove that God exists. I know that you REQUESTED that I prove that God exists. However, since I never claimed that he exists I do not bear that burden. Therefore, I did not fail to answer any challenges to any CLAIMS THAT I MADE. I may have failed at a challenge to a claim I did not make, but since I did not EVER claim on this thread that God is real I do not have to prove his existence.[/claim]

Alright, since you keep insisting that you don't have to support an _implied_ claim, neither do I.

I have not lied as I proved were you asserted that God was not real multiple times, you just choose to ignore it and divert the attention away from being proven wrong by using technical terms that you feel are impressive but actually are not and can easily be recognized as a defense tactic.'/quote]

You've presented no conclusive evidence to support your contention that I asserted what you claim.  Instead, quoted references are still available which show your own words fabricating an implicit translation of what you think I really meant.  I have spoken and written English for longer than you've been alive and have no need of your faulty 'interpreter' services.

Stating an opinion does not require proven evidence. I have openly stated that my belief in God is simply a personal choice. Holding this opinion does not require me to prove his existence to you as I am not claiming that he is real, simply that I choose to believe in him. You said that I lied by making unsubstantiated opinions. This does not make sense as opinions are simply that, opinions.

Your comprehension skills would make Jesus cry.  To reiterate yet again; your  unsupported "opinion"/belief was not challenged, (in that yes, you do appear to hold unsupported opinions/beliefs).

-you did NOT prove that I lied as I have not lied.

False.  The evidence of your lie was presented in the recent previous posted reply.  Snipping it and denying your lie does absolutely nothing to support your further lie about your previous lie.

(all you have proved is that anytime you disagree with an opinion of mine you call it a lie.)

Incorrect.  I quoted your lie in your own words, showed the form your lie took and provided the reasoning used to conclude that you were lying.  You're a liar; the only remaining question is whether you are a compulsive or, pathological liar.


quote author=SurveyMack10 link=topic=26632.msg422109#msg422109 date=1316996331]
-you did not prove that I was  a hypocrite and actually did not even address that issue so adding that into your closing statement was based on no support shown in your argument

It's all there, in your own words contained in the previous posts on these two threads in D+D.  Your own words betray your hypocrisy, which is the bulk of the evidence presented to support my contention that you are a hypocrite.

quote author=SurveyMack10 link=topic=26632.msg422109#msg422109 date=1316996331]
-I am not a (prevaricator, liar, and maker of unsupported claims) for all the reasons stated above.

Your bland denials of these aspects of your 'character', (and lack thereof), fall flat in the face of conclusive evidence to the contrary.

Also, I am aware we are not going to agree in this debate- but I will not let you make defamatory marks about me and all of the things you are saying are completely false as I have proven repeatedly and you continue to ignore.

As any competent attorney will confirm; remarks are not defamatory if there is conclusive evidence that they are true.  I know you'll contest that 'conclusive evidence' qualifier because you've been saying the equivalent of "ut-uh" throughout this thread, (that is, denying without supporting your denial with facts).  Your denial that "all of the things you are saying are completely false as I have proven repeatedly and you continue to ignore" has been proven to be false by using conclusive evidence provided by quoting your exact words and using substantiated reasoning.  They haven't been ignored since this thread is chock-full of my replies to your prevarications.  On the other hand, it contains several examples, in your own words, of contended points being ignored by you as you go off on your own tangents.