How many times do you have to hear it stated before you understand, I based the crteria of misrepresentation on the complaint leveled by Capitalistswine. I have spelled this out several times before and you keep trying to ignore it.
Actually, I've addressed it at least a couple times. Your fondness for quotes about accuracy and honesty doesn't extend to a fondness for being either, apparently.
That would mean you admit to being dishonest in your last statement, because the criteria was not mine but Capitalistswine's.
Yes, IF Sianblooz misrepresented Capitalistswine then by that criteria you misrepresented Sianblooz. IF you did not misrepresent Sianblooz then Sianblooz did not misrepresent Capitalistswine and the complaint was moot.
Nope...it ain't so simple. You have to show that the criteria for one category is properly applied to the other. And yes, "stupid people" and "liars" can both reasonably considered categories.
Neither myself nor Festus have to agree with "Wayne Logic"...especially when it is so weak.
It was so weak that when directly asked you had to use a Straw Man answer that mis-defined the term "stupid" from the original context? That does not give your position very much credibility.
Is it that hard to understand that connection?
I understand the connection you're trying to make. Have all along. I don't buy it, and I still want to know where you get off mischaracterizing my post as a mischaracterization.
Then you are not ignorant you are just dishonest in your posting?
Since the complaint was against Sianblooz in the first post and there were several supporting posts, that must be the preferred definition of "misrepresentation" according to the posters here. I have not seen you do anything but try to twist the discussion into other areas as opposed to dealing with the initial postings.
Other areas...like trying to get you to support your own words. Hey...they're your words. If you don't like them, keep your fingers off the keyboard next time.
This is a perfect example, you ignore the key element and try to deflect the discussion off on a tangent. Again it shows the level of honesty in your posts as being low.
The compalint was that Sianblooz misrepresented the post of Capitalistswine by changing his meaning from "children that do something stupid" to "stupid children" was it not? That should be a fairly simple to answer question.
The post by RF made a similar change from "someone told a lie" to "someone is a liar", which you say was not a misrepresentation in the earlier post. If it is not a misrepresentation then the statement made by Sianblooz was also not a misrepresentation using that same criteria.
What's the criteria, Wayne? Stupid can have several definitions. Liar can be reasonably assumed to simply mean "one who lies". I asked if you had an alternate definition.
Stupid can only have one general definition in the context in which it was used. The attempt to misrepresent through redefinition is just as dishonest, but if you can show us where these "other" definitions of "stupid" will work in the context used you can try to make the point from there. If you cannot make the other definitions work you have proved your attempt to be falsely based. I suppose any further discussion along this line is complete unless and until you are able to show the contextual use of those "other" different definitions.
Here's partially what Sianblooz wrote:
YOU addmitted killing your kids cat. I didn't make it up. I didn't misrepresent anything. Your lying AGAIN if you say I am. I can't find the thread but I know damn well you admited killing your kids cat so don't bother lying anymore about it.... I don't get why people like you and RF lie about things right after you say them.
How is she not
saying that Wijim is a liar?
He lies...he'll lie again
...he should not bother lying anymore
...but she isn't saying he is a liar?
Oh DO tell us how that would work, Wayne.
That is simple. As has been pointed out by others in this thread, there are levels of statements. One may make an honest mistake and state something which is untrue. Technically that is a lie, but we refer to it as an "untruth" to indicate our level of concern. Now if that untruth is defended and a correction is ignored, it may later be called a "lie" due to the increased level of concern. If that is still defended one may choose to then say the person is lying thereby showing an even greater concern on their part. The last level would be calling someone a liar, which has gone past the concern for the truthfulness of the statement and attacked the person directly. The latter will generally get you a warning about such an attack. This level of use is necessary since we cannot hear inflections of the voice, see body language, or any of the other clues we get from visual/verbal conversations so it is much harder to communicate via written word. One has to be more precise and careful in writing and still the interpretation is largely based on what the reader is thinking when they read those written words. It is much easier to misunderstand communication in such a media as this than most others. That is why general rules of communication are developed and followed by most of the folks.
You're a master of insinuation and the art of turning a waffle to a fine crisp...DO fill us in on how you would weasel out of such an obvious position.
I would not, but I bet you can tell us which fallacy might help the most.
Then explain why in the hell a poster would WANT to spend a significant amount of time writing about someone who lies...going into various ways of accusing him of lying....and then have that lying someone wasn't being called a liar.
I don't know, some of these folks here have gone on and on about things that happened some time ago on different boards creating new threads upon new threads on the subject. I expect if we were to total the posts there are many many more on the side you seem to be supporting than the other. Why would that be?
THEN you might be able to show some relationship between my post and Festus's complaint of Sianblooz's misrepresentation of his post.
That has no bearing on the comparison of the changes made in the statement nor the level of support or attack in the double standard application ... other than to show there is a division there.