EnviroLink Forum

No, I think it is supportable IF you actually read posts, so maybe you should think about it again. Now see how you can try to claim this was talking about something else completely out of the context of the thread to that point ....

http://www.envirolink.org/forum/viewtop ... 2157#42157

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

You are making assertions as you are telling me what Sianblooz could have meant when in fact she pretty well confirmed my point in interpeting what sianblooz's comments as was noted by several others on this board. In fact Sianb looz made no bones about her feeling for hunters as she commented to the former UK posters in aggreement with him. He made very derogatory comments about hunters and Sianblooz noted you couldn't call him a liar for those comments because they were true. You can play this game if you wish Wayne but you are only discrediting yourself. I have dealt enough with Sianblooz/ in the past to be know she hates hunters of all kinds.


As for the name calling you should tell Sianblooz tthat Donnie didn't start the name calling and has used no name calling or vulgarity in my posts to her. You are the only person who even attempted to make it seem that Sianblooz wasn't referring to Watson and even Sianblooz didn't bother to make that pretense. We both know why you set out to play this game Wayne and it is so petty that you look like a puppet for playing that game. Sianblooz must be laughing her self silly over your nonsense.

_________________
I use red, not because of anger but to define my posts to catch rebuttals latter and it makes the quote feature redundent for me. The rest of you pick your own color.

Life is a time capsule we strive to fill with precious memories.

Of course it is an assumption on your part Wayne. You are assuming you knew what I meant and what Sianblooz meant and trying your damnest to put a spin on my comments that even Sianblooz pointed out to be wrong. Sianblooz was talking about Watson as she noted and she has made derogatory comments about hunters (period) on this very board. She is who other posters claim she is and those posters know that Sianblooz /Barb has hate mongered all hunters under any number of handles on other boards. You can pretend we don't know who Sianblooz is but that is your loss and your unilateral choice to be the king of interpetation is flailing badly..

_________________
I use red, not because of anger but to define my posts to catch rebuttals latter and it makes the quote feature redundent for me. The rest of you pick your own color.

Life is a time capsule we strive to fill with precious memories.

No, if I had told you that WAS the meaning of what was said it would be an assumption. Since I did not do that it is not. I pointed out the POSSIBLE meaning based on the evidence, which is not an assumption but a review of the facts and a conclusion based on that review. You, on the other hand, claimed to know the meaning with the same information and your personal belief, which is an assumption.



Nope, wrong again. There was a question posed about whether a statement would be an insult. There was nothing mentioned about not being able to call anyone a liar. At this point I believe YOU would be calling a specific someone a liar for making such a false statement.

Here are the exact posts, which CANNOT be taken out of context for a proof as much as I know you want to do so.

http://www.envirolink.org/forum/viewtop ... 2819#22819



http://www.envirolink.org/forum/viewtop ... 2858#22858





What game? The truth? Your account of what was stated in the posts is clearly not correct, yet you want me to believe that everything else you "know" is coorect?



So you have the IP addresses and the information from the ISPs to be sure these prior incidents are from the same person as is posting here now? I seriously doubt it, but I do not doubt that you believe it to be true just as you believed your representation of the post concerning personal insults to be true. The difference is I can check the one but not the other to determine the validity for myself.



You might want to read the post again the reference was not just to namecalling, which again shows an inaccuracy in your statement.



Really? Sianblooz stated the post was in reference to whom to clear up the discussion?



Playing the game of pointing out the mistakes, errors, and misrepresentations? I do that all of the time. The only difference is I tended to let more of it slide on one side in the past. Since the double standard became clear to me and I decided I did not care to continue the participation I have tried to point out ALL such items. You seem to have taken it more personally given the references to petty, ignorant, and the like. I am used to those as I heard it often from the pro-AR side when I pointed out their errors. Now I see that some anti-ARs seem to be more similar to the pro-ARs than I would have believed.



It must be yours, as that is the only nonsense presented here, but that is really not my concern whether she is or is not laughed silly.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

Wayne ,you are playing smoke and mirrors here.




In fact I did not misplace my judgement as it was more then an assumption as proved by her own words. She was talking about Watson and you are being assinine to indicate otherwise. To continue this childish chatrade with you is a waste of time. You pointed out what you hoped was possible to discredit my point of view that Throphy hunting would be another wedge that folks like Sianblooz and Watson would use against hunting. The reason for that ,is your own childish behavior and it is only making you look petty. Carry on though I am sure you the all knowing god of moderation will pretend you are right till hell freezes over, even though Sianblooz's comments proved my point. Even more glaringly obvious is I never made a statement that she claimed I did to begin with. I never stated she wrote anything about Watson. I stated that she would be supportive of his claims because she is not that supportive of hunting to begin with. I also did not call her names despite her rather glaring name calling of me and then stating I started the name calling. .

_________________
I use red, not because of anger but to define my posts to catch rebuttals latter and it makes the quote feature redundent for me. The rest of you pick your own color.

Life is a time capsule we strive to fill with precious memories.

Maybe you had better read the thread again then.



Really? Where exactly was it stated who was being referenced?



No, I am being truthful. You BELIEVE she was talking about Watson and that is the extent of your proof. Every other post has an alternative explanation to your BELIEFS concerning this situation.



I agree you are being childish and it is a waste of time, but hopefully some of the lurkers in the thread will get a benefit from the whole view approach.



No, I pointed out the errors in your assertions that Sianblooz had attempted to discredit all hunters in the past. To state otherwise is not correct, but it does fit into your polarization views very nicely.



If correctly misrepresentations is "petty" that must be me, but it seems that making the misrepresentations would make you and your position look petty to anyone who did not already agree with your beliefs.



Maybe in your mind, but anything would prove your point in your mind if you want it to do so badly enough.



Aside from her not making the claims you stated first? See how it is "glaringly obvious" against the opposition but the SAME type of issue is ignored when you do it? That is called a double standard and is not really honest either.



Yes, she responded incorrectly to your statement and that is somehow wrong given your statement was unsupported by any facts here especially the post she made specifically on the subject of hunting. That again would be a double standard and again dishonest.



Well, you had better read the post again because there were TWO criteria mentioned. That means you were accused of either of the two not just the one you wish to refute. That part of the English language makes this statement either a lie or you ignorant. The fact this statement has been addressed in the past makes it either a willful lie or you willfully ignorant, if history is taken into account.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

wijim wrote:

... incidently when did the namecalling rule become so optional?.....was it recently? ... were the above overlooked ... whats the deal there?

Thank's for the summary wiijim. The deal is I seem to be the only one who really cares. I started, belatedly, at the beginning of this thread with the *** I like so much as you will see if you look. Wish I'd started at this point and saved myself the time and trouble. However, I have to say the namecallers win this round - life's too short.



Good, thank you Sianblooz. You have no idea how long my computer takes to open a page and I can't say I'm enjoying the *** work (no, they aren't lion stamps).

_________________
The wild Deer wand'ring here and there,
Keeps the Human Soul from Care.

From Auguries of Innocence, by Wiliam Blake (1757 -1827)

Well...I think Wayne said something about context, and how that wouldn't really be support for the assertion that hunters are scum. I don't recall his explanation for what the alternative would be....especially considering the context. Seems to me the question Sianbooz asked was kind of facetious, and entirely meant to imply that it is truthful that hunters are scum.

'Course, now we know that she entirely condones hunting animals long as the hunter eats them. I don't know why she thinks eating them is so important.

i wonder if she holds the same standards for booger harvesting?

_________________
lately i been thinkin' aunt betty stopped her blinkin'....soon she'll be a stinkin'..........my deceased mother in law speaking of her aunt who had died.

Hey...someone's going to talk about how childish this list is, again.

So I better not go into the theories of booger rehab.

Well that's just Wayne deciding what is important and what isn't, so all the lessers on the forum can be clear on it.

As it was in this thread most normal people would have read it before jumping to conclusions ... like assigning the "like some sort of goon" connotation to the standard emoticon.



No, the would not be obvious to everyone, but you may try to make the case if anyone wishes to take the time to discuss it.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

You made the case for me. Don't you remember? You were supporting your assertion that Sianblooz has "nothing against hunting for food."

You said it was clearly indicated. Are you changing your story now?

Well that would be an attempt to misrepresent a statement that was clarified much earlier and as such would be closer to a lie for whomever wanted to claim it as being a proven statement.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

You mean like when you decided that Luna wasn't free, because you employed a definition sufficiently broad that NOTHING could be free? You mean like that?

I'm willing to explain my use of terms and what they mean to the point. There's a difference between that and standing there pointing to a dictionary like an idiot-savant monkey that can recognize a symbol on a paper but can't go on to form real thoughts.