hunter88 wrote:
sianblooz wrote on page 4
Quote:
Donnie you're a lying sack of poo. I'd say shit but I might get my hand spanked for telling the truth about you. You have never seen me write one word about Watson.
This is where sianblooz claims to have never said anything about Watson.
Yet sianblooz said
Quote:
If Donnie had a brain he's take it out and play with it. He doesn't seem to notice that I disagree with Watson.
The only place in this thread where sianblooz could have disagreed with Watson is on page one, where the discussion was about trophy hunters.
1. Sianblooz claims to have never written one word about Watson.
2. Sianblooz claims Donnie doesn't notice that sianblooz disagrees with Watson.
3. The only place where sianblooz and Watson disagree is on trophy hunters, which is at the start of the thread. So there can be no misunderstanding what the disagreement is about. Or the fact that sianblooz did in fact write one word about Watson. Just saying he doesn't notice that I disagree with Watson is in fact writing one word about Watson.
You know I'm just keeping this up because I like putting sianblooz's quotes up there all the time.
This does not follow the context of the thread.
If G makes a statement about W which mistates that original statement.
J corrects the oversight to G on the original statement with an explanation.
S makes a statement to G agreeing with the observation of the explanation.
At this point the statement is not about W but J, correct?
D now makes a statement about S and claims S views W as a hero and would use the original statement similarly.
S then points out the original statement by W does not agree with the original statement by S thus showing disagreement between the two.
There is no logical way to remove the added questions, statements, and comparisons to "prove" the original statement was made about W instead of J. It is an assumption stated as fact and is not possible to prove unless one wishes to believe one way or the other for other reasons.
The only reason I keep responding is to show the flaws in the logic being presented as this discussion is meaningless otherwise. Neither Donnie or Wijim would believe anything Sainblooz says whether it is the truth or not, so there is no reason to waste time there. However, those on the edges may still be able to see clearly enough to understand the errors of assuming beliefs are facts especially when those beliefs are rushed.
Or one could accept your periferal vision as legitmet but that would be a strertch Wayne. Sianblooz was refererencing trophy hun ting as presented by Watson despite your smoke & mirrors nonsense . Get over yourself.
Login
Register
FAQ
It was clearly stated for all to see ... 
If the statement is to be checked for DNA there have been too many others handling it to prevent cross contamination. Maybe a Medium or even a Large will help?
