|
|
Post by figgles on Jan 28, 2016 13:20:51 GMT -5
Is that what telling you you're the 'pot calling the kettle black' means to you? .....  And 'the taunts' you launch through PM......well, I could tell you what they are, or, you could use that as a launching pad for some much needed clarity. Well, "clarity" from someone who writes "I could tell you what they are" after they've already repeatedly opined as to "what they are" is something I don't need, but thanks anyway!  yeah...I wrote some more...but, Everything I wrote there related to you being a pot calling a kettle black. Where did I say anything about you being wrong? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 28, 2016 13:26:12 GMT -5
Oh, is that all you wrote there? Well, "clarity" from someone who writes "I could tell you what they are" after they've already repeatedly opined as to "what they are" is something I don't need, but thanks anyway! yeah...I wrote some more...but, Everything I wrote there related to you being a pot calling a kettle black. , most of it was just some vile-picture painting to make it look like, between the two of us, I'm the one that wants to be right. On this point, I will, of course, freely admit to an interest in wanting to be right.  Where did I say anything about you being wrong? What's the difference between responding to a joke about how you like to debate with "you're the one with a strong interest in being right" and "no, you're wrong, I'm not the one that wants to be right"? .. or, are you admitting that you like to be right? Can you deny that you're now trying to make me wrong about the idea that you were trying to make me wrong? |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Jan 28, 2016 13:56:17 GMT -5
yeah...I wrote some more...but, Everything I wrote there related to you being a pot calling a kettle black. , most of it was just some vile-picture painting to make it look like, between the two of us, I'm the one that wants to be right. On this point, I will, of course, freely admit to an interest in wanting to be right. Where did I say anything about you being wrong? What's the difference between responding to a joke about how you like to debate with "you're the one with a strong interest in being right" and "no, you're wrong, I'm not the one that wants to be right"? .. or, are you admitting that you like to be right? Can you deny that you're now trying to make me wrong about the idea that you were trying to make me wrong? Of course there is always an element of 'wanting to be right' or 'prove oneself to be right' in any argument...that's after all, what an argument/debate is. That said, considering the subject matter here, oft inherent in that is also an acknowledgement of the possibility of seeing something anew...something I've missed or could perhaps see from a different angle. It's what I am sincerely attempting to do in my convo with E about habits right now, for what it's worth. Essentially I was saying to you, "You're a fine one to talk." That's pretty much what 'pot calling the kettle black' means for future reference. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 28, 2016 14:06:28 GMT -5
Incorrect, most of it was just some vile-picture painting to make it look like, between the two of us, I'm the one that wants to be right. On this point, I will, of course, freely admit to an interest in wanting to be right. What's the difference between responding to a joke about how you like to debate with "you're the one with a strong interest in being right" and "no, you're wrong, I'm not the one that wants to be right"? .. or, are you admitting that you like to be right? Can you deny that you're now trying to make me wrong about the idea that you were trying to make me wrong? Of course there is always an element of 'wanting to be right' or 'prove oneself to be right' in any argument...that's after all, what an argument/debate is. That said, considering the subject matter here, oft inherent in that is also an acknowledgement of the possibility of seeing something anew...something I've missed or could perhaps see from a different angle. It's what I am sincerely attempting to do in my convo with E about habits right now, for what it's worth. Essentially I was saying to you, "You're a fine one to talk." That's pretty much what 'pot calling the kettle black' means for future reference. Well, I've never denied that I like a good debate or that I sometimes will develop a keen interest in wanting to be right. Do you dispute that? But my joke was timed perfectly -- the fact was that you assassinated the word "sooth", and as E' suggested, your motivation for pulling the trigger was to win a debate. Why did you pick that particular juncture to start a nasty propaganda campaign to make a point that I've already admitted to plenty of times in the past? Why not just laugh it off and do the same? |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Jan 28, 2016 14:27:07 GMT -5
Of course there is always an element of 'wanting to be right' or 'prove oneself to be right' in any argument...that's after all, what an argument/debate is. That said, considering the subject matter here, oft inherent in that is also an acknowledgement of the possibility of seeing something anew...something I've missed or could perhaps see from a different angle. It's what I am sincerely attempting to do in my convo with E about habits right now, for what it's worth. Essentially I was saying to you, "You're a fine one to talk." That's pretty much what 'pot calling the kettle black' means for future reference. Well, I've never denied that I like a good debate or that I sometimes will develop a keen interest in wanting to be right. Do you dispute that? But my joke was timed perfectly -- the fact was that you assassinated the word "sooth", and as E' suggested, your motivation for pulling the trigger was to win a debate. Why did you pick that particular juncture to start a nasty propaganda campaign to make a point that I've already admitted to plenty of times in the past? Why not just laugh it off and do the same? Well...let's see; I'd just finished reading a post from another member in the spiritual teachers thread, who said you are pulling the same PM crap with him that You pull with me...(and Tzu)....so....let's just say, I saw you are still resorting to this childish behavior that screams "I wanna win", with those whom you do not see eye to eye with on forum, and on the heels of you jumping into a conversation to make a sideways comment about me, suggesting that I am preoccupied with being right, I thought it perhaps pertinent to point out that you of all people, have a lot of gall pointing any fingers in that direction. Within the context of what you have demonstrated yourself to be here Laffy, most of your so called 'jokes' are really not all that funny. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 28, 2016 14:30:17 GMT -5
Well, I've never denied that I like a good debate or that I sometimes will develop a keen interest in wanting to be right. Do you dispute that? But my joke was timed perfectly -- the fact was that you assassinated the word "sooth", and as E' suggested, your motivation for pulling the trigger was to win a debate. Why did you pick that particular juncture to start a nasty propaganda campaign to make a point that I've already admitted to plenty of times in the past? Why not just laugh it off and do the same? Well...let's see; I'd just finished reading a post from another member in the spiritual teachers thread, who said you are pulling the same PM crap with him that You pull with me...(and Tzu)....so....let's just say, I saw you are still resorting to this childish behavior that screams "I wanna win", with those whom you do not see eye to eye with on forum, and on the heels of you jumping into a conversation to make a sideways comment about me, suggesting that I am preoccupied with being right, I thought it perhaps pertinent to point out that you of all people, have a lot of gall pointing any fingers in that direction. Within the context of what you have demonstrated yourself to be here Laffy, most of your so called 'jokes' are really not all that funny. As I've pointed out in the past, you have no sense of humor when it comes to yourself.  And now you've gone and thrown a hissy-fit 'cause I joked about your word-assassination game. tsk tsk tsk. While that might be childish, is falsely accusing someone of a crime in order to get what you want, playing to "win"? |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Jan 28, 2016 14:42:11 GMT -5
Well...let's see; I'd just finished reading a post from another member in the spiritual teachers thread, who said you are pulling the same PM crap with him that You pull with me...(and Tzu)....so....let's just say, I saw you are still resorting to this childish behavior that screams "I wanna win", with those whom you do not see eye to eye with on forum, and on the heels of you jumping into a conversation to make a sideways comment about me, suggesting that I am preoccupied with being right, I thought it perhaps pertinent to point out that you of all people, have a lot of gall pointing any fingers in that direction. Within the context of what you have demonstrated yourself to be here Laffy, most of your so called 'jokes' are really not all that funny. As I've pointed out in the past, you have no sense of humor when it comes to yourself. And now you've gone and thrown a hissy-fit 'cause I joked about your word-assassination game. tsk tsk tsk. While that might be childish, is falsely accusing someone of a crime in order to get what you want, playing to "win"? There is a difference between knowingly, falsely accusing one of a crime vs. suspecting someone based upon clear evidence of some degree of ill intent, and then what would be extreme coincidence, if they are not in fact the guilty party. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 28, 2016 15:06:32 GMT -5
As I've pointed out in the past, you have no sense of humor when it comes to yourself. And now you've gone and thrown a hissy-fit 'cause I joked about your word-assassination game. tsk tsk tsk. While that might be childish, is falsely accusing someone of a crime in order to get what you want, playing to "win"? There is a difference between knowingly, falsely accusing one of a crime vs. suspecting someone based upon clear evidence of some degree of ill intent, and then what would be extreme coincidence, if they are not in fact the guilty party. Wow, you mean you've actually come to believe your own fabricated story? Don't you recall offering me a conditional appology and promising with all sternness that you'd "get to the bottom of it"? Well, did you ever "get to the bottom of it"? What did you find out? Now you mention jay's complaints about my PM's, but you took some pains to avoid stating his name directly. Why is that? Is it because of some similarities between your posting content perhaps? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2016 15:21:19 GMT -5
these pretzels are making me thirsty |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Jan 28, 2016 15:25:37 GMT -5
Wow, you mean you've actually come to believe your own fabricated story?And YOU supposedly condemn making unfounded accusations? Playin' the pot again dude. I didn't. website analytics only provide so much info. But, considering that it is a fact that you seek me out through PM to taunt and convey nasty messages, and considering it is a fact you posted a link to a site I am affiliated with, seemingly, purely for the purpose of mocking, (and, most importantly, while I was absent from the forum for some time and therefore, not even participating in the dialogue within which you posted it,) is it really so big of a stretch for me to suspect that you might be the one who is reaching beyond the forum, through the link you yourself posted, beginning the very day that you posted it, to further taunt and send nasty messages, containing content that aligns with the beefs you have with me here? It's actually because I couldn't recall specifically who had posted it and I didn't feel like going back to make sure. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 28, 2016 15:30:56 GMT -5
Wow, you mean you've actually come to believe your own fabricated story?And YOU supposedly condemn making unfounded accusations? Playin' the pot again dude. How, precisely, is that an unfounded accusation? I know that I didn't do what you accused me of, and really, given your temperament and the "coincidence", it's all I need to know. I didn't. website analytics only provide so much info. But, considering that it is a fact that you seek me out through PM to taunt and convey nasty messages, and considering it is a fact you posted a link to a site I am affiliated with, seemingly, purely for the purpose of mocking, (and, most importantly, while I was absent from the forum for some time and therefore, not even participating in the dialogue within which you posted it,) is it really so big of a stretch for me to suspect that you might be the one who is reaching beyond the forum, through the link you yourself posted, to further taunt and send nasty messages, containing content that aligns with the beefs you have with me here? Oh, see, now you're making the accusations publicly instead of privately. tsk tsk tsk ... do you understand that you're dancing around the legal tort of libel? You call my PM's "nasty", but how would you characterize your false accusation of criminality? It's actually because I couldn't recall specifically who had posted it and I didn't feel like going back to make sure. I'd just finished reading a post from another member in the spiritual teachers thread |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Jan 28, 2016 15:45:07 GMT -5
How, precisely, is that an unfounded accusation? I know that I didn't do what you accused me of, and really, given your temperament and the "coincidence", it's all I need to know. Just because you did not do it, does not mean I am fabricating the messages. Even if it was not you, (and if you say it wasn't I am not going to call you a liar,) it was you who is responsible for the link posted. I never outright accused you (as in insisting that you were the one sending the messages), Merely stated the facts that I received nasty messages, containing similar content to what you write to me in PM, the same day that you posted that link on the forum. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Jan 28, 2016 15:47:25 GMT -5
How, exactly, did that post violate that policy? How was associating a specific Facebook page with Sharon's forum account, not a violation of that policy? It was purely speculation (still do not know anything for certain) and through PM (with you & the supposedly involved parties only)...not shared publicly on forum. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 28, 2016 15:50:59 GMT -5
How, precisely, is that an unfounded accusation? I know that I didn't do what you accused me of, and really, given your temperament and the "coincidence", it's all I need to know. Just because you did not do it, does not mean I am fabricating the messages. Even if it was not you, (and if you say it wasn't I am not going to call you a liar,) it was you who is responsible for the link posted. I never outright accused you (as in insisting that you were the one sending the messages), Merely stated the facts that I received nasty messages, containing similar content to what you write to me in PM, the same day that you posted that link on the forum. Oh, but you're forgetting, yes, you did accuse me directly of sending those messages, and that part of it at the very least is a fabrication. I don't believe that you actually received any such messages, and assuming that you did, part of your fabrication is that the "source" of them was a link I put up. An http web link doesn't directly generate e-mail or form-based message traffic unless it's to the form that generates the message -- how can you substantiate your claim that the supposed source of these alleged messages was associated with that link? If you just blurt back "web analytics" you answer is meaningless. Also, at this point, your innuendo alone might be enough to meet the standard of that element of libel with regard to the question of whether you've in fact made a defamatory statement about me. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 28, 2016 15:53:25 GMT -5
How, exactly, did that post violate that policy? How was associating a specific Facebook page with Sharon's forum account, not a violation of that policy? It was purely speculation (still do not know anything for certain) and through PM (with you & the supposedly involved parties only)...not shared publicly on forum. I already explained to you how it doesn't matter how many people you shared it with, you were still violating the right to privacy under that policy. Privately posting the information to me compromised her expectation of anonymity, and you can't hide behind a self-serving speculation that it "might" not have been her page. For example, if you posted my SS number, and you were right about it but said "this might be your SS number", you would have violated the policy. And you didn't answer the question: why did you bring up the privacy policy to me in response to that post? |
|
