Ha ha ha. Swine guy.
"Yes entirely, cause to you it seems so. And you continue to go on about it. To me it isn't even a big deal, probably cause what I said wasn't for you."
We continue to go on about it, it being "not meant for me" doesn't change the argument itself.
"I'm not worried about convincing anyone of the obvious. Especially for those who point fingers and provide no input on their own arguments."
You made the claim, that puts the burden of proof on you first. When there's a proof, even if it's shitty proof, it can be either reinforced or deconstructed. You presented an argument that by itself was a reach, so it was treated as such.
"When asked if I would ever post it, I replied, and I quote.... "Well I did have it for awhile now and I never made it a priority to do it. I'd rather Ed just own up to it and not even that is important.""
Oh, you said a lot of things... most of it excuses and fishing for attention.
You like it~
"On that very page, regardless of your own belief, did you not preach a resolve without the need of public display though? Now you change your mind. That Turncoat is very disingenuous behavior on your behalf."
If you look at it really, I'm just trying to find a way that you could prove it. If he saw it through PM he could at least confirm what you sent, maybe even post it himself. As is, all you've shown it to be is transparent BS.
"Don't blame me for choosing, and between Ed and myself, we know the kind of things he does on here regardless of denial or what others think. I do have some degree of respect for Ed believe it of not. If I had his identity, I wouldn't out him. After all, how can I expect to value myself if I do things I look down on."
Your explanation is total BS. If you were really "respectful" toward Ed you'd not have brought up that proofless falsehood about what he'd said in chat in the first place, and you'd not have tried to have your credibility be the only basis for it, like people just ought to believe you because you said it. All your pages beyond there were BS about "maybe posting it later" to fish for attention or stall for time. The truth was that you were bluffing, and that alone is what's worth focusing on since you will never own up to such a thing. I don't think you physically could unless it turned out to be the way out of a bigger problem.
"though I do think my claim is proof enough"
What? How? Why? That makes no sense.
"And remember, you are already proven to be, disingenuous by flop flopping your own suggestions."
My approach was to see if you really had what you claimed, and I'd say what had to be said to go to that conclusion (come on, it was obvious). PMing it to him I'd trust him to say if he did or didn't receive it, as I don't think he'd hide that sort of thing after that much build-up.
"And let's not forget, it's in your character to intervene and ask many questions while the rest of us just carry on with what we're talking about, and why?"
It's in my nature to ask a lot of questions, to pry, and enough people play along until they feel threatened or bored by it, which still gets me information in the meantime and, in some cases, even sparks discussions out of others from what answers came from it. A person reveals from both what they do and don't answer, and I figure why not give that notion a little push?
"Cause things don't make sense in your clouded world, while the rest get it."
Any proof of this claim beyond me having an appreciation for asking questions?
Right, I forgot: "though I do think my claim is proof enough". Lets see how far that gets you~
"Is that even worth carrying on with since there are no examples ? Sarcasm in this case is petty. You ought to know you can't get anywhere with that alone."
Jeez, so serious.
"You'll have to excuse me, I don't really pay any mind to that member."
Do some research or ask around then. He's not a Rubix Cube, he's pretty straight forward.
"Are you sure this member fails at obtaining any wisdom over time, or are you insulting this person ?"
I'll just go with assuming you didn't really read what I said: "Age does not denote wisdom, it simply denotes a higher likelihood of wisdom when compared to your own past self." When older you are likely wiser than you used to be, but that has no bearing on comparing the wisdom between yourself and other individuals beyond the assumptive likelihood.
"You lose points yet again."
You're grading me?
Weird...
I'll try to make this brief.
by Turncoat"Yes entirely, cause to you it seems so. And you continue to go on about it. To me it isn't even a big deal, probably cause what I said wasn't for you."
We continue to go on about it, it being "not meant for me" doesn't change the argument itself.
Ultimately it's up to me to supply you when you step into things that are not meant nor designed for you. Besides it's not that important to me what you think. The argument will only change when you expand.
"I'm not worried about convincing anyone of the obvious. Especially for those who point fingers and provide no input on their own arguments."
You made the claim, that puts the burden of proof on you first. When there's a proof, even if it's shitty proof, it can be either reinforced or deconstructed. You presented an argument that by itself was a reach, so it was treated as such.
Again.... "I'm not worried about convincing anyone of the obvious.
Especially for those who point fingers and provide no input on their own
arguments."
I also stated how I think my claim are proof enough. It's not my fault you wish to challenge common sense. Might I add, the burden of proof is only as it is, when it's prove or die. Your thoughts mean little to me so the mentioned laws are at my disposal. This discussion is more about you than I now.
"When asked if I would ever post it, I replied, and I quote.... "Well I did have it for awhile now and I never made it a priority to do it. I'd rather Ed just own up to it and not even that is important.""
Oh, you said a lot of things... most of it excuses and fishing for attention.
You like it~
If it makes you feel better you can believe that. Any fool with a short attention span would suggest I view the forum quietly 99% of the time.
"On that very page, regardless of your own belief, did you not preach a resolve without the need of public display though? Now you change your mind. That Turncoat is very disingenuous behavior on your behalf."
If you look at it really, I'm just trying to find a way that you could prove it. If he saw it through PM he could at least confirm what you sent, maybe even post it himself. As is, all you've shown it to be is transparent BS.
I think it's dumb to say things that cannot be backed up with evidence. Nor is it in my nature to spread lies. If I never had the resource to back such a claim, I wouldn't just make it up. It's that simple.
"Don't blame me for choosing, and between Ed and myself, we know the kind of things he does on here regardless of denial or what others think. I do have some degree of respect for Ed believe it of not. If I had his identity, I wouldn't out him. After all, how can I expect to value myself if I do things I look down on."
Your explanation is total BS. If you were really "respectful" toward Ed you'd not have brought up that proofless falsehood about what he'd said in chat in the first place, and you'd not have tried to have your credibility be the only basis for it, like people just ought to believe you because you said it. All your pages beyond there were BS about "maybe posting it later" to fish for attention or stall for time. The truth was that you were bluffing, and that alone is what's worth focusing on since you will never own up to such a thing. I don't think you physically could unless it turned out to be the way out of a bigger problem.
You are quoting the word "respectful" like I never said "I do have some DEGREE of respect for Ed" The rest of the paragraph is just more of your deluded assumptions.
You see Turncoat, when you yourself ask too many questions, and demand specific outlines, you really can't afford to make these kinds of errors. then nose dive into what you think is right. In retrospect, it's you that hasn't any proof.
What your arguing about there, I have the best vision, regardless if I am bluffing or not, or if you like it or not. There is, and always will be, more substance in what I say in this matter, cause the light is literally on my side, while you are stuck guessing in the dark, refusing to trust my word.
"though I do think my claim is proof enough"
What? How? Why? That makes no sense.
It makes perfect sense. Didn't I say you lack the intuition to understand ?
"And remember, you are already proven to be, disingenuous by flop flopping your own suggestions."
My approach was to see if you really had what you claimed, and I'd say what had to be said to go to that conclusion (come on, it was obvious). PMing it to him I'd trust him to say if he did or didn't receive it, as I don't think he'd hide that sort of thing after that much build-up.
And now you use that instance in the past, as a means of argue with me on something that's not even related. You're approach is petty and disingenuous, no matter what you're trying to do.
"And let's not forget, it's in your character to intervene and ask many questions while the rest of us just carry on with what we're talking about, and why?"
It's in my nature to ask a lot of questions, to pry, and enough people play along until they feel threatened or bored by it, which still gets me information in the meantime and, in some cases, even sparks discussions out of others from what answers came from it. A person reveals from both what they do and don't answer, and I figure why not give that notion a little push?
Yes I know, and when provided with answers, you are shrouded with doubts and persist until your target is more or less in a submissive state.
I like more forward and progressive conversations to be honest. None of this over analyzing or helping people understand what they've been told. So when I cut you off, you can assume my reasoning had to do with some form of distaste for prolonged exposure to interactions such as this.
"Cause things don't make sense in your clouded world, while the rest get it."
Any proof of this claim beyond me having an appreciation for asking questions?
Yes there is proof. All you need to do is look at our conversations. Just like this one, it's always you stepping in and it turns into a game of 20 questions and you ask for reasons why I handled the way I did. And it's only you. In the events where the person I was originally talking is still open to talk, I then make them a first priority, and what they have to say is more in tune with the conversation, and not in question and doubt and skepticism and all that non progressive ego shit you put out that disrupts the flow of higher learning. I say that cause you're too busy on the first page picking shit apart instead of letting things be, thinking you can make a difference by forcing your assumed perspectives while, the book could have been done.
On a side note, facts are sound. Or they wouldn't be facts.
Right, I forgot:"though I do think my claim is proof enough". Lets see how far that gets you~
All one has to do is look, and it doesn't take much to figure it out.
"Is that even worth carrying on with since there are no examples ? Sarcasm in this case is petty. You ought to know you can't get anywhere with that alone."
Jeez, so serious.
Very.
"You'll have to excuse me, I don't really pay any mind to that member."
Do some research or ask around then. He's not a Rubix Cube, he's pretty straight forward.
I work, and buy and sell, and drive nice cars, and invest, and ride fast bikes and other things. I know it makes me sound like a jerk, or some kind of show off, but you ought to believe I don't have the motivation to figure out this guy, whatever his name is. If he's an ass like you make him out to be, I wouldn't waste my time looking for him.
"Are you sure this member fails at obtaining any wisdom over time, or are you insulting this person ?"
I'll just go with assuming you didn't really read what I said: "Age does not denote wisdom, it simply denotes a higher likelihood of wisdom when compared to your own past self." When older you are likely wiser than you used to be, but that has no bearing on comparing the wisdom between yourself and other individuals beyond the assumptive likelihood.
Of course you'll go with just saying that. The truth in the matter is you are ignoring what you previously wrote, which is why you never include your previous statements. To refresh your memory. You made a member as an example of someone who doesn't seem to obtain any wisdom over time.
I'm not learning anything new about you by the way.
"You lose points yet again."
You're grading me?
Weird...
Nothing weird about that. We choose our degrees and status with others by the things we do. You are curious and argumentative.
Taking someone's word at face value only makes sense to do when the person has proven their credibility. All you present is ego, excuses, and evasion with attempts at turning the tables for distraction from your own BS, attempting to shroud it with tangents of character.
There is no substance behind your words, and until there is I don't see why you should be seen as credible at all.
You're free to believe what you wish. But as I said, you're the one asking questions and are in the dark, regardless of what you believe, whether I'm BSing you or not, I'm the one with with all the answers. All you have to go by are assumptions, so it really doesn't matter what I tell you, cause it will fly over your head.
It's not important if you accept what I say or not, that won't stop me from speaking when I feel like it. Without having to go out of my way to cater to those who want certified data because they have issues keeping up with what I say, or no I will not go back into the past and comply, when you reach into your files and supply links.
And it's probably not even that you understand or not, cause this is something you do over and over again. You ought to know you're nothing without a host to spark your deepest conversations, which are always based on the interactions of others with you placing judgement calls. Not that I mind all that much, I'm just curious to know if you can recognize how you're noted by someone like me.