On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 23:14:25 -0400, Josh Hill
gmail.com>
wrote:
>On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 20:20:55 +0100, Jackson Pillock
>
hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 13:13:13 -0400, Josh Hill
gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>>>>On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 08:03:37 +0100, Jackson Pillock
>>>
hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 20:35:19 -0400, Josh Hill
gmail.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 07:44:43 -0700, Ed
hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>No scales stuck anywhere Sylvia. You're the one with the beam stuck in
>>>>>>your eye as you try to pick the mote out of mine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Incidently, tropical storm 10 just hit the Florida panhandle. Minor
>>>>>>storm by any consideration, and it managed to uproot trees. I notice
>>>>>>after people brought up the fact that at least one hurricane (Dave)
>>>>>>hit Virgina in the 1970s and that minor storms are quite capable of
>>>>>>uprooting trees (which could then damage cars) you haven't mentioned
>>>>>>that part of your diatribe again. Mind you, I don't think you ever
>>>>>>acknowledged you were wrong... you just never mentioned it again.
>>>>>
>>>>>That in itself was unusual. For the most part, she keeps claiming she
>>>>>was right, even when her assertions have been shown to be fraudulent,
>>>>>erroneous, or inapplicable. Go figure.
>>>>
>>>>I note that it was fundoc, and not you, who did the showing.
>>>
>>>Yeah, and I note that it's going to be Friday sometime next week. So
>>>what?
>>
>>
>>Just that you never showed me any of Sylvia's lies, and I still don't
>>know what you were referring to.
>
>To you specifically, perhaps not, but that's largely because after you
>emailed me the post in which you asked me to point out some of her
>lies, you said the whole thing was getting stupid, and I assumed you
>had lost interest.
Ha! That's true; I forgot.
I would like to make it clear here that my first email was by
accident. I hit the 'reply' button rather than the 'reply group'
button in OE (spit, spit).
I wouldn't like people to think I was doing any sneaky
back-channeling.
>
>Also, there's always the question of whether something constitutes a
>lie or some species of insanity, and the matter of proof. I mean, when
>Sylvia claims that I wasn't interviewed at that protest, that there
>aren't any hills in Sheep Meadow, that microphones need to be powered
>by trucks, and that news crews c. 1967 didn't use film, is she lying,
>or merely being an idiot? My own sense of it is that she decides to
>smear someone and then takes great glee in finding bogus "evidence"
>and posting out-of-context or distorted quotes, which is to say I
>believe that she knows her premise is dishonest and her evidence
>knowingly shoddy, but that's hard to prove without a window into her
>mind. It suffices to know I think that she can't be trusted.
