> As I said, truth is not always true, only fact that will always remain
> fact. For instance, your friend lary had said that I sent him a secret
true != true? hrm... strange... odd..
fact = fact? r u sure? last time i talked with yaweh, he said i had
trapped him. be glad to talk to either of you again on facts and
beliefs.
> email and you tempted to believe it while I have denied doing so. Both
> sides seem to be true. To substantiate our differences, I have been
> asking for proofs and he failed to do so, therefore, you are old
> enough to figure out who to believe, it's all up to you to choose what
> side of truth. Regardless secret or not secret, so far I know, I had
> no personal contact to an individual named Lary. Why would I do that
> if pao and I already have engaged a few disputes earlier. Beside, I am
> not the type of people who look for side-takers, I just want to
> express my true feeling, that's all.
be cool. it may be true != true, but lary = buffalo. tigers bite to
kill.
> And same scenario on this topic; when pao chose to attack the Lys only
> and leaved out the rest of vp dirty tricks, that is considered "only
> partially true". To find out the whole truth, one should be willing to
> throughly examine both side of the coin. Wouldn't you agree that pao
> should reveal vp's plot to kill col. NpuagFwm Lis and Lyteck as well
> as the Lys dirty tricks toward vp?
well, i am only me, u r only u. if i cannot control i, if i cannot
substantiate i, why should i bother dr pao to? in other words, i would
agree for you to practice what you preach and show i by example
instead of having i 'dictate' how dr pao should operate. but, as far
as i know, on sch and published materials, only one side of the coin
has been seen. tou@aa was kind enough to substantiate and validate how
ly teck was not near the hh location when it happened. that makes a
significant difference, and we can't use binary anymore and must
resort to qubits in computing the likelihood of these past events.
but, like i suggested, and ignore if you must, i am still waiting for
substantiation/validation on your statements: 'hmong are terrorists'
and 'hmong are mercenaries' and 'ly lue was a mercenary' etc...
otherwise, we all just can say what we want (you and i, to lesser
consequences, but someone established like dr s yang, to his own
detriment).
in all cases, dr pao welcomed you to show the other side of the
coin... will you do it, or as the buffalo moaned, just talk a big
game?
