On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 06:17:55AM -0500, Jerry wrote: > On Tue, 3 Jan 2012 18:16:30 -0600 (CST) Robert Bonomi articulated: > > > > He did *NOT* ask the prior poster to explain "why it _would_be_ > > morally correct..." HE demanded that they explain "why it *IS* > > morally correct..." > > <quote> > Would you please be so kind as to explain to me why ..." > </quote> > > You consider that a demand?
Coupled with the verb 'is' -- which you "conveniently" failed to quote, and the overall argumentative and confrontational tone of the rest of your posting, the answer that any 'reasonable man' would give is "Yes". > > I am not bashful, as you may have noticed. I simple asked him to > explain why such behavior would be morally acceptable.o You are a liar. You have now *twice* materially mis-represennted an deliberately distorted what you said. There is a MADERIAAL DIFFERENCE between "would be", and "is". Especially so, in the manner and context in which you used the words. > At that point he > made the accusation that I had attributed such statements, directly or > indirectly to him. I neither did, nor is there any evidence to support > the claim that I had. You lie, again. Your psuedo-"request" that he explain "why it _IS_ morally acceptable" *DOES* carry the implicationi/connotation that _you_ believe that the person addressed (Chad) does hold the belief in question. You stand convicted by your own use of language of attributing succh to Chad.` > Both of you choose to conveniently sidestep that > simple fact. You lie, yet a third time. I *directly* addrerssed _WHERE_ and _HOW_ you =did= attribute such beliefs to Chad. _______________________________________________ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"