I grow tired of the same old merry-go-round here. Playing word games... So instead, I'll stick to the ideas if you agree to do the same thing.
BigDFan5 said:
LMAO I called someone a liar because he is lying. The capilazation was the accent the word for you since it seemed you had no idea what was being sai din the thread
Fine, I'll call the miscommunication on myself there. My fault dude. Are you happy. I won't just justify my capitalizations as I promised not to play word-games. Carrying on...
BigDFan5 said:
Yet in this case it is just as it seems, he was lying to try and make the plaintiffs of the case look worse than the defendant
he was passing on information he believes to be correct. We can't confirm it, so who are we to say it's incorrect. calling him a liar is baseless. Saying he has no backing to his case, and saying his point of view is meritless, well that's a different story.
BigDFan5 said:
Such a black and white view you have there. I hate NO person. I especially would not hate a person because of a team he plays on in a sport. I hate the Commanders franchise not their players. Do I wish them great careers? No, but i dont hate them.
Fine, I told you to correct me if i was wrong. You did. I was wrong, you don't hate them. So do you hate the idea of the franchise? What about the franchise do you hate anyways? It's so vague... I dislike the Cowboys. I disagree with the management style, some former players and I believe that most cowboys tend to have showboating attitudes (maybe unfair, but I think cowboys and I think Deion, Keyshawn and now TO). I don't like the america's team moniker. So there you go, that's what I don't like about the cowboys, so what don't you like about the skins?
But do you hate Osama Bin Laden? How about Saddam? What about Zarqawi? Not all hate is bad, it can be warranted. But you speak like hate is the worst thing ever. Hate can be motivating...
BigDFan5 said:
There are 2 capitalized words in this part so can i assume you are now angry and agitated? Second one of those words you capitalized was CHARGED and if you bothered to read what you quoted I said "2nd He is charged with pulling a gun on someone " So I am trying to figure what "assumption" I made other than the fact that he was charged. But then again hats a fact not assumption. Also can you show me exactloy where i called him a no good dirtbag? I mean not only in this thread but in any thread where I have called him that? If you can not do this i would appreciate you quit trying o put words in my mouth since you are not qualified to speak for me either.
okay, so you implied it. only 10% of communication is what we say... Either way, here's some examples of where you implied he is a criminal... Skins fan said he thinks Sean Taylor will be acquitted. You said you don't think so. Anyways, I didn't mean to say you SAID he was a no good dirtbag. I was paraphrasing the fact that you don't think highly of Mr Taylor. Thus your position. I was backing you up in the fact that if he turns out to be a "thug", I will back that position (whether you hold it or not) 100%.
BigDFan5 said:
DING DING DING winner! He fabricated it AKA Lied.
We are not talking old news this happend what 11 months ago? Its not locked up in any password area.
In case you didn't know, Washington Post locks up their old articles, I believe (off the top of my head), either 2 months, or 2 weeks after the fact. So in that case, it would be, wouldn't it?
BigDFan5 said:
Then do it already, otherwise you are just talking. Unless you are actually going to do it, telling us about your cop friends does nothing at all for this conversation. So again either do what you say you can do or shut up about it already.
Wow, on your beck and call, I will go ahead and bother many people who have no connection to this argument. Let's assume I did. I called all those people, and got the information. Since it isn't weblinked (the whole point behind my argument to begin with), would you believe me? It's just my word.
BigDFan5 said:
Again you miss the point even though it has slapped you in the face 3 times. We are not discussing taylor. We are discussing Skins26's lies about the plaintffs (the guys that arent taylor) He states they were arrested, charged, ATVs found and returned, bullets matched etc ec. NONE of this is true.
Again, I'm not debating the tenants of the case. I am not debating the tenants of the case. I am not debating the tenants of the case. (They say you understand 40% of what you read the first time, 60% the second time and 90% the third). I am debating the fact that information can be gathered that isn't accessible through the web. And to outright call a man a liar because he can't provide a link is unfair. Do you, or do you not, argee?
BigDFan5 said:
Saying I am just "saying what this person might say" IS speaking for someone. If you are not speaking for them then there is no use in mentioning what they might say.
I didn't quote him. I said (implied using some common sense) that he most likely is telling the story to people. Thus, it is not lunacy to believe the story could be gotten from him. So I'll repeat this twice more, I am not saying that he is telling the story to people, I am not saying he is telling the story to people. I am saying that in most likelihood he is, I am saying in most likelihood he is. Do you get the difference yet?
Either way, it's a small detail. Only a scenario I put out there to support my argument (which is [again] that information gained isn't always through the internet)
