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.
See here is where you are making the mistake. He wasnt passing on info he thought to be correct, he was making things up. Calling him a liar is not baseless it is correct.
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...
We are talking football man, I hate no person in football because of the team he plays on.
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%.
No I implied nothing. You are not qualified to tell me what I was "thinking" I am a prety forward guy i write down what I mean dont try and interpret some other kind of meaning into my words.
Skins fan said he thought the charges would be dropped I said i dont think so. That is different from aquital
Again unless i actually say something then dont try and tell me how I feel, your clairvoyant skills are not up to par
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?
Here is a link to a post article about Taylor from last June, 11 months ago notice it isnt locked up.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/20/AR2005062001243.html
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.
At least you would have some kind of plausible story to attribute your argument to, the person we are discussing just made things up and had no idea how to explain where he got it.
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?
It is fair because he is lying. Maybe you arent aware of who the guy is. He comes over and makes things up thats what he does. He also says Taylor has never made a tackle while holding jersey do you believe that too?
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)[/quote]
lol