Who IS this guy?!

'Niceguy' Eddie

Political Talk Show Host and Internet Radio Personality. My show, In My Humble Opinion, (original, huh?) airs on Tuesdays at 10:PM and Saturdays at 8:PM, Eastern time on RainbowRadio.

Feel free to contact me at niceguy9418@usa.com. You can also friend me on Facebook, follow me on Twitter, and Tumblr, and support my Patreon. Also, if you don't mind the stench, you can find my unofficial "fan club" over HERE. ;)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sunday, March 1, 2015

Couple things...

*sniiiiiif*

Yeah, feel like shit today.

So the regularly scheduled video celebrating the FCC's decision to maintain Net Neutrality will instead be replaced by this:

"Yay!"

There was more than that, including the skull-fuckingly dishonest manner that this has been "debated" by the Right in recent days, but... ugh... just not feeling it today.

Instead, here are some pics I came across recently to make up for it:







...perish the thought!


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the following video, I'll address William's comments below with the precise level of respect, condor and invective they deserve. Not more, no less. 

(I don't have Brabantio's patience to suffer this fool, so I'm just going to demolish him.)

195 comments:

  1. Concerning the picture asking "Guess which one the Bible's OK with?". The answer is neither of them.

    ReplyDelete
  2. OMFG, William, are you really that dense? So the following are WHAT, a condemnation of slavery?

    However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

    If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)

    When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

    When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

    Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

    Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)

    The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given." (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)

    Yeah. Bible's really against slavery isn't it? My God you people are so fucking brainwashed and blind.

    Yeah: And tell me again how a passage about a wife infidelity has something to do with Jesus' stance on homosexuality.

    You people love to refer to the bible, but you make me wonder if you've ever READ the fucking thing. You gonna make me a pie with all the cherries you're picking?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Yeah. Bible's really against slavery isn't it? My God you people are so fucking brainwashed and blind."

      Talk about being brainwashed and blind, you bring a picture of a black man being shipped to America for a life of misery and pain and say the Bible is OK with that. Maybe you should actually read what you bring to defile the Bible. Your chain and shackled picture infers that the Bible is OK with that kind of treatment of another human being. You are simply bringing more misinformation and lies to support your hatred of religion. I expect nothing less from you, Eddie, it's a habit you've become quite proficient at. So, when you want to whine about slavery being OK in the Bible, perhaps you should bring some verses that don't counter the very picture you're using to support your whine.

      Delete
    2. So you would be fine with you and your children being sold into slavery, as long as you weren't chained and shackled, it would seem. Naturally, all of the people that were passed down to the next generation as possessions were just thrilled about their circumstances, right?

      Delete
    3. "So you would be fine with you and your children being sold into slavery, as long as you weren't chained and shackled, it would seem."

      I am in slavery. I work for a person who pays what he wants to pay and tells me if it isn't enough to go somewhere else. So, what is your question again?

      Delete
    4. " Naturally, all of the people that were passed down to the next generation as possessions were just thrilled about their circumstances, right?"

      I'm sorry, I'm confused at the topic here. Are you saying that all those Bible verses said it was OK to do what you're concerned about?

      Delete
    5. "I work for a person who pays what he wants to pay and tells me if it isn't enough to go somewhere else."

      That isn't slavery.

      "Are you saying that all those Bible verses said it was OK to do what you're concerned about?"

      To keep people as slaves, yes, obviously it does.

      Delete
    6. "That isn't slavery."

      By what definition?

      "
      To keep people as slaves, yes, obviously it does."

      Hmmm. I saw a time limit in those verses, no generational thing happening.

      Delete
    7. "By what definition?"

      By your definition, for starters, since you wanted to nitpick over the chains and shackles in the picture. If that's your definition of "slavery" as you want to apply it to the Bible, then you can't turn around and claim that you're a slave.

      "I saw a time limit in those verses, no generational thing happening."

      From Eddie's post above: "You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance."
      Why are you so ignorant about the Bible?

      Delete
    8. " If that's your definition of "slavery" as you want to apply it to the Bible, then you can't turn around and claim that you're a slave."

      "IF" is a big word in your statement. However, you're basing your argument on an incorrect assumption.

      "Why are you so ignorant about the Bible?

      Ahh, you gotta love Leviticus. So many wise teachings for the people of that day.

      Delete
    9. ""IF" is a big word in your statement."

      Then your complaint about Eddie's meme was meaningless. If the chains and shackles are supposed to be relevant to anything, then they're also relevant to your claim that you're a slave because you don't choose your own wages.

      "So many wise teachings for the people of that day."

      So, you must believe that people didn't have any right to freedom back then, but somehow they do now. What's the theory there, that God made some people unworthy, just so that they could suffer as slaves? That's fairly psychotic.

      Let's also note that your comment about "of that day" doesn't change the fact that you claimed to have seen a "time limit", even though Eddie's quotes explicitly showed the "generational thing" that you somehow missed. Not that you should have needed to see those verses anyway, since I knew off of the top of my head that slaves could be passed from one generation to the next.

      Delete
    10. "Then your complaint about Eddie's meme was meaningless."

      My complaint (you bring a picture of a black man being shipped to America for a life of misery and pain and say the Bible is OK with that.), is the Bible is never "OK" with that kind of treatment. Show me where the Bible is "OK" with raping and murdering your slaves. Which is the life they are being shipped off to.

      "Let's also note that your comment about "of that day" doesn't change the fact that you claimed to have seen a "time limit", even though Eddie's quotes explicitly showed the "generational thing" that you somehow missed."

      Do you know any Levites? Any country that has Levites in it? If you're going to preach to me about knowing the Bible, you better brush up on your own limited knowledge first. Cause I'm pretty sure that when you preach to me about religion you are accepting that you are religious too. Proving ... once again ... that atheism is a religion, since you keep preaching about what is right/wrong according to your beliefs.

      Delete
    11. "Show me where the Bible is "OK" with raping and murdering your slaves."

      How do chains and shackles equal "raping and murdering"? All slaves were raped and murdered? It seems unlikely.

      Next question: if the picture showed someone without chains and shackles, even if they were working, how would that image convey the concept of slavery?

      "Cause I'm pretty sure that when you preach to me about religion you are accepting that you are religious too."

      I'm completely sure that you can't justify that belief. Anyone can talk about any holy book without being religious at all.

      "Proving ... once again ... that atheism is a religion, since you keep preaching about what is right/wrong according to your beliefs."

      I would have had to say something about religious beliefs in order for you to make your claim. It's a nice little win/win that you're trying to set up, though; if I don't think that anything is "wrong", then supposedly atheism is immoral, and if I do, then you claim that atheism is a religion. Unfortunately, only you are stupid enough to believe your convenient constructs.

      Also notice that you didn't address the point at all. Why are you trying to change the subject?

      Delete
    12. "How do chains and shackles equal "raping and murdering"? All slaves were raped and murdered? It seems unlikely."

      I'm sorry, I didn't know you are ignorant of how slaves were treated in America.

      "Next question: if the picture showed someone without chains and shackles, even if they were working, how would that image convey the concept of slavery?"

      I'm not responsible for your locked in (and misconceived) mind set about the word "slave". Try to do better if you want to keep up in this one.

      "Also notice that you didn't address the point at all."

      I also noticed that you ignored my on topic questions about Levites.

      Delete
    13. "I'm sorry, I didn't know you are ignorant of how slaves were treated in America."

      The point would be, obviously, that the picture doesn't convey "raping and murdering". It only shows the concept of slavery, not the behavior of individual owners.

      "I'm not responsible for your locked in (and misconceived) mind set about the word "slave"."

      In other words, the picture must have something to the effect of chains and shackles in order to distinguish it as being about slavery. Thanks for playing.

      "I also noticed that you ignored my on topic questions about Levites."

      You would have to explain what your point is, especially since I already asked about the idea of your deity creating people who were unworthy of freedom. Why would slavery be a morally acceptable concept for any group of people at any point in time?

      Delete
    14. "In other words, the picture must have something to the effect of chains and shackles in order to distinguish it as being about slavery. Thanks for playing."

      Wow, you'll go to no ends to defend your racist stereotyping. And the ship in the background and the people being black mean nothing to you? Obviously, the picture is intended to give a visualization of slavery in America. And, none of the verses Eddie brought showed that the Bible was "OK" with that kind of treatment to slaves.

      Delete
    15. "You would have to explain what your point is, especially since I already asked about the idea of your deity creating people who were unworthy of freedom."

      Have you developed a new standard? I don't have to answer any of your questions until you fully explain your point beforehand? Interesting tactic to avoid answering for what you say.

      Delete
    16. My response to William's "points" in video above.

      Delete
    17. "Wow, you'll go to no ends to defend your racist stereotyping."

      There is no "racist stereotyping on my part, sorry.

      "And the ship in the background and the people being black mean nothing to you?"

      It conveys the concept of slavery, yes. So what?

      "Obviously, the picture is intended to give a visualization of slavery in America. And, none of the verses Eddie brought showed that the Bible was "OK" with that kind of treatment to slaves."

      But the Bible condones slavery. You would seem to be arguing that slavery is fine, as long as it doesn't involve shackles and transport ships. I, having a higher moral standard than you, would say instead that slavery is wrong either way.

      "I don't have to answer any of your questions until you fully explain your point beforehand?"

      I don't have to answer your questions if they're clearly irrelevant. If you want to try to make an actual argument and then ask me relevant questions, go ahead. There's nothing new about that.

      "Interesting tactic to avoid answering for what you say."

      You avoided answering this: "Why would slavery be a morally acceptable concept for any group of people at any point in time?" On the other hand, you haven't even explained what you imagine I'm avoiding. As far as you've demonstrated, your questions are meaningless.

      Delete
  3. In your Jimmy Carter statement, isn't he saying that the government IS based on Christian values because the government does so much for the poor with tax dollars? It sounds as if he is saying that right-wingers who complain about tax dollars being used to help the poor are hypocritical when they say they want a country based on Christian values. Which interprets to (IMHO) the government is based on Christian values because it uses tax dollars to help the poor. Hardly a left wing philosophy, since left-wingers do so little for the poor. The most they seem to do is produce them.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "It sounds as if he is saying that right-wingers who complain about tax dollars being used to help the poor are hypocritical when they say they want a country based on Christian values. Which interprets to (IMHO) the government is based on Christian values because it uses tax dollars to help the poor."

      No, you're confusing the reaction of one group with the intent of another group. Anyone who thinks that this is or should be a country based on Christian values should embrace government support for the poor. That doesn't reflect on the nature of the government, since that support doesn't rely on any religious values at all.

      You're welcome.

      Delete
    2. "No, you're confusing the reaction of one group with the intent of another group."

      I'm not confusing that at all.

      " Anyone who thinks that this is or should be a country based on Christian values should embrace government support for the poor."

      And, I believe that's what I just said.

      Delete
    3. "I'm not confusing that at all."

      Obviously, you are, because saying that Christians should agree with the government supporting the poor doesn't imply that the government is based on Christian values.

      "And, I believe that's what I just said."

      No, you went beyond that and came to an illogical conclusion.

      Delete
    4. "Obviously, you are, because saying that Christians should agree with the government supporting the poor doesn't imply that the government is based on Christian values."

      What else would it be based on? I'm pretty sure atheists don't give as much as Christians, to the poor. Perhaps you could enlighten us with some stats showing another group that gives as much as Christians.

      "No, you went beyond that and came to an illogical conclusion."

      Logical conclusion until you bring evidence of otherwise.

      Delete
    5. "What else would it be based on?"

      A government has to be based on a religion? No, plenty of other countries have had systems based on governance of the people without there being any religious foundation for it.

      "I'm pretty sure atheists don't give as much as Christians, to the poor."

      That's a red herring; comparative measurements don't make the government Christian-based. I'm pretty sure that atheists oppose organized prayer in public schools, so by your logic the government is atheistic.

      "Logical conclusion until you bring evidence of otherwise."

      I did, you replied with an empty assertion to the contrary. You lose.

      Delete
    6. " No, plenty of other countries have had systems based on governance of the people without there being any religious foundation for it."

      But we're not talking about "other countries" are we?


      " I'm pretty sure that atheists oppose organized prayer in public schools, so by your logic the government is atheistic."

      I think if we replaced the word "atheist" with "idiot" your statement would still work.

      Delete
    7. "But we're not talking about "other countries" are we?"

      You aren't going to try to argue that America is somehow unique in needing to have a government based on a religion, sorry.

      "I think if we replaced the word "atheist" with "idiot" your statement would still work."

      Non sequitur and ad hominem. My point stands. Anything else?

      Delete
    8. "You aren't going to try to argue that America is somehow unique in needing to have a government based on a religion, sorry."

      No, if you could read, you would see that I am pointing out what Jimmy Carter is saying. If you have a complaint about that, you should write to him and whine there. Otherwise, wipe the tears away before it shorts out your keyboard.


      "Non sequitur and ad hominem."

      Certainly funny as hell, though. And seemingly true.

      Delete
    9. "No, if you could read, you would see that I am pointing out what Jimmy Carter is saying."

      I know what you were trying to do. What I'm doing is shooting down your attempt to separate the United States government from others when you ask "what else would it be based on?" If you want to talk about what government is founded on, then other countries are obviously relevant to that. Try to keep up.

      "Certainly funny as hell, though."

      My point still stands, no matter how funny you claim to think that you are.

      Delete
    10. "I know what you were trying to do."

      Why are you asking unrelated and irrelevant questions then?

      "My point still stands, no matter how funny you claim to think that you are."

      Have you started crying already?

      Delete
    11. "Why are you asking unrelated and irrelevant questions then?"

      You haven't shown anything "unrelated and irrelevant" about anything I've said. As to why I'm asking questions, it's because your argument was logically flawed.

      "Have you started crying already?"

      You: "Talk about being brainwashed and blind, you bring a picture of a black man being shipped to America for a life of misery and pain and say the Bible is OK with that."

      Did you think that you had made a point? If so, then I have the right to make a point. If countering your argument is "crying", then you were "crying" to begin with. Someday, you may figure out that this playground-level tactic of bringing up "crying" will never work for you.

      Delete
    12. My response to William's "points" in video above.

      Delete
    13. He won't watch your videos, Eddie. He seems to have some sexual reaction to them.

      Delete
    14. Well, I can't be bothered to respond in writing to this fool anymore. I can't possibly convey the amount of contempt and frustratrion in the face of such abject stupidity, illogic and absurdity, adequately in a written post. I don't know how you do it, man. You're a more patient (or masochistic LOL) man that I am.

      Delete
    15. Actually, he's a lot like you, Eddie. Only instead of bringing fake stats and lies, he brings no evidence but still lies. Gotta love the liberal: defend themselves for the lies they produce then call others names when the liberal doesn't get his way. The only reason you won't reply in writing is because you haven't the guts to support what is wrong with your posts. The Bible has never been "OK" with the type of slavery you are depicting in your picture. That is plain as day. Why you are questioning that is beyond me. My interpretation of what Jimmy Carter said is spot on ... too bad barbie doesn't like that. If all you two want to do is cry about someone posting here, then by all means continue crying. It makes you look extremely foolish, but that's never stopped a liberal from doing what they do before, why would it now.
      So, you just keep producing your lies and misinformation, Eddie (and barbie), I'll just keep pointing them out for others to see. Kind of like you liberals do to right wing spewers of lies and misinformation.

      Delete
    16. "Kind of like you liberals do to right wing spewers of lies and misinformation."

      Which is why your comments always warrant a response, William, and it's too bad that you feel a need to cry over it.

      Delete
    17. That's funny since you haven't shown anywhere I lied or misinformed. Like you often say: your opinion doesn't make it fact. Unlike Eddies 'fact' about millions dieing from small pox in 1967 "alone", then he says to look it up. Which I did and found he lied and misinformed. Like when he called not getting immunized a form of genocide then denies that abortion is also.
      Yeah, bring some of your comments on my lies and misinformation and we'll stack them next to Eddies and yours and see how far it gets you.
      I think what you'll do is bring some obscure statement and use your illogical opinion to misinterpret what was said and call it a lie. Either that or not bring anything at all, because that is what you often do when asked for proof.

      Delete
    18. I hardly need your permission, William, but thanks anyway. And you just keep on making Conservatives look like idiots. Just in case I need to take a few days off.

      Delete
    19. "That's funny since you haven't shown anywhere I lied or misinformed."

      That's funny, considering your continuous and baseless charges of lying against me. And, of course, I've demonstrated any number of lies on your part.

      "That's funny since you haven't shown anywhere I lied or misinformed."

      If you can say that there's such a thing as "income law", then I'll bet that you can find a source that proves that millions of people died from smallpox in 1967.

      "Like when he called not getting immunized a form of genocide then denies that abortion is also."

      That's a difference of opinion, sorry. Not everyone equates potential life to people the way that you do.

      "I think what you'll do is bring some obscure statement and use your illogical opinion to misinterpret what was said and call it a lie."

      I think you'll use that comment to "prove" that your blatant lies are "obscure" or that there's some reasonable explanation that you conveniently can't provide. Out of morbid curiosity, what would "obscure" have to do with whether your statements are true or not? What is that supposed to translate to, "I forgot about that one, so it doesn't count"? Hilarious.

      "Either that or not bring anything at all, because that is what you often do when asked for proof."

      That's also amusing, since I recently chased you off of a thread by demonstrating your reprehensible behavior on multiple occasions. You know you can't win here, so you talk louder in order to compensate. It's all you have.

      Delete
    20. I'm not seeking permission ... I'm seeking a little more truth from you. Which makes me look like an idiot in what way?
      What I don't get is that you lie and misinform as much as Limbaugh yet continually whine about him. Are you jealous over the money he makes doing the same thing you do? There must be some kind of logical reason you complain about me when all you do is act like Limbaugh and then complain that I'm just like other conservatives.

      BTW, you can thank mediamatters for me finding you site ... ask and ye shall receive. Just remember the 'too hot in the kitchen' thing when you refuse to "argue" as you ask others to (then you complain when others argue). You're definitely a load of laughs..


      Delete
    21. "That's also amusing, since I recently chased you off of a thread by demonstrating your reprehensible behavior on multiple occasions."

      ROTFLMAO@U

      You're a classic!

      Delete
    22. "You're a classic!"

      That isn't a denial.

      Delete
    23. You haven't denied living in New Jersey, either. Now what?

      Delete
    24. "You haven't denied living in New Jersey, either."

      Of course I have, multiple times.

      Delete
    25. For instance: "I don't live in the Jersey area, obviously."

      You: "That's funny since you haven't shown anywhere I lied or misinformed."
      You: "You haven't denied living in New Jersey, either."
      Since I have denied it, you just got caught spreading misinformation. Thanks for playing.

      Delete
    26. Bonus, you: "BTW, that would mean that until you share where you live, you made up that you don't live in Jersey."

      That proves that you were aware of my denial of your lie about me living in the Jersey area. So, why are you lying (again) and claiming that I never denied it?

      Delete
    27. You said "obviously". It can't be obvious if you don't bring proof of that. Otherwise it is still you opinion. Remember, your opinion doesn't count as fact.
      Wow, that's the best you can do for a lie on my part? Pathetic.

      Delete
    28. "It can't be obvious if you don't bring proof of that. Otherwise it is still you opinion. Remember, your opinion doesn't count as fact."

      A fact that you're unaware of is still a fact. Besides that, you said that I didn't deny it, when I explicitly did. Ergo, you lied.

      Anything else?

      Delete
    29. " Ergo, you lied."

      You gave a false premise, I couldn't have lied if there was no honest statement to begin with.

      "A fact that you're unaware of is still a fact."

      Only if it is an actual fact. Opinion doesn't make it fact (your standard).

      Delete
    30. "You gave a false premise, I couldn't have lied if there was no honest statement to begin with."

      You haven't shown that there was "no honest statement" on my part, and that wouldn't change the fact that you lied, either. Even if I lived in New Jersey, and I don't, you still lied when you said that I didn't deny your claim.

      "Only if it is an actual fact."

      And it is. I don't live in New Jersey, and that isn't a matter of opinion. Even if you could prove that I live there, and you can't, it still would not be a matter of opinion.

      Delete
    31. " I don't live in New Jersey, and that isn't a matter of opinion."

      I don't know you don't. I can say you live anywhere and be telling the truth, until I have evidence otherwise. It isn't a lie if I don't know what the truth is (if it's different). This isn't rocket science, you know.

      Delete
    32. "I can say you live anywhere and be telling the truth, until I have evidence otherwise."

      No, because if the truth is unknown to you, then you can't honestly say where I live. In order to be honest, you would actually have had to believe that I live in New Jersey. It's important to note that you didn't assert my location out of nowhere; you were trying to use it as evidence against me. Since your intent was to pursue your argument, the only honest way of doing that would require evidence from you. Instead, you simply said where I lived as if it was a fact.

      You lose.

      Delete
    33. " Instead, you simply said where I lived as if it was a fact."

      For me, it is fact. There is no evidence to the contrary for me to make any other conclusion.
      Just get over the fact that you haven't got any examples of me lying or misinforming. If the ONLY thing you have is me saying you live in Jersey, then you have floundered and should just crawl away with your tail between you legs, like Eddie has done.

      ROTFLMAO@U

      Delete
    34. "For me, it is fact."

      Not according to you. When I said that I don't live in New Jersey, you said "I don't know you don't." Besides that, you previously said that it was only your opinion. Since it can't be both a matter of fact and one of opinion, one of your two claims is a lie.

      By the way, saying that something is a fact for you doesn't make it a fact. Reality doesn't conform to what you wish to be true.

      "If the ONLY thing you have is me saying you live in Jersey, then you have floundered and should just crawl away with your tail between you legs, like Eddie has done."

      On this very thread, you lied when you said that I never denied your claim that I live in New Jersey. I even proved that you knew that I had denied it, so you can't claim that you somehow missed it. There are dozens of other instances as well, but this thread alone is enough to show that you do lie.

      Your lack of intestinal fortitude for owning up to your behavior doesn't make it magically disappear.

      Delete
    35. "Your lack of intestinal fortitude for owning up to your behavior doesn't make it magically disappear."

      Your inability to prove what you say is behavior that magically appears to be very liberal.

      Delete
    36. "Your inability to prove what you say is behavior that magically appears to be very liberal."

      I did prove what I said. This is your lack of intestinal fortitude on display again.

      Also, you disapprove of generalizing when it comes to police officers, so categorizing supposed behavior as "liberal" is hypocritical of you. And, in the real world, "liberal" is not an insult. That sort of comment only solidifies my criticism of your character.

      Anything else?

      Delete
    37. "I did prove what I said."

      You're a proven habitual liar, no one can take your word at face value.

      " That sort of comment only solidifies my criticism of your character."

      Thank you, Mr Critic. It's funny how you criticize my perceived behavior but ignore your own similar behavior. How 'liberal' of you.

      Delete
    38. "You're a proven habitual liar, no one can take your word at face value."

      According to you, while you've never backed up your accusations. I can just as easily dismiss your comment by saying that you are a proven liar, since you lied on this very thread.

      "Thank you, Mr Critic. It's funny how you criticize my perceived behavior but ignore your own similar behavior."

      Feel free to show what is "similar". You've never succeeded before, so I'm not particularly nervous about challenging you again. Or ever, for that matter.

      Delete
    39. "According to you, while you've never backed up your accusations."

      Of course you know that your opinion doesn't count as proof. My accusations stand on their own merit. Like it or not.

      Delete
    40. "Of course you know that your opinion doesn't count as proof. My accusations stand on their own merit."

      Then my statements stand on their own merit as well. Which means that your demands for proof of location are dishonest, by your own standard.

      The accusation of not proving what I say and the idea that what you say stands on its own merit are completely contradictory, in case you hadn't noticed. If you don't accept the proof against you, that supposedly reflects badly on me; if you have no evidence at all, then you don't need to prove anything, somehow.

      Thank you for further substantiating all of the criticisms of your character. Would you like to keep digging?

      Delete
    41. "Then my statements stand on their own merit as well."

      That they do. And, considering the way you so often lie, I don't think that is going to be a good thing for you.

      Delete
    42. "And, considering the way you so often lie, I don't think that is going to be a good thing for you."

      Except you've never demonstrated a lie on my part. On the other hand, your statement applies to your "merit", and you were proven to have lied on this very thread.

      Anything else?

      Delete
    43. "Except you've never demonstrated a lie on my part. "

      Sure I have, many times. Get over yourself. You Jersey people are all alike: stuck on yourselves. Turns out I'm right about where you live. Not lying again. Too bad for you that I just don't lie like you do.

      Now, run along.

      Delete
    44. "Sure I have, many times."

      No, you haven't.

      "You Jersey people are all alike: stuck on yourselves."

      You already admitted that you know that I'm not from New Jersey.

      "Too bad for you that I just don't lie like you do."

      You've been proven to have lied on this thread. You can't get around that. Besides, if I'm supposedly stuck on myself for denying your charges of lying, then you must be the same for saying "I just don't lie". That would make you a hypocrite.

      Anything else?

      Delete
    45. "You already admitted that you know that I'm not from New Jersey."

      Where did that happen? Making shit up again? Wow, you and Eddie sure make shit up a lot and expect (well the liberals anyway) others to believe you.

      "You've been proven to have lied on this thread."

      Where did THAT happen? Your delusions are sneaking out again.

      If this is really the best you can do, then ... no, nothing else. See you on the next article where you put on another exhibition of your idiocy.

      Delete
    46. "Where did that happen?"

      Me: "I don't live in New Jersey, and that isn't a matter of opinion."
      You: "I don't know you don't."

      "Where did THAT happen?"

      You: "You haven't denied living in New Jersey, either."
      You, previously: "BTW, that would mean that until you share where you live, you made up that you don't live in Jersey."
      The latter statement proves that you were aware that I denied your claim that I live in New Jersey. Ergo, your statement that I "haven't denied" it must have been intentionally false.

      Any other stupid questions, or are you done?

      Delete
    47. "Ergo, ..."

      Perhaps you should look up the meaning of that word. Apparently, you don't know how to use it.
      Since I am unaware of where you live, I cannot be lying when I give my opinion of where you live. Your word is obviously unreliable, so I really don't see how I can take a simple statement by you and actually believe it.
      So, it appears you have been collecting a lot of shares in "stupid" stock or simply can't read.

      Delete
    48. "Since I am unaware of where you live, I cannot be lying when I give my opinion of where you live."

      You stated it as fact, for one thing. Secondly, it's not a matter of opinion. Third, there would be no way of coming to any reasoned "opinion" about that, even if that much made sense. All of those considered, it's obviously dishonest of you to assert my location.
      And, you: "For me, it is fact."
      Was that statement a lie, or is your return to your excuse of "opinion" a lie? It has to be one or the other, since it can't be both.

      On top of all of that, nothing that you just said changes the fact that you claimed that I didn't deny living in New Jersey, when you acknowledged previously that I had denied it. That happened even if you could have a valid "opinion" on where I live. Even if I'm in New Jersey right now (and I'm not), I still denied living in that place. Ergo, you haven't changed the fact that you were proven to have lied on this thread. And your claim of "opinion" proves another lie on your part, since you can't believe both "I give my opinion" and "it is fact" at the same time.

      You can't get out of that, no matter how many baseless accusations you lob against me. Sorry.

      Delete
    49. "You stated it as fact, for one thing."

      It is a fact that I've based on my opinion garnered from your behavior (as I explained another time). If you know some facts that are different, please bring them. Otherwise, as explained, I cannot trust the validity of anything you say.

      Delete
    50. "It is a fact that I've based on my opinion garnered from your behavior (as I explained another time)."

      You stated it as if it was a fact. There is no "behavior" which suggests residence in New Jersey, even if you ever established that behavior on my part (and you haven't). Random generalizations aren't even enough evidence to form an opinion, and that's if it was a matter of opinion at all. And, again, it isn't. It's a fact that I don't live in New Jersey. It isn't subjective in the slightest. The fact that you aren't going to get me to show you my driver's license doesn't allow you to assert where I live, whether you call it a "fact" or an "opinion". I know where I live. You don't. I am the authority on the matter, so you will submit to that. Whether that's willingly or just because you slink away from yet another thread is up to you.

      My theory here is that you actually thought that I had said something at some point about living in New Jersey. When you realized that you were wrong, you didn't want to admit it, and since that time have been tap-dancing in a hilariously pathetic effort to justify your claim. A decent person would have simply admitted the error, apologized, and moved the hell on. You should think about that, if you're capable of that much.

      In any event, you still haven't addressed the fact that you said that I didn't deny your claim, and you previously acknowledged that I had denied it. That makes you a liar, so nothing you say has any validity.

      Thanks for playing.

      Delete
    51. Some additional inspiration for your redemption:

      Proverbs 16:5 - "Everyone who is arrogant in heart is an abomination to the Lord; be assured, he will not go unpunished."

      Proverbs 16:18 - "Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall."

      You're welcome.

      Delete
    52. " I know where I live. You don't. I am the authority on the matter, so you will submit to that."

      Good verses you brought. Do you think telling me that I "will submit" is NOT arrogant or prideful? Hmm, perhaps you shouldn't have brought those verses after you just told me.that I will submit to your authority. Sorry, you have no authority and obviously no respect for the truth. So, if you're done crying now, then this should just about end this conversation. I look forward to the next time I get to wipe you back and forth across the floor. It's always so fun.

      Delete
    53. "Do you think telling me that I "will submit" is NOT arrogant or prideful?"

      It's not arrogant or prideful, because I'm the authority on where I live. You aren't. "Arrogant" would be to having an exaggerated sense of importance, as in telling someone where they live when you have no way of knowing such a thing. In contrast, asserting where I live is perfectly reasonable. You can't equate the two with any sense of honesty.

      "Sorry, you have no authority and obviously no respect for the truth."

      You haven't shown any lies on my part, while you got caught lying on this very thread. And yes, I am the authority on where I live. You aren't. Quit crying about it.

      "So, if you're done crying now, then this should just about end this conversation."

      You're the one who brought up New Jersey on this thread, not me. All I've done is to point out your lies.

      Run away, now.

      Delete
    54. I'll amend that to read "me asserting where I live is perfectly reasonable", because otherwise, you'll pretend that it was supposed to refer to your behavior.

      Delete
    55. "I'll amend that to read "me asserting where I live is perfectly reasonable", because otherwise, you'll pretend that it was supposed to refer to your behavior."

      Well, then you are UNREASONABLE since you have never asserted where you live. Personally, I think you continue to refuse to admit where you live because you know I'm right.

      "You haven't shown any lies on my part, while you got caught lying on this very thread."

      I've proven each time I claimed you lied. The lies you think you're proving? All based on your opinion with no facts to back them up. It is quite easy to go back and read what you've written, so you being a proven habitual liar doesn't help your case any as you cry and stomp your feet while yelling: "I'm not a liar ... sniff, sniff"

      So, quit posting, you're looking dumber and dumber each time you do, you little crybaby.

      Delete
    56. "Well, then you are UNREASONABLE since you have never asserted where you live."

      Wrong. I've asserted that I live somewhere other than New Jersey.

      "Personally, I think you continue to refuse to admit where you live because you know I'm right."

      Or, maybe it's generally not a good idea to show your address to random people on the internet.

      "I've proven each time I claimed you lied."

      No, you never have. You only show some convoluted reasoning which you use to justify your belief of that. By all means, show me one instance where you've "proven" a lie on my part.

      "All based on your opinion with no facts to back them up."

      You should be able to demonstrate that. On this thread, for instance. You made a claim that I didn't deny living in New Jersey, and you previously admitted knowing that I denied living in New Jersey. Both quotes were your own words, and you haven't disputed their meaning. So, how is that my "opinion"? And if that's the case, then how would it ever be possible to prove a lie?

      If you want to actually try to defend yourself with something of substance, go right ahead. Your repeated assertions aren't evidence of anything except your psychosis.

      Delete
    57. "Or, maybe it's generally not a good idea to show your address to random people on the internet."

      Why? Do you think they might hit you on the side of the head with a brick ... like Eddie has threatened to do?

      Delete
    58. "Do you think they might hit you on the side of the head with a brick ... like Eddie has threatened to do?"

      That wasn't an actual threat, but that's the general idea. Your attempt to change the subject only tells me that you're conceding everything that I said.

      Anything else?

      Delete
    59. "That wasn't an actual threat, but that's the general idea."

      Sure it was. Show me how it could be taken any other way. And that IS the general ideal. You're worried about a generic threat against you (unwilling to admit a simple State) and he is making generic threats against people. Yet, for some reason, you defend his statement. That just doesn't seem logical (as most of your stuff).

      Good luck with that.

      "Your attempt to change the subject only tells me that you're conceding everything that I said."

      Umm, it was probably you who changed the subject, and you probably did it within your first two posts (that's your MO).

      Good luck with that one, too.
      .

      Delete
    60. "Show me how it could be taken any other way."

      It was clearly hyperbole. Which would mean that it's not supposed to be taken literally.

      "You're worried about a generic threat against you (unwilling to admit a simple State) and he is making generic threats against people."

      Where did I say "generic"? Your mental condition, specifically, suggests that giving you information would be unwise. As to telling you what state I live in, how would that convince you of anything? No, someone who demands evidence from Eddie that he didn't make a typo surely must be demanding something more than a "simple State". And since you've repeatedly said that you're unwilling to believe anything that I say, I can't be expected to believe that you would be satisfied with anything less than government-issued identification.

      "Yet, for some reason, you defend his statement."

      Because he didn't threaten anyone.

      "That just doesn't seem logical (as most of your stuff)."

      That's because you're confused.

      "Umm, it was probably you who changed the subject, and you probably did it within your first two posts (that's your MO)."

      You're the one who started whining about Eddie's nonexistent "threat", so it's obviously you that changed the subject. You did it in your very previous post, yet you're already confused as to who brought it up. That's hilarious.

      Delete
    61. "No, someone who demands evidence from Eddie that he didn't make a typo surely must be demanding something more than a "simple State"."

      I haven't demanded any evidence for a typo Eddie made.WTF are you talking about? I am still interested in the proof he has for 15 million deaths attributed to small pox in "1967 alone". Simple things like that which are key to his whines about independent thinkers. Maybe you'll step up to the plate and bring the proof for him. He seems so dependent on you.
      Maybe can bring an explanation of how non-vacinated people can cause anyone who has been vaccinated to get the illness that they are vaccinated against. How in the hell is it possible to have another epidemic when about 95% of Americans are already vaccinated? I think he's just whining because he's good at it. He calls it genocide, yet produces no proof of the deaths he claimed happened. THAT'S the kind of evidence I'm looking for, not anything for a typo. If you're too stupid to realize that ... well, many people from Jersey act the same as you do.

      "You're the one who started whining about Eddie's nonexistent "threat", so it's obviously you that changed the subject."

      So, your crying that you are afraid of telling people where you live because you may get beat up is on topic in what way? Have you always had the 'short-person' syndrome?

      "It was clearly hyperbole."

      Explain how that could possibly be true or even a possibility. Just saying it isn't good enough.

      Delete
    62. "I haven't demanded any evidence for a typo Eddie made.WTF are you talking about?"

      Eddie: "Obviously (to everyone except William perhaps) there was never a "BUGS" team in professional baseball and that was, in fact, a typo."
      You: "You saying so doesn't make it true. Got any proof of what you say?"

      "Maybe you'll step up to the plate and bring the proof for him."

      Maybe when you find a lawyer who says that they work in the field of "income law", I'll look into the matter. Otherwise, I don't really care about your hypocritical accusations.

      "THAT'S the kind of evidence I'm looking for, not anything for a typo."

      What did any of that say about the evidence you're expecting to prove that I don't live in New Jersey? If anything, you bolstered my point.

      "So, your crying that you are afraid of telling people where you live because you may get beat up is on topic in what way?"

      You brought up New Jersey, not me. Did you forget that as well? I'm not seriously concerned about any violence, but it's a good principle not to put your address our for everyone to see. Especially when it's none of your business and isn't relevant to the original argument to begin with. Just because you make a stupid comment accusing me of something doesn't obligate me to give you my personal information. That's your problem, not mine.

      "Explain how that could possibly be true or even a possibility."

      The phrase "could possibly be true" would be the same as "a possibility", in case you want to avoid future redundancy. As to how it "could possibly be" hyperbole, it "could possibly be" language used for effect and not meant to be taken literally. That obviously makes more sense than the alternate possibility. A question for you: if you don't recognize hyperbole here, where do you recognize it? What is the significant difference between the two? Or do you simply fly off the handle any time you see anything which could be taken literally and have violent implications?

      Good luck.

      Delete
    63. Barbie, you're a moron. A dishonest moron at that. You taking those quotes out of context to change the meaning of both is considered LYING. You are, however, a proven habitual liar, so no one expects anything less from you.

      Eddie: BTW, just so William can't accuse me of lying about baseball now, Preacher Roe was an actual pitcher for the Cards, BUCS (meaning the Pirates) and Dodgers from 1944 to 1954.
      AND yes, while there was never any BUGS, there were the Cleveland SPIDERS from 1887 to 1899.
      Is this a detailed enough proof-reading, fact-checking, error-correcting and truth-telling job for you, William?
      Me: Actually, no it isn't. You saying so doesn't make it true. Got any proof of what you say?

      "Maybe when you find a lawyer who says that they work in the field of "income law", I'll look into the matter."

      Well, I'm sure everyone who works at H&R Block works in the field of "income laws". Here's one example of what they would look for: http://definitions.uslegal.com/i/imputed-income/
      or here:
      http://thelawdictionary.org/income/
      Gee, I've found evidence (and brought the evidence) of income laws, yet again (last time I even brought a link to "income laws"). Do you need me to do it every time you ignorantly deny the existence of income laws?

      "Just because you make a stupid comment accusing me of something doesn't obligate me to give you my personal information. That's your problem, not mine."

      Then why do you keep crying about it? If you're so not worried about it, why do you keep changing the subject back to where you live?

      "As to how it "could possibly be" hyperbole, it "could possibly be" language used for effect and not meant to be taken literally."

      Hmm, tell that to the cops:
      http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/world/police-officers-hit-by-bricks-at-illegal-rave/ar-BBi6RPi
      http://www.pjstar.com/article/20141025/News/141029391
      http://www.firehouse.com/blog/12010862/detroit-fire-truck-hit-by-bricks-nobody-injured (this one is in Detroit, could have been Eddie).
      That's the best you can do? That's nothing more than what I would expect from you.

      Delete
    64. "You taking those quotes out of context to change the meaning of both is considered LYING."

      You didn't demonstrate any "change" of meaning. The complete text includes the "typo" quote, which you omitted. Eddie added the comment so that you couldn't accuse him of claiming that there was a team known as the "bugs". He had already listed Roe's history in his previous comment. So, you responding to the "typo" comment would mean that you were referring to the typo. If you meant something else, you should learn to be more specific. And that still doesn't affect me at all, because it's absurd to demand proof of the details of Roe's career. How would that be relevant to anything?

      "Well, I'm sure everyone who works at H&R Block works in the field of "income laws"."

      You would be wrong. That would be an income tax service, not a law firm. Also, notice that you pluralized "law", while using quotes as if I said "income laws". I didn't. I said "income law", because that would be a supposed field of law.

      "http://definitions.uslegal.com/i/imputed-income/"

      You're providing definitions used in law. That doesn't demonstrate "income law".

      "Gee, I've found evidence (and brought the evidence) of income laws, yet again (last time I even brought a link to "income laws")."

      Your link proved my point, not yours. Again, find a lawyer who works in the field of "income law". You can't do it, because there is no such designation. So, you can't criticize anyone else for citing facts that you think are inaccurate.

      "Then why do you keep crying about it? If you're so not worried about it, why do you keep changing the subject back to where you live?"

      You brought up "New Jersey" on this thread, not me. I'm simply defending myself against your false claims, which is my right.

      "Hmm, tell that to the cops:"

      The fact that there is such a thing as actual violence doesn't address the fact that there is such a thing as hyperbole. One case doesn't affect the other, because the circumstances don't carry over.

      Notice how you failed to address the specifics of what Eddie said and your understanding of hyperbole? That's the sort of thing you have to do in order to make an argument. You're failing.

      Delete
    65. "You didn't demonstrate any "change" of meaning."

      Obviously, I did. You only brought a known typo and ignored the obvious facts he brought.

      "The complete text includes the "typo" quote, which you omitted."

      Because I obviously knew that was a typo. I did, however, ask for evidence on the FACTS he brought, but didn't support. As in true liberal form, he expects ME to investigate his claims of fact. Hmmm, just like YOU do.

      "Also, notice that you pluralized "law", while using quotes as if I said "income laws"."

      Ummm, that's because there is more than one income law. This isn't rocket science now and it wasn't then. You seem to have failed to understand that.

      "Your link proved my point, not yours."

      Your point was that there are laws that govern income (income law)? Wow, it sure seems that your point is there are no laws governing income. Because, obviously, if there is a law governing income it would be called an "income law". Thanks for admitting you're in the wrong.

      "I'm simply defending myself against your false claims, which is my right."

      It's not a "false claim" until it has been shown to be one.

      "One case doesn't affect the other, because the circumstances don't carry over."

      So, you have personal knowledge of those cases and can say, with definity, that it is as you say?

      Sorry, I'm not the one failing

      Delete
    66. "Obviously, I did. You only brought a known typo and ignored the obvious facts he brought."

      You didn't specify "facts" in your response. Your vagueness is your responsibility, not mine. As it happened, you even reacted to his use of swearing, which was done when talking about the need to correct his typo. Your story is that I'm supposed to ignore the context and assume that you're talking about something from a different comment than the one you're quoting from. That isn't credible.

      "Because I obviously knew that was a typo."

      There's no "obviously" about that, because the context suggested that you were talking about the typo. That also doesn't excuse you from cutting out relevant text from your quotes.

      "I did, however, ask for evidence on the FACTS he brought, but didn't support."

      You didn't say anything about the "FACTS" at the time. You emphasize that as if you did.

      "Ummm, that's because there is more than one income law."

      There would have to be some categorization in order for there to be even one. And there isn't. You also have no excuse to change my wording and then put it in quotes as if I said it.

      "Wow, it sure seems that your point is there are no laws governing income."

      My point is that there's no such thing as "income law", contrary to your assertion.

      "Because, obviously, if there is a law governing income it would be called an "income law"."

      No, that's not true at all. That would be based on the preexisting field of law in which it belonged. Besides that, your previous evidence didn't include a law that governed income, it was merely one that happened to have the word "income" in the title. Did you forget that?

      "It's not a "false claim" until it has been shown to be one."

      No, personal details are at my discretion to confirm or deny, and that stands as fact as far as you're concerned. You submit to my authority regarding my own life. Your claim was false.

      "So, you have personal knowledge of those cases and can say, with definity, that it is as you say?"

      What are you babbling about? I don't need personal knowledge of those cases to say that the circumstances of one situation doesn't affect those of another. It's a general principle. You can come up with a million links to people hitting others with bricks, and that doesn't negate the concept of hyperbole. Sorry. If you really thought that you could make an argument about what Eddie said, you would probably make the effort. But, you haven't.

      Delete
    67. "There's no "obviously" about that, because the context suggested that you were talking about the typo."

      Sure there is. He stated it was a typo 4 days ago. So, OBVIOUSLY, I wasn't talking about a typo.

      "No, that's not true at all."

      In your mind, maybe. However, in every other persons mind it is true.

      "No, personal details are at my discretion to confirm or deny, and that stands as fact as far as you're concerned."

      Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Your discretion does not determine what is or is not a fact to ME.

      " I don't need personal knowledge of those cases to say that the circumstances of one situation doesn't affect those of another."

      How do you know the circumstances of Eddies threat didn't affect any of those cases?

      Delete
    68. "Sure there is. He stated it was a typo 4 days ago. So, OBVIOUSLY, I wasn't talking about a typo."

      He listed Roe's statistics on the same day. What's the difference? If you're claiming that you didn't believe that it was a typo at the time, then you would still demand proof. The time that you spent away from the thread is irrelevant to that.

      "However, in every other persons mind it is true."

      Prove it. Find a dissertation on "income law", or any legal reference to that type of law for that matter. You've failed at that, every single time.

      "Your discretion does not determine what is or is not a fact to ME."

      There is no such thing as a fact to you. Facts are objective. You already know that, otherwise you wouldn't always be asking for facts. By that convenient standard, I could provide any random website at any time and just say that it's "a fact to ME." Obviously, you wouldn't accept that; facts magically become flexible when you can't justify your loathsome behavior.

      "How do you know the circumstances of Eddies threat didn't affect any of those cases?"

      There was no threat, though. Besides that, how would they be affected? I'm anticipating that you'll try to argue that something must be proved to be impossible or else it's credible. It doesn't work that way. If there's no reason to believe that something is true, then it doesn't warrant legal action.

      Delete
    69. "Prove it. Find a dissertation on "income law", or any legal reference to that type of law for that matter."

      I did prove it. I brought an actual law (which you just referenced a little while ago). I'm pretty sure that a LAW that is entitled "INCOME LAW" is a legal reference. You got anything else, or you just gonna flounder around for a while and continue to make yourself look like a fool?

      "There is no such thing as a fact to you. Facts are objective."

      I've never said it was a fact that you live in Jersey, I've merely said that was my opinion. And, yet you keep crying about it. My guess is that the more you keep crying about it, the more likely it is true.

      "There was no threat, though. Besides that, how would they be affected?"

      There sure was a threat (you've even said you won't post the state you live in because of your fear of that happening to you). And, they were affected because they got hit on the side of the head with a brick.
      See my thumb? Gee you're dumb!!

      Delete
    70. "I did prove it. I brought an actual law (which you just referenced a little while ago)."

      That law didn't "govern" income. If there was such a thing as "income law", someone would have written about it at some point in time. You're making up your own terminology and expecting other people to buy into it.

      "I've never said it was a fact that you live in Jersey, I've merely said that was my opinion."

      You said that it was a fact to you. And, yet again, my location is not a matter of opinion, as if you and I have equal say on it. I know where I live. You don't. I am the authority on the subject.

      "And, yet you keep crying about it. My guess is that the more you keep crying about it, the more likely it is true."

      The more you make arrogant, dishonest statements, the more I correct you. Which is my right. So, the more you lie, the more you claim that you're not lying. That's quite the set of ethics that you have, there.

      "There sure was a threat (you've even said you won't post the state you live in because of your fear of that happening to you)."

      No, I didn't say that, and especially not in regards to what Eddie said. You just got caught lying again.

      "And, they were affected because they got hit on the side of the head with a brick."

      You would have to show a connection to Eddie's post on this blog in order for the cases to be affected.

      "See my thumb? Gee you're dumb!!"

      I'm already familiar with your third-grade mindset. Reminders aren't required.

      Delete
    71. "That law didn't "govern" income. "

      Say what? Now that I've proven you wrong (yet again) you want to change the parameters of what an income law must be before you admit they exist? You're a moron. Keep floundering, you're hilarious.

      "You said that it was a fact to you. "

      And that affects anyone else in what way?

      "You just got caught lying again."

      No I didn't. Your illogical, irrational interpretations of what I say doesn't make me a liar.

      "You would have to show a connection to Eddie's post on this blog in order for the cases to be affected."

      Connection one: BRICK
      Connection two: SIDE OF HEAD
      Connection three: HIT

      "I'm already familiar with your third-grade mindset. Reminders aren't required."

      That's college-grade. Apparently, you aren't too 'up' on classic American movies.

      Delete
    72. "Now that I've proven you wrong (yet again) you want to change the parameters of what an income law must be before you admit they exist?"

      You: "Your point was that there are laws that govern income (income law)? Wow, it sure seems that your point is there are no laws governing income. Because, obviously, if there is a law governing income it would be called an "income law"."

      You were the one who talked about laws "governing income", so I didn't change any parameters.

      "And that affects anyone else in what way?"

      Nothing you say affects anyone else. You still called it a "fact".

      "No I didn't. Your illogical, irrational interpretations of what I say doesn't make me a liar."

      You claimed that I said something that I did not say. That isn't even a matter of interpretation.

      "Connection one: BRICK
      Connection two: SIDE OF HEAD
      Connection three: HIT"

      That isn't a connection to this blog. Where did "SIDE OF HEAD" come from, anyway? Shouldn't it just be "HEAD"?

      "That's college-grade. Apparently, you aren't too 'up' on classic American movies."

      No, I can pretty much guarantee that I've seen more movies than you have. Delta House wasn't established as being anything similar to mature; that was the entire basis for the comedy, obviously.

      Delete
    73. "You were the one who talked about laws "governing income", so I didn't change any parameters."

      Now, if this is possible, you've just made yourself look even dumber. If it's a law then it governs income. You lose on every aspect of this discussion (just like you did back when it was actually the topic).

      "Nothing you say affects anyone else."

      Accept it continues to make you cry like a little girl.

      "You claimed that I said something that I did not say."

      What are you claiming you didn't say this time?

      " Shouldn't it just be "HEAD"?"

      Why don't you bring the quote and clarify it for everyone, then?

      " Delta House wasn't established as being anything similar to mature; that was the entire basis for the comedy, obviously."

      What movie was called "Delta House"? I don't think you've seen any American movies. You're probably real good at communist movies though.

      Delete
    74. "Now, if this is possible, you've just made yourself look even dumber. If it's a law then it governs income."

      That doesn't even make sense. All laws govern income, now?

      "Accept it continues to make you cry like a little girl."

      No, I refute your lame attempts at argument. The same way you claim to do for liberals, so by your standard you "cry like a little girl". That tactic never works for you, yet you foolishly keep trying it.

      "What are you claiming you didn't say this time?"

      You: "you've even said you won't post the state you live in because of your fear of that happening to you"
      That never happened.

      "Why don't you bring the quote and clarify it for everyone, then?"

      Why didn't you look it up before talking about it?

      "What movie was called "Delta House"?"

      I didn't say that there was one. That was the name of the fraternity, since you've forgotten even that. If you'll notice, I didn't put it in quotes or italics, and I used the word "established" since I was referring to what happened in the film. Collectively, the character development of Delta House did not involve maturity. Are you familiar with character development as a screenwriting concept?

      "You're probably real good at communist movies though."

      No, but "American" and "communist" aren't mutually exclusive. You should have probably named another country instead of an economic system if you wanted to contrast to America.

      Delete
    75. "That doesn't even make sense. All laws govern income, now?"

      I was mistaken ... it IS possible for you to be dumber. We're talking about income law, so a law on income would govern income. As you say: "keep digging".

      "That never happened."

      Sure it did. You said you won't post where you live because you fear harmful reprisals by someone (anyone).

      "Why didn't you look it up before talking about it?"

      I'm testing my memory. If I'm wrong you'll bring the quote (to showcase another of your crybaby antics), if I'm right, you will not bring the quote because you hate to admit when I'm right. Let's see which way this one goes.

      "I didn't say that there was one."

      You said you've seen more movies than I have and immediately mention "Delta House". What other conclusion could there be? There was a TV show called "Delta House", you may have been talking about that. Work with me here, I'm trying to give you an 'out' so you don't continue to look so stupid.

      " Are you familiar with character development as a screenwriting concept?"

      Is this yet another topic change so you can avoid continually looking stupid during the current topic you are discussing?

      " You should have probably named another country instead of an economic system if you wanted to contrast to America."

      Why? "American" is an "economic system" too.

      Delete
    76. "We're talking about income law, so a law on income would govern income."

      There's no such thing as "income law", though. You're making a circular argument, that "income law" exists because there are laws that govern income and that laws govern income because it's "income law".

      "You said you won't post where you live because you fear harmful reprisals by someone (anyone)."

      I didn't even say that, but you just contradicted your previous claim. You said "fear of that", which specified the supposed concern. On top of that, you said that I would say what state that I live in, and now you're saying "where I live", which could mean a complete address.

      "I'm testing my memory."

      Then your memory failed.

      "If I'm wrong you'll bring the quote (to showcase another of your crybaby antics), if I'm right, you will not bring the quote because you hate to admit when I'm right."

      No, my action doesn't determine your accuracy. It's actually your job to verify your claims. If you really have no idea where to find a quote, you probably shouldn't bring it up and talk about it.

      For your reference, though, here was the wording: "...I'm going to hit you in the head with a brick."
      Note that there's no "side" in that quote.

      "You said you've seen more movies than I have and immediately mention "Delta House". What other conclusion could there be?"

      Since that's the fraternity in the movie you were referencing, any reasonable person would conclude that I was talking about the fraternity in the movie.

      "There was a TV show called "Delta House", you may have been talking about that."

      A television show is not a film, by definition.

      "Is this yet another topic change so you can avoid continually looking stupid during the current topic you are discussing?"

      So, knowing more about movies than you is supposed to make me look "stupid"? I'm curious as to how you think that works. No, I'm pointing out that the use of the term "established" was referring to what was going on within the concept of the film. Characters are established early in films so that the viewer develops a certain attitude towards them. Look at the first fifteen minutes or so of "Rocky" for a textbook example. Then watch the introduction of Delta House in "Animal House" (see the quotation marks?) and notice that the collective character of the group is nothing close to mature. That's how they were established.

      ""American" is an "economic system" too."

      No, it isn't. Thanks for the laugh, though.

      Delete
    77. That should be "now you're saying 'where [I] live', which could mean a complete address", of course.

      Delete
    78. "A television show is not a film, by definition."

      You never mentioned "film". Is there a different parameter you are requiring now? You sure change the rules a lot, as you get beat down in a discussion. Oh, well, I guess you gotta do what your intelligence capabilities allow you to do.

      "No, it isn't. "

      Prove it!

      "It's actually your job to verify your claims. "

      Sigh ... I know. It's also my job to verify your claims and Eddies claims and every other liberal (out there) who makes a claim ... it is my job to verify it.

      "Then your memory failed."

      Wouldn't be the first time. But, it still hasn't been proven that it failed. You saying so isn't quite good enough. Bring the proof.

      "There's no such thing as "income law", though. "

      Sure there is. I even brought an example of one and then brought more examples. Why are you still crying over something that you have been proven so obviously wrong over?

      Delete
    79. "You never mentioned "film"."

      Me: "No, I can pretty much guarantee that I've seen more movies than you have."
      The two terms are interchangeable. This is another losing argument for you.

      "Prove it!"

      No, you made the claim, so it's your job to prove what you said. It's not up to me to disprove every lie you tell.

      "But, it still hasn't been proven that it failed. You saying so isn't quite good enough. Bring the proof."

      I brought the quote. Are you disputing it? I'd be glad to place a bet on it, if you really think your memory is better than my computer's copy and paste.

      "Sure there is. I even brought an example of one and then brought more examples."

      No, you didn't, because there's no such thing as "income law". There's no such category. You can't prove the existence of a category just by saying that certain laws belong to it. What you actually would have to do, if you could, is to show a legal expert or paper discussing that particular field of law.

      Because you saying so isn't quite good enough.

      Delete
    80. "I brought the quote."

      No, you didn't. You brought some words, but no reference to prove you are bringing those words correctly. You DO have a habit of lying and misquoting, so I could never take your word for it.

      "What you actually would have to do, if you could, is to show a legal expert or paper discussing that particular field of law."

      No, what I have to do is bring a law that is an income law and that proves what I say. I don't have to jump through hoops to please you, so I've done all that is required: I proved what I said.

      "Because you saying so isn't quite good enough."

      I fully agree. That's why I prove what I say and let you just say it without any proof.

      Delete
    81. "You brought some words, but no reference to prove you are bringing those words correctly. You DO have a habit of lying and misquoting, so I could never take your word for it."

      You've never demonstrated me lying or misquoting, sorry. On the other hand, you got busted for lying on this thread when you claimed that I never denied your assertion that I live in New Jersey, so nobody can take your word that there's such a thing as "income law". Nobody can take your word that a law that happens to have "income" in the title proves that a corresponding field of law exists.
      You: "If I'm wrong you'll bring the quote (to showcase another of your crybaby antics), if I'm right, you will not bring the quote because you hate to admit when I'm right."
      You asked for the quote. You got the quote. Are you changing your parameters, now?

      "No, what I have to do is bring a law that is an income law and that proves what I say."

      No, because that is merely you saying that it proves what you say. There's no objective verification of that, so it's not good enough. Therefore, you can't criticize anything that anyone else says based on a lack of verification. You made up an entire field of law simply because you couldn't own up to an error.

      So, it seems fair to point that out when you're kicking and screaming over the accuracy of what other people say.

      Delete
    82. "You asked for the quote. You got the quote. Are you changing your parameters, now?"

      Apparently, the parameters are still in place: I must prove what I say and I must prove what you say. Because you still haven't proven what you said. You DO know that nobody believes you without verification. Your unending habit of lying and denying is well known within Eddie's chat forum.

      " You made up an entire field of law simply because you couldn't own up to an error."

      Hey, moron-boy, you asked me to prove "income law" and I did by bringing an ACTUAL "income law". So Shut The Fuck Up ... or as Eddie would say: "STFU". If you want to argue that an actual "income law" isn't acceptable because there is no "field" for it to be in is simply showing how moronic your logic is. You're like Eddie who claimed genocide of 15 million dead from small pox in 1967, then when it was shown he errored by 15 million he refused to apologize or correct his error. You liberals are lying maniacal egotistical idiots. Every time I talk to one of you it is proven over and over.

      Delete
    83. "Apparently, the parameters are still in place: I must prove what I say and I must prove what you say."

      You asked for the quote, not for proof of the quote. You'll have to adjust your request.

      "You DO know that nobody believes you without verification."

      That is hilarious, while you argue that "income law" exists based on your word alone.

      "Hey, moron-boy, you asked me to prove "income law" and I did by bringing an ACTUAL "income law"."

      Then I could prove the existence of unicorns by posting a photoshopped picture. "That's an ACTUAL unicorn". Nobody would believe that, for some reason.

      "So Shut The Fuck Up ... or as Eddie would say: "STFU"."

      Didn't you say that swearing proves that you're lying, or words to that effect?

      "If you want to argue that an actual "income law" isn't acceptable because there is no "field" for it to be in is simply showing how moronic your logic is."

      There is no field known as "income law". You can't just invent your own terms and expect people to accept them.

      "You're like Eddie who claimed genocide of 15 million dead from small pox in 1967, then when it was shown he errored by 15 million he refused to apologize or correct his error."

      That sounds like you, since you insisted that there's such a thing as "income law" when I pointed out your error in using that phrase. You could have just corrected yourself, but instead you committed yourself to lie after lie. That is maniacally egotistical.

      Delete
    84. "Then I could prove the existence of unicorns by posting a photoshopped picture."

      Are you claiming the law I brought as proof is fake? Try to prove that one.

      "Didn't you say that swearing proves that you're lying, or words to that effect?"

      I don't think so. You got something that shows that?

      "You can't just invent your own terms and expect people to accept them."

      I've never asked people to accept a "field" for "income law". I've proven that there is an income law when you asked for it.

      "That sounds like you, since you insisted that there's such a thing as "income law" when I pointed out your error in using that phrase."

      No, because I brought proof of my claim, he did not.

      Delete
    85. "Are you claiming the law I brought as proof is fake?"

      No, I'm claiming that it doesn't prove the existence of a field of law. Try to keep up.

      "I don't think so. You got something that shows that?"

      You: "And then, the more you cuss ... the more likely it isn't true."

      "I've never asked people to accept a "field" for "income law". I've proven that there is an income law when you asked for it."

      According to who, besides you? If you're claiming to prove that "income law" exists, then you are expecting other people to accept that term.

      "No, because I brought proof of my claim, he did not."

      No, you called something proof, even though it didn't qualify. You never brought a shred of evidence to support your claim.

      Delete
    86. "No, I'm claiming that it doesn't prove the existence of a field of law. "

      You never asked for a "field of law", you asked for an example of income law. Which I provided. Yes, try to keep up.

      "You:"

      See? That proves I didn't say swearing means you're lying. You did notice the "more likely" in there, right?

      "If you're claiming to prove that "income law" exists, then you are expecting other people to accept that term."

      Considering income law was in the title, it would be difficult to not accept that term.

      Delete
    87. "You never asked for a "field of law", you asked for an example of income law."

      How would there be an example of something that wasn't already part of a category? What would you have been taking the example from, in this construct of yours?

      "You did notice the "more likely" in there, right?"

      You did notice the phrase "words to that effect", right? You said that the more he cursed, the more likely what he said isn't true. The same would apply to you. You swore, so that makes it more likely that you're lying. It's hypocritical of you, no matter how you cut it.

      "Considering income law was in the title, it would be difficult to not accept that term."

      The word "income" was in the title. That doesn't make "income law" an accepted term.

      Delete
    88. "You did notice the phrase "words to that effect", right?"

      My words don't add up to your "effect". Your misinterpretation isn't my concern.

      "How would there be an example of something that wasn't already part of a category? What would you have been taking the example from, in this construct of yours?"

      It makes NO difference if there is a category for it. The FACT is you asked for an example of an "income law" and I provided one.

      "The word "income" was in the title."

      So a LAW that had the word "income" in the title isn't an income law? That's very logical of you.

      Delete
    89. "My words don't add up to your "effect"."

      Of course they do. Foul language is connected to dishonesty, by your own words. And you used foul language. You're a hypocrite.

      "It makes NO difference if there is a category for it."

      Yes, it does. If it's not a category, then everything you're saying falls apart. You can't very well claim that there's a group of laws that defines what income is if you're not talking about a category. Otherwise, you made it up.

      "The FACT is you asked for an example of an "income law" and I provided one."

      Factually, I asked what an "income law" was supposed to be, and you said that income laws were laws that the government used to determine what income is. That would be you referring to a type of law, while now you claim that there doesn't need to be a category at all. Of course, you couldn't keep your story straight even then, so I'm not particularly shocked that you're being inconsistent now.

      "So a LAW that had the word "income" in the title isn't an income law?"

      No, just like the Stolen Valor Act of 2013 isn't a "valor law" just because of a word in the title.

      Delete
    90. "You're a hypocrite."

      I'm a hypocrite because I used fuck when I told you to shut up? Ok, I can deal with that Of course that means that Eddie is a liar in virtually every article he writes. As much as he cusses, he must be the king of liars ... by those standards.

      ."Factually, I asked what an "income law" was supposed to be, and you said that income laws were laws that the government used to determine what income is."

      Ok, and factually that is what I brought as evidence .. a law the government uses to determine income, ergo: income law.

      "No, just like the Stolen Valor Act of 2013 isn't a "valor law" just because of a word in the title."

      Ok, using your premise, what other words are in the title that would make anyone believe or perceive it is anything other than an income law?



      Delete
    91. "Stolen Valor Act of 2013"

      It is a law to punish those who falsely use "valor" from serving in the US Military for financial or personal gain. So, actually, it is a form of "valor law". Although, I don't think that is a category. Note the sarcasm. LOL

      You're a true simpleton, aren't you?

      Delete
    92. "Ok, I can deal with that Of course that means that Eddie is a liar in virtually every article he writes. As much as he cusses, he must be the king of liars ... by those standards."

      No, you being a hypocrite doesn't mean that using foul language actually has any relevance to honesty.

      "Ok, and factually that is what I brought as evidence .. a law the government uses to determine income, ergo: income law."

      That law isn't used to "determine income", nor does it determine "what income is", which was your wording. Even if it did, nobody but you uses the phrase "income law", because it's your terminology exclusively.

      "Ok, using your premise, what other words are in the title that would make anyone believe or perceive it is anything other than an income law?"

      The title of a law doesn't have any bearing on what kind of law it actually is. People don't perceive anything as an "income law" because nobody but you believes that such a thing even exists.

      "So, actually, it is a form of "valor law". Although, I don't think that is a category. Note the sarcasm. LOL"

      If it's not a category, then it doesn't make any sense to refer to it as a "valor law". The term denotes a type of law, otherwise using the phrase has no purpose.

      Delete
    93. "No, you being a hypocrite doesn't mean that using foul language actually has any relevance to honesty."

      Didn't you just say that swearing had a direct relationship with lying? (" Foul language is connected to dishonesty, by your own words. And you used foul language. You're a hypocrite.". So, by your standards I must think that everyone who swears is a liar, right? Wow, that's quite the stretch. But, hey, .... you go with the knowledge you have to go with. Just sayin'.

      "That law isn't used to "determine income", nor does it determine "what income is", which was your wording. "

      Yes. The facts show they do. If you have something to dispute that then go ahead and bring it; I doubt you will. (your usual MO)

      "The title of a law doesn't have any bearing on what kind of law it actually is. "

      Then why did you mention the valor act? If the title has nothing to do with it? You seem a little confused at this point. Do you need me to stop posting so you don't look like such a dult?

      "If it's not a category, then it doesn't make any sense to refer to it as a "valor law""

      I'm not doing that.What category are you putting that law into?

      Delete
    94. "Didn't you just say that swearing had a direct relationship with lying?"

      No, I said that you had said that. That doesn't mean that I share your view.

      "Yes. The facts show they do."

      The facts that you've never demonstrated, you mean? All you've ever shown is that there's a law with "income" in its title, really, which doesn't magically establish a type of law for other laws to fall into.

      "Then why did you mention the valor act?"

      To demonstrate that the title of a law doesn't have any bearing on what kind of law it actually is. There are no "valor laws".

      "I'm not doing that.What category are you putting that law into?"

      You: "So, actually, it is a form of "valor law"."
      You are "doing that", because you said it was a "valor law" even though it's not a category of law.

      I'm not categorizing it as a "valor law", which would be the point. You, however, are claiming that there's a group of laws known as "income laws" which have some established purpose. Except, somehow, nobody except for you is familiar with this type of law.

      Delete
    95. "No, I said that you had said that. That doesn't mean that I share your view."

      Oh, then STFU, because I don't care what views you share. You're a liberal, I know your views.

      "All you've ever shown is that there's a law with "income" in its title, really, which doesn't magically establish a type of law for other laws to fall into."

      I don't care about "other laws", I provided proof of income law and you denied it. Sorry, you lose miserably on this one, because I provided an example of an income law (which you asked for). Get over it and move on.

      "To demonstrate that the title of a law doesn't have any bearing on what kind of law it actually is. There are no "valor laws"."

      I never said there were "valor laws". But I did provide evidence of an "income law" which you asked for (at that time). If you're having trouble following along, perhaps you should stop and wait until there is a subject you have knowledge about before you post again. Maybe that's why you keep changing the subject.

      "You are "doing that", because you said it was a "valor law" even though it's not a category of law."

      No I didn't. You truly are a simpleton, huh?

      "You, however, are claiming that there's a group of laws known as "income laws" which have some established purpose."

      No, I'm claiming there are laws governing income. I proved it. Anyone's familiarity with those laws isn't my concern (but I'm sure everyone is familiar with those laws on or before April 15). The FACT is I provided proof of income law and you still refuse to accept it. How much more pounding are you planning on taking from this subject before you realize I am right?

      Delete
    96. "There are no "valor laws"".

      Sure there is. You provided proof of one. There was another but the SCOTUS said it wasn't legal. If a law is it's own category then why do there need to be more than one to fit within that category? After all, you only asked for an example of "income law" not several of them. I provided an example of "income law" and now you cry that it doesn't count. Truly not my problem.

      BTW, make sure you answer all the questions so I don't have to go back and remind you over and over what the question was. Or ... you can ignore it like the so many others.

      Delete
    97. "Oh, then STFU, because I don't care what views you share."

      If you didn't want to be corrected on your misunderstanding, then you shouldn't have asked the question. You might want to ponder the fact that in one comment you both criticize me for not supposedly not answering your questions and for answering them. That makes you look unreasonable.

      "I don't care about "other laws", I provided proof of income law and you denied it."

      Oh, but you do care, because you said that income laws are laws which the government uses to determine income. You said that there was a group of laws that shared the same supposed purpose, so you can't pretend that other laws don't matter now.

      "Sorry, you lose miserably on this one, because I provided an example of an income law (which you asked for)."

      Without independent verification of "income law", you made it up. You lose.

      "I never said there were "valor laws"."

      Yes, you did: "So, actually, it is a form of "valor law"." If there are no valor laws, then there couldn't be a "form" of that type of law.
      Also, you: "Sure there is. You provided proof of one."

      "Maybe that's why you keep changing the subject."

      This coming from the one who brought up Eddie's nonexistent threat and New Jersey out of nowhere. Meanwhile, I'm pointing out your hypocrisy. You have no such explanation for your behavior.

      "No, I'm claiming there are laws governing income."

      You defined a type of law that supposedly govern income, which you call "income laws". Of course, you previously said that those laws determine "what income is", which is inconsistent with your other story. If nobody but you refers to "income law", then, again, you made it up on your own.

      "Anyone's familiarity with those laws isn't my concern (but I'm sure everyone is familiar with those laws on or before April 15)."

      Those would be tax laws.

      "The FACT is I provided proof of income law and you still refuse to accept it."

      You only proved that you made up your own terminology. Nobody else in the world uses that phrase except for you.

      "If a law is it's own category then why do there need to be more than one to fit within that category?"

      What would the purpose of a category be, if other laws couldn't fit into it?

      "After all, you only asked for an example of "income law" not several of them."

      You asserted that there was more than one. That was you, not me.

      "BTW, make sure you answer all the questions so I don't have to go back and remind you over and over what the question was."

      You would actually have to provide evidence of me dodging questions in order for that to be an honest comment on your part. You can't do that, so you're essentially admitting to lying.

      Delete
    98. That should be "in one comment you both criticize me for supposedly not answering your questions and for answering them", of course.

      Delete
    99. "If you didn't want to be corrected on your misunderstanding, then you shouldn't have asked the question."

      If I had realized how stupid you would be to defend a "no income law" stance I wouldn't have worried about it. But it is SOOO fun making you look more and more stupid every time you cry about income law.

      "Yes, you did:"

      And what "category" do they fall under?

      "Those would be tax laws."

      Well, you can't be taxed until they make laws governing what income is. You truly are a simpleton, huh?

      " Nobody else in the world uses that phrase except for you."

      And all the people who created that income law. Don't forget, they called it an income law too.

      "You asserted that there was more than one."

      How many do you want to keep you from continually looking like an idiot?

      "You can't do that, so you're essentially admitting to lying."

      How am I lying? Are you saying that you've answered each and every one of my questions in all articles?

      Delete
    100. "If I had realized how stupid you would be to defend a "no income law" stance I wouldn't have worried about it."

      The quote you're responding to wasn't about your "income law" lie.

      "And what "category" do they fall under?"

      You never said, and it doesn't matter. The point is that there is no such thing as "valor law", contrary to your assertion.

      "Well, you can't be taxed until they make laws governing what income is."

      Unfortunately for you, you failed to explain how ERISA applied to "what income is". It must not be an "income law", then, while you previously said that it was.

      "And all the people who created that income law."

      No, they never used the phrase "income law". You just got caught lying again.

      "How many do you want to keep you from continually looking like an idiot?"

      It doesn't really matter how many laws you call "income laws", because that is not evidence of anything except your dishonesty. What you need to do is to show someone in the world discussing "income law" besides yourself. And for some reason, you just can't find a single person who has ever done that.

      "How am I lying?"

      If you claim that I dodged questions when I didn't then you're lying.

      "Are you saying that you've answered each and every one of my questions in all articles?"

      I address your questions. Attempts at trolling don't count, though. Is that what you're whining about, that I don't pay attention to irrelevant, childish questions from you?

      Delete
    101. "Unfortunately for you, you failed to explain how ERISA applied to "what income is"."

      Why would I need to do that? Do you know how to read? Can you comprehend what is written? Oh, wait, I guess I DO need to read it for you, since you're not capable of understanding what it says in that income law.

      "No, they never used the phrase "income law"."

      What did they call it? What phrase did those who made the law use?

      " What you need to do is to show someone in the world discussing "income law" besides yourself."

      No I don't. The thing that matters is that it is a law covering income, ergo: income law. I don't need to find anyone (someone) to do anything, the simple fact that it is an income law is sufficient.

      "If you claim that I dodged questions when I didn't then you're lying."

      Well, it turns out I'm not lying. You DID dodge some questions. And you're in the middle of trying to worm your way out of looking like the liar you are proven to be.

      "I address your questions."

      That's not what I asked. Is this another question you're going to ignore?

      Delete
    102. "Why would I need to do that?"

      Because that's how you defined "income law", obviously.

      "Oh, wait, I guess I DO need to read it for you, since you're not capable of understanding what it says in that income law."

      Go ahead. You haven't explained anything about any law that you've claimed to be an "income law". Because you can't, of course.

      "What did they call it?"

      You tell me, since you made the assertion.

      "No I don't."

      Oh, yes, you do. If you're the only person who ever talks about "income law", then you made it up.

      "Well, it turns out I'm not lying. You DID dodge some questions."

      Actually, I proved that you were the one who dodged my questions.

      "That's not what I asked."

      It's what's important. All you can comment on is my effort to address what you say. If you don't clarify, or you post questions that aren't really supposed to even be answered, then I'm not beholden to answer every single question that you ask. If you have an argument to the contrary, let's see you try it. Otherwise, my point stands.

      Delete
    103. "Because that's how you defined "income law", obviously."

      Where did that happen? Are you lying again?

      "Oh, yes, you do. If you're the only person who ever talks about "income law", then you made it up."

      It's a law covering income. This isn't rocket science, you know. Cry to the people who wrote the LAW on INCOME. Ask THEM what THEY call it.

      "Actually, I proved that you were the one who dodged my questions."

      But, I'm not the one who said: "There are no questions that I haven't answered.".. I will ignore some of your questions without a blink of the eye. You claimed to have answered ALL of mine, you lied.

      "Otherwise, my point stands."

      Yes, your point stands. The point that you proved you are a liar.

      Delete
    104. "Where did that happen?"

      You: "That would be a law that the government uses to determine what income is."
      http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2013/07/another-old-friend.html?showComment=1384302329923#c3402084059526819132

      "It's a law covering income."

      Only according to you. Nobody else uses that term.

      "Cry to the people who wrote the LAW on INCOME. Ask THEM what THEY call it."

      You ask them, since you're the one who's been lying about what they say all this time.

      "But, I'm not the one who said: "There are no questions that I haven't answered.""

      That was a reasonable conclusion on my part, especially since you're talking about questions that were part of an argument that you ran away from.

      "Yes, your point stands. The point that you proved you are a liar."

      That obviously wasn't my point. Your failure to respond in a mature manner proves that addressing what you say is what's important, as opposed to answering questions that you won't clarify.

      Delete
    105. "Only according to you. Nobody else uses that term."

      Me and all those who wrote that law on income. Do you think they called it an abortion law?

      "That was a reasonable conclusion on my part, especially since you're talking about questions that were part of an argument that you ran away from."

      I'm still waiting for you to answer those questions so I can move on in the discussion. So, it isn't me who cut tail and ran away ... it was YOU. The proven liar.

      Delete
    106. "Me and all those who wrote that law on income. Do you think they called it an abortion law?"

      Sorry, "abortion law" isn't the only alternative to "income law". If you have evidence of other people using the term, bring it. Otherwise, you're lying.

      "I'm still waiting for you to answer those questions so I can move on in the discussion."

      I'm still waiting for you to answer my question. Why is slavery supposedly moral for anyone at any point in time? Is your point that Levites are people unworthy of freedom, and I would know that if I knew any? If not, then your questions are meaningless as far as you've demonstrated.

      "So, it isn't me who cut tail and ran away ... it was YOU."

      No, it was you. I posted on March 8th, and you didn't respond. The link you provided shows it quite clearly, since it's only a few comments down the page.

      Delete
    107. "Otherwise, you're lying."

      Lying about what? I never claimed other people call it something or another, (that's all on you) I claimed it was a law covering income, ergo: income law.

      Delete
    108. "I never claimed other people call it something or another, (that's all on you) I claimed it was a law covering income, ergo: income law."

      You, not even thirty minutes prior: "Me and all those who wrote that law on income."
      You claimed that those people used the term, so you did assert that other people call it "income law". But, if you're finally admitting that you made up the term, then you shouldn't be using it as if it had any meaning to anyone else in the world. That is dishonest of you.

      Delete
    109. And you still haven't said what they called it. Even after I asked you what they called it. So, until you prove they called it something else, I am right ... without needing verification.

      Delete
    110. "And you still haven't said what they called it."

      I don't need to, since the point is that they don't call it "income law".

      "So, until you prove they called it something else, I am right ... without needing verification."

      Do you realize that you said that you're not claiming that anyone other than you use that term, and also that unnamed people do use that term until I come up with an alternative? Pick one or the other, because you're contradicting yourself.

      And no, the fact is that there is no such thing as "income law". Ergo, it's impossible for those people to have called it that, so it doesn't exist as some default that I have to disprove. You made the assertion that those people call it that. Your failure to back that up proves that you were lying.

      Anything else?

      Delete
    111. "I don't need to, since the point is that they don't call it "income law"."

      I think the point is that you need to prove "they don't call it income law". Since you first brought that premise, you have failed to prove your point. Please do better.

      "And no, the fact is that there is no such thing as "income law"."

      That's a "fact"? How did I find an income law by typing "income law" into a google search, then? Apparently, you need to prove your FACT or accept that I am right and you are wrong.

      "Anything else?"

      If you're through making yourself look stupid there is nothing else. If you wish to continue to be made a fool of, then by all means continue posting.

      Delete
    112. "I think the point is that you need to prove "they don't call it income law"."

      I have, since there is no such thing as "income law". What you would have to do is to bring documents that show lawyers or other legal experts discussing the properties of "income law".

      "Since you first brought that premise, you have failed to prove your point."

      Your premise was that people use the term "income law". It's up to you to prove that; it's not up to me to disprove it.

      "That's a "fact"? How did I find an income law by typing "income law" into a google search, then?"

      You didn't. You only found a law with "income" in its title. You didn't find a single link which discussed, described or defined "income law".

      And again, if you're not claiming that anyone else ever used the term "income law", then you are admitting that you made it up. Which has been my point all along. If you are claiming that other people use that term, you should be able to find some examples of that. And that's why your Google search proved my point and not yours; the absolute and utter absence of any sites which actually talk about this supposed type of law proved that nobody except for you says "income law".

      Delete
    113. "Your premise was that people use the term "income law"."

      And that is the root of your problem. You're basing your entire argument on whether I claim the "people use the term", when in reality (you know ... real life) my premise is that there IS income law. Go back and read the discussion, you'll see that I am correct and you are misinterpreting the discussion entirely.

      "You didn't. You only found a law with "income" in its title."

      Gosh, that means it is a LAW for INCOME. ERGO: INCOME LAW. Thank you, very much.

      Next?

      Delete
    114. "And that is the root of your problem. You're basing your entire argument on whether I claim the "people use the term", when in reality (you know ... real life) my premise is that there IS income law."

      No, that's a lie:
      You: "Pay close attention to the 206 MILLION results."
      Me: "Is there one that has "income law" or "income laws" in it? Your number proves my point, not yours."
      You: "Yes. Now it is up to you to find it. I brought a loaded link (as you did) now use it to find what you are demanding."
      See, you asserted that there was a link where other people had verified the existence of "income law".

      And, yet again, if nobody else uses that term, then you made it up.

      "Gosh, that means it is a LAW for INCOME."

      No, it doesn't. A word in a title of a law doesn't assert a type of law. Again, there is no "valor law", either. So, you did not find an "income law" by searching for it, you only found a law that you chose to call an "income law".

      Delete
    115. "And, yet again, if nobody else uses that term, then you made it up."

      I'm not sure what context you used those quotes from (no link), but if there are 206 million results, obviously many people use that phrase. And, if I remember correctly, the income law I provided landed on the first page of results.

      "No, it doesn't. A word in a title of a law doesn't assert a type of law."

      Alright, what did the actual law do? What does the context of the law say that makes you think it isn't an income law?

      Delete
    116. "I'm not sure what context you used those quotes from (no link), but if there are 206 million results, obviously many people use that phrase."

      It's the same thread as the previous link (try http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2013/07/another-old-friend.html?showComment=1384701995243#c2927417267626372573). It's hard to imagine what context you might be imagining that could possibly change the clear meaning of your words, but there you go anyway.

      And no, there were no results of "income law" as two words together. Millions of hits don't magically make that phrase genuine, it only reflects all of the citations of "income taxes" or "tax laws".

      "And, if I remember correctly, the income law I provided landed on the first page of results."

      The law that you called an "income law" was on the first page, which would make sense because someone may try to find a law based on a word in its title. That doesn't mean that your search proved the existence of "income law". If I look for "valor law" because I don't know the name of the law, I didn't magically create a type of law known as "valor law" because Google returned some results. It doesn't assert that other people in the world must have been talking about that supposed field of law.

      "Alright, what did the actual law do?"

      You tell me, since you were the one who brought it up. It's not a necessary aspect of my argument, and it's not my job to do your homework for you.

      "What does the context of the law say that makes you think it isn't an income law?"

      The fact that there's no such thing as "an income law" makes me think that it isn't an income law. If there was actually such a type of law, then there might be some discussion as to why ERISA is categorized one way or another. Since the entire point is that you made up a whole field of law, it's safe to say that no law actually fits into it.

      Delete
    117. "It's the same thread as the previous link ..."

      Sorry, that article has over 700 posts. I'm not going through that many to find that statement. Copy/paste the actual post link. Yes, the liberal is coming out in me ... you need to do the work for me.

      "And no, there were no results of "income law" as two words together."

      That's an absurd demand (as I've said before). If an income law is used to determine tax it is still an income law. If a law that determines income is used by the taxing departments that is of no concern of mine. The fact would remain that there are laws governing income ... ERGO: income law. If your only complaint is that the two words aren't used in proper order and together then you are a complete idiot. And Eddie is wrong ... it isn't how do you put with me, it's how do I put with you.

      "The law that you called an "income law" was on the first page, which would make sense because someone may try to find a law based on a word in its title."

      Well, gosh ... a law that governed income landed on the first page of a google search for income law. That is amazing. So someone searching for ... say ... "income law" found that there is an income law on the first page of a google search ... that would mean that ... there are no laws on income? Wait, no .. that there are laws on income? No, wait ... there are no "income law" because none of them actually had the "two words together" and that makes them NOT INCOME LAW. Wow, your logic is unreal.

      "You tell me, since you were the one who brought it up."

      Alright. So, we'll just leave that one alone because I'm not going to read it either. I'll wait for one of the other liberals, here, to correct me ... if possible.

      "Since the entire point is that you made up a whole field of law, it's safe to say that no law actually fits into it."

      I didn't make up a "whole field of law". I said there was "income law", and there is. How YOU categorize it is of no concern of mine.

      Delete
    118. "Copy/paste the actual post link."

      I did.

      "That's an absurd demand (as I've said before)."

      No, obviously it isn't absurd at all. If other people use the term "income law", then it's entirely reasonable to expect that term to appear in a Google search.

      "If an income law is used to determine tax it is still an income law."

      Only according to you.

      "The fact would remain that there are laws governing income ... ERGO: income law."

      Again, only according to you.

      "If your only complaint is that the two words aren't used in proper order and together then you are a complete idiot."

      The "proper order and together" part is what would make it a term that is actually used by people other than yourself. Since nobody else uses that phrase, there is no such thing as "income law". You made it up.

      "And Eddie is wrong ... it isn't how do you put with me, it's how do I put with you."

      I think you left some words out of that, because it doesn't really make sense as it is.

      "Well, gosh ... a law that governed income landed on the first page of a google search for income law."

      You never showed that it "governed income", though. That's just another one of your empty assertions.

      "So someone searching for ... say ... "income law" found that there is an income law on the first page of a google search ... that would mean that ... there are no laws on income?"

      There is no such thing as "income law", so finding a law with "income" in the title doesn't prove anything. Even if there are "laws on income", whatever that actually means, that doesn't prove the existence of "income law".

      "No, wait ... there are no "income law" because none of them actually had the "two words together" and that makes them NOT INCOME LAW."

      That's the general idea, yes. Since nobody except for you uses that term, there is no "income law". You made it up.

      "So, we'll just leave that one alone because I'm not going to read it either."

      Yet, you claimed that the law governs income. Maybe you should have read it before making that assertion.

      "I didn't make up a "whole field of law". I said there was "income law", and there is."

      Only according to you, and you claimed that the Google search proved that other people recognized it as well. That means that you made it up.

      Delete
    119. "I did."

      Alright. I'll try it at home and see if it works differently.

      "If other people use the term "income law", then it's entirely reasonable to expect that term to appear in a Google search."

      Wait, haven't you been saying since others DON'T call it income law, then it isn't real? Now, you're saying that so many people call it income law that it appears on the first page of a google search?

      "Only according to you."

      And according to the "income law" that I brought. Wow, you lose miserably in this one. You lost the last time we did this and you're losing miserably again.

      "Again, only according to you."

      And all those others who call it that on a google search that you mentioned.

      "I think you left some words out of that, because it doesn't really make sense as it is."

      Too bad you don't read what Eddie writes to you. You'd understand what I just said. If you get a chance ask him to repeat it. That would be funny.

      "That's the general idea, yes."

      Classic. ROTFLMAO@U

      Delete
    120. "Now, you're saying that so many people call it income law that it appears on the first page of a google search?"

      I didn't say anything even remotely resembling that. The term "income law" didn't appear in the search, as I've made abundantly clear to you.

      "And according to the "income law" that I brought."

      That's circular reasoning, since only you say that there's any such thing as "income law".

      "And all those others who call it that on a google search that you mentioned."

      Nobody else used that term in the Google search results.

      "Too bad you don't read what Eddie writes to you. You'd understand what I just said."

      I understood what you said, I just pointed out that you left some words out.

      "Classic. ROTFLMAO@U"

      That's an appeal to ridicule, which is a logical fallacy. Try addressing the argument in a legitimate manner, if you're capable.

      Delete
    121. "I didn't say anything even remotely resembling that."

      Only right here: "If other people use the term "income law", then it's entirely reasonable to expect that term to appear in a Google search.".


      "Try addressing the argument in a legitimate manner, if you're capable."

      I've done that, but you keep coming to illogical unreasonable conclusions.

      Delete
    122. ""If other people use the term "income law", then it's entirely reasonable to expect that term to appear in a Google search."."

      You claimed that expecting the phrase "income law" to be found in a Google search was "absurd". I responded with the above quote to point out that if other people used that term, it's then entirely reasonable to expect that term to appear in a Google search. That doesn't mean that the phrase did show up in those results, since I explicitly pointed out that they did not multiple times. I accept your apology in advance.

      "I've done that, but you keep coming to illogical unreasonable conclusions."

      That's an empty assertion, since you haven't shown that at all.

      Delete
    123. " I accept your apology in advance."

      I'll give it anyhow. I'm sorry you're a complete dolt and can't comprehend what you read.

      Delete
    124. "I'm sorry you're a complete dolt and can't comprehend what you read."

      In other words, you can't respond to what I said. I accept your surrender.

      Delete
    125. No surrender. Just refer back to my previous statement.

      Delete
    126. "No surrender. Just refer back to my previous statement."

      Repeat your ad hominems all you like. It only further proves that you have nothing of substance to offer.

      Delete
  4. " It only further proves that you have nothing of substance to offer."

    Since you refuse to discuss the topic any longer and I beat you down so badly during your off-topic rants, I don't see where there is anything else I can offer. Unless you want to start discussing honestly then I'm pretty sure you no longer want to experience the beatdown I've been giving you. And that is completely understandable.
    See you on the next article.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Since you refuse to discuss the topic any longer and I beat you down so badly during your off-topic rants, I don't see where there is anything else I can offer."

      You just tell yourself whatever keeps you from crying when you look in the mirror. Run away, now.

      Delete
    2. Not running ... walking with my head held high.

      Delete
    3. Again, whatever you need to tell yourself. You don't fool anyone else.

      Delete
    4. "You don't fool anyone else."

      At least I'm not the one trying to argue there are no such thing as income law. You haven't fooled anyone else. No one believes your side of the argument or someone would have attempted to back you up. But, I think, everyone sees what a fool you are for that stance and lets you make a fool of yourself ... by yourself.
      Good luck with that.

      Delete
    5. "At least I'm not the one trying to argue there are no such thing as income law."

      Yes, because objective reality is a problem. Note the sarcasm.

      "No one believes your side of the argument or someone would have attempted to back you up."

      Or, more likely, anyone reading this can tell that I don't need any help. And it's not even a question of what anyone "believes". You're arguing that other people use the term "income law". You just did it again, in case you didn't know it. Since you can't find one instance of anyone else actually discussing or defining "income law", you're lying. You made up that term. It's not as if this is something unverifiable; it's a fact that there is no such thing. If there was any "income law", then you would be able to demonstrate that as a fact, instead of making assertions on top of assertions.

      Run away, now.

      Delete
    6. "Or, more likely, anyone reading this can tell that I don't need any help."

      Trust me, if anyone else is reading this, they know you need help.

      " If there was any "income law", then you would be able to demonstrate that as a fact, instead of making assertions on top of assertions."

      You mean demonstrate an income law by actually providing one? Like I've done already.

      "Run away, now."

      Are you asking me to stop making you look like a fool or demanding it?

      Delete
    7. "Trust me, if anyone else is reading this, they know you need help."

      Oddly, the claims of a psychopath who says there's an entire type of law that doesn't show up on Google don't really carry a lot of weight, as far as I'm concerned.

      "You mean demonstrate an income law by actually providing one?"

      You called a law an "income law". That's your assertion, without any independent verification. It's worthless.

      "Are you asking me to stop making you look like a fool or demanding it?"

      You're only embarrassing yourself. You clearly said that you were leaving. Were you lying?

      Delete
    8. "Oddly, the claims of a psychopath who says there's an entire type of law that doesn't show up on Google don't really carry a lot of weight, as far as I'm concerned."

      Not so oddly, when a non-psychopath claims there is such a thing as income law and actually provides one as evidence, that does carry a lot of weight.

      "You called a law an "income law"."

      What would YOU call a law that governs income? I think I asked that before.

      " You clearly said that you were leaving. Were you lying?"

      Computers can be carried while you walk. You DO know that, right?

      Delete
    9. "Not so oddly, when a non-psychopath claims there is such a thing as income law and actually provides one as evidence, that does carry a lot of weight."

      If only that ever happened. You provided no evidence, because it relies on your assertion with no independent verification whatsoever. Your word is worthless.

      "What would YOU call a law that governs income?"

      I wouldn't categorize it in a non-existent category, obviously. You also never showed that it "governs income". You actually admitted that you hadn't even read the law, so obviously you can't make any claims about what the law does.

      "Computers can be carried while you walk."

      You: "See you on the next article."

      Yet, you're still here. Were you lying?

      Delete
    10. "I wouldn't categorize it in a non-existent category, obviously."

      Hmm, I don't remember "call" and "categorize" being the same word. I don't believe I asked you what category an income law would fit into. Answer that actual question.

      "You also never showed that it "governs income"."

      It is your job to show that it doesn't. There is no evidence that suggests it doesn't, so there is no reason for me to bring proof of an obvious fact.

      "Yet, you're still here. Were you lying?"

      Where did I say "I" was leaving? I expected you to leave after your unceasing beat-down on this subject. But you keep coming back for more.

      Delete
    11. "Hmm, I don't remember "call" and "categorize" being the same word."

      Feel free to show how they aren't synonymous here.

      "I don't believe I asked you what category an income law would fit into."

      Except that "income law" would be the category. Remember, you were talking about a group of laws that define "what income is". It doesn't make any sense for you to pretend that you're naming laws just for the sake of calling them something, when you already said that they have to fit a certain definition in order to qualify.

      "It is your job to show that it doesn't."

      Wrong. It's your claim, so it's your job to substantiate it.

      "There is no evidence that suggests it doesn't, so there is no reason for me to bring proof of an obvious fact."

      Your claim isn't true as a default. If you don't back up what you say, then it has no merit.

      "Where did I say "I" was leaving?"

      You: "See you on the next article."
      Also, you: "Since you refuse to discuss the topic any longer and I beat you down so badly during your off-topic rants, I don't see where there is anything else I can offer."
      Also, you: "Not running ... walking with my head held high."
      That would be you saying that you were walking away. That would be you leaving. Were you lying?

      Delete
    12. "Except that "income law" would be the category."

      I don't care whether there is a category for it or not, the fact remains that you asked for proof of income law and I brought it. You lose

      "It's your claim, so it's your job to substantiate it."

      Nope, it isn't.

      "Your claim isn't true as a default."

      I brought the proof. It isn't my job to read it to you.

      "That would be you saying that you were walking away."

      I don't see me saying "walking away" anywhere. Are your meds wearing off? You sure are seeing things that just aren't there. For me to have said that, BOTH words would have to have been used. Not just one of them. Of course, you know that if you claim I said something and I didn't actually say it, that would make you a liar. But, most people already know that about you. You've been lying so much lately, it's hard to tell if you are doing it on purpose or if it's accidental.

      Delete
    13. "I don't care whether there is a category for it or not, the fact remains that you asked for proof of income law and I brought it."

      Your assertion isn't "proof". You lose.

      "Nope, it isn't."

      Then you failed to support your claim, and it doesn't count for anything.

      "I brought the proof."

      You mean the law that you didn't even read? It doesn't prove a thing.

      "I don't see me saying "walking away" anywhere."

      I didn't put "walking away" in quotes. I said "run away, now" and you said that you weren't running, you were walking. That would be you saying that you were walking away.

      "For me to have said that, BOTH words would have to have been used. Not just one of them."

      No, because you were responding to my comment, which used the word "away".

      "Of course, you know that if you claim I said something and I didn't actually say it, that would make you a liar."

      You would have to prove that you didn't say it, according to your own professed standard. Like when you manufactured a quote for me and then demanded that I prove that I didn't say it. Since you refused to admit accountability for your invented quote, you're not going to get very far by whining about a phrase that I didn't even put in quotes.

      Delete
    14. "Your assertion isn't "proof". You lose."

      You mean my evidence? I brought evidence as proof not an assertion. Prove my evidence is false.

      "Then you failed to support your claim, and it doesn't count for anything"

      My evidence proves my claim. If you think the evidence is wrong it is on you to prove it.

      "You mean the law that you didn't even read? It doesn't prove a thing."

      I've now read it. It proves my claim. If you think it doesn't then you need to show how.

      "That would be you saying that you were walking away."

      That's another example of your inability to understand what is written and what you THINK is written. I never said I was "walking away" as you said I did. Thus, (ergo) you are lying.

      "No, because you were responding to my comment, which used the word "away"."

      Your comment used lots of words. I, however, never said "away". You said I did.

      " Since you refused to admit accountability for your invented quote, you're not going to get very far by whining about a phrase that I didn't even put in quotes."

      I've never invented a quote of yours. You've never proven it and you've never explained how it was invented as opposed to accurate. Now, if you're going to demand I stick to standards, you should at least stick to your own standards; you made the claim now you must prove it.

      Delete
    15. "You mean my evidence? I brought evidence as proof not an assertion."

      Wrong. You asserted that ERISA is an "income law". You have no verification for your assertion, so you have no evidence at all.

      "If you think the evidence is wrong it is on you to prove it."

      No, it's up to you to substantiate that it is evidence at all. You can't just say that something is proof and expect that to stand.

      "I've now read it. It proves my claim."

      Another assertion, with no verification at all. You don't even explain your assertion, suggesting that you're lying.

      "That's another example of your inability to understand what is written and what you THINK is written. I never said I was "walking away" as you said I did."

      Yet, you don't explain what else you meant. And I didn't say that you used the phrase "walking away", so you are lying.

      "I, however, never said "away."

      I didn't claim that you said "away".

      "You said I did."

      You are lying. I said no such thing.

      "I've never invented a quote of yours."

      You: "That means you are lying when you say I "said there are no regulations"."
      I never used the phrase "said there are no regulations", even though you put it in quotes.
      http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2013/07/another-old-friend.html?showComment=1384569890806#c9204072955817630819

      "You've never proven it and you've never explained how it was invented as opposed to accurate."

      You haven't proven that I attributed "walking away" as a phrase to you. And "invented" as opposed to "accurate"? You quoted a phrase that I didn't use, which means that you came up with it on your own. If you want to claim that you can do that because it's "accurate", then you can't very well complain that I said "walking away" when I didn't even say that you used that exact phrase.

      This is going to go very, very badly for you. Thank you in advance for the amusement.

      Delete
    16. "No, it's up to you to substantiate that it is evidence at all. You can't just say that something is proof and expect that to stand."

      There is nothing that suggests I did not bring a valid income law. It is a law and income is in the title. Do you want me to copy/paste the entire law so that I can say my claim has now been validated?

      " And I didn't say that you used the phrase "walking away", so you are lying."

      Sure you did, right here: "That would be you saying that you were walking away.". Proving, I'm not lying.

      "You are lying. I said no such thing."

      What is the last word in this quote of yours: "That would be you saying that you were walking away."? It looks like the word "away". What word do you see?

      "You haven't proven that I attributed "walking away" as a phrase to you."

      So, you say I "invented" a quote of yours. You can't even prove it is an invention and you can't prove you didn't say that. Sorry, you're assertions are not proof. I, on the other hand, have brought your quote where you attributed words to me that I did not say.

      Delete
    17. "There is nothing that suggests I did not bring a valid income law."

      There's nothing to suggest that "income law" exists. Let me guess; you'll now point to ERISA as "proof" that "income law" exists?

      "Do you want me to copy/paste the entire law so that I can say my claim has now been validated?"

      No, I want you to find evidence that there is someone in the world who talks about "income law" besides you.

      "Sure you did, right here: "That would be you saying that you were walking away."."

      You just admitted that I didn't put the phrase in quotes, so I didn't say that you used those exact words. Thanks.

      "You can't even prove it is an invention and you can't prove you didn't say that."

      You can't prove that I attributed "walked away" as a phrase to you, and you can't prove that you didn't say it. See how that works?

      "Sorry, you're assertions are not proof."

      They must be, since you asserting that ERISA is an "income law" is supposedly "proof". Besides that, you proved that I didn't put the phrase in quotes. On the other hand, you never brought any evidence that I used the phrase that you did put in quotes. Instead, you demanded that I prove that I didn't say what you claimed that I did, as if that's even possible. Here, of course, you don't seem to think that you need to prove any such thing.

      "I, on the other hand, have brought your quote where you attributed words to me that I did not say."

      I didn't claim that you used the word "away", though. But, if you want to talk about "accurate", you were talking about walking away. The context proves that.

      Would you like to keep digging?

      Delete
    18. "No, I want you to find evidence that there is someone in the world who talks about "income law" besides you."

      Why would I want to do that? I'm not claiming "there is someone in the world who talks about income law besides" me. I brought the law, as you asked for. Now, what you need to do is deal with it. Or, prove that law is not a law governing income.

      "They must be, since you asserting that ERISA is an "income law" is supposedly "proof"."

      I'm not "asserting" anything besides that I brought an example of an income law.

      Delete
    19. "Why would I want to do that? I'm not claiming "there is someone in the world who talks about income law besides" me."

      Then you made up the term, which has been my point all along. Thanks for changing your tune on that one.

      "Or, prove that law is not a law governing income."

      It would still be your responsibility to prove your claim, if you hadn't already admitted that you invented the term on your own.

      "I'm not "asserting" anything besides that I brought an example of an income law."

      You were asserting the existence of "income law".

      Did you give up on your "walking away" argument as well? That was even less of a challenge than I thought it would be.

      Delete
    20. "Then you made up the term, which has been my point all along."

      I didn't make up any term. You're the first one to use it, not me. You made up the term. Besides, terminology isn't important, what's important is that I found a law you implied wasn't in existence.

      "It would still be your responsibility to prove your claim, if you hadn't already admitted that you invented the term on your own."

      My responsibility has been completed. Now, it is yours to prove it is not an income law.

      "You were asserting the existence of "income law"."

      No, I'm asserting that there are laws on income. And, I brought one to prove it. You still seem to be denying that possibility based on terminology. I guess you gotta do what you gotta do to avoid looking like the dolt you are for that kind of assertion. But, then again, I don't know too many people from Jersey who aren't dolts. Aren't you the guys who have that super fat governor or mayor or something like that?

      Delete
    21. "I didn't make up any term. You're the first one to use it, not me. You made up the term."

      So, you're admitting that other people don't use the term. But, you want to say that when you spoke about "income laws", and I asked you what you were talking about, and you then defined "income laws", that somehow I was the first person to use it? That's hilarious. I've been saying that there's no such thing the entire time, so I'm curious as to how you think you're going to justify that one.

      You: "No. They are not "beholden" to the same tax and income laws."
      Me: "And by the way, what the hell is an "income law"?"
      You: "That would be a law that the government uses to determine what income is."
      Unless you have evidence that I used the term before that, you just got caught lying, yet again.

      "Besides, terminology isn't important, what's important is that I found a law you implied wasn't in existence."

      If there's no such thing as "income laws", then ERISA can't possibly be an "income law".

      "Now, it is yours to prove it is not an income law."

      See above.

      "No, I'm asserting that there are laws on income."

      No, liar, you asserted that there was such a thing as "income law", as in a group of laws that all had a common purpose of determining "what income is", or of "concerning income", or of "governing income", depending on your mood. In fact, you said that those laws were different from one business to another, so it was never about your personal view of "laws on income".

      "You still seem to be denying that possibility based on terminology."

      I never denied that there were laws involving income, and you know that already. For instance;
      You: "What an idiot you are for thinking there are no laws covering income."
      Me: "I didn't say that. Another lie by you, by your own definition. I'm saying that there are no laws known as "income laws", and none which determine what income is."
      http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2013/07/another-old-friend.html?showComment=1384449806962#c6097892964316550826

      "Aren't you the guys who have that super fat governor or mayor or something like that?"

      So you're trying to justify your false claim about my location by trying to associate body fat with job performance? That would be very stupid of you. This sort of behavior from you always seems to show up when you're backed into a corner and you need to find a distraction to get you out of it.

      Delete
    22. "So, you're admitting that other people don't use the term."

      I'm admitting no such thing. You can't really be from Michigan. People from Michigan just aren't that stupid.

      "If there's no such thing as "income laws", then ERISA can't possibly be an "income law"."

      See last sentence.

      "
      No, liar, you asserted that there was such a thing as "income law", as in a group of laws that all had a common purpose of determining "what income is", or of "concerning income", or of "governing income", depending on your mood."

      Actually, that makes me a truth sayer and you the liar. You can't prove there are no income laws because I brought an example of one. Now you just try to 'word game' your way around it.

      "So you're trying to justify your false claim about my location by trying to associate body fat with job performance?"

      If that's the best you reading comprehension abilities allow you to determine, who am I to stop you? You go girl.

      "That would be very stupid of you. This sort of behavior from you always seems to show up when you're backed into a corner and you need to find a distraction to get you out of it."

      YOU have never backed me into any corner. The intelligence level you exhibit just doesn't allow for that.

      Delete
    23. "I'm admitting no such thing."

      You said that I made up the term. If that was supposed to be the truth, then who else would be using that term? Otherwise, you're a proven liar.

      "You can't really be from Michigan. People from Michigan just aren't that stupid."

      Your use of ad hominem is just another logical fallacy which shows that you don't have a valid argument to make.

      "You can't prove there are no income laws because I brought an example of one."

      You didn't bring any example, because you admitted that other people don't use the term. Since there are no "income laws", you have no examples to show.

      "If that's the best you reading comprehension abilities allow you to determine, who am I to stop you?"

      You forgot to explain how my interpretation differed from your intent.

      "YOU have never backed me into any corner. The intelligence level you exhibit just doesn't allow for that."

      Even besides your empty assertion, nobody has to display great intelligence for you to put yourself in a corner.

      If you think you're in a strong position here, you should be able to answer some questions;
      1) What legal expert or source used the term "income laws" before you?
      2) If "nobody", then how would you say that you did not invent the term on your own, considering that you didn't show where I supposedly used it first?
      3) If you do have some other source, what is it?

      If you can't answer those question in a mature and honest manner, then you're obviously in a corner.

      Delete
    24. "You said that I made up the term."

      In our conversation. Are you really that dense? Any moron could figure out that if there is a law covering income, it would be an income law. Just like a law covering abortion would be called an abortion law.

      "1) What legal expert or source used the term "income laws" before you?"

      You mean before you did? Since I didn't use it first, and you insinuate you're such an expert on languages, then your use of it must mean it has been used before.

      Delete
    25. "In our conversation."

      As opposed to what? If it doesn't exist outside of these conversations, then you made it up. You're back to admitting that other people don't use the term, which you previously denied.

      "Any moron could figure out that if there is a law covering income, it would be an income law."

      You would have to be a moron to believe that you could just invent your own terms and think that other people would have to accept them, as you did.

      "Since I didn't use it first, and you insinuate you're such an expert on languages, then your use of it must mean it has been used before."

      Sorry, you came up with "income laws", and I asked you where you got the term from. You just got caught lying again. Since nobody ever used the term before you did: how would you say that you did not invent the term on your own? And you need to provide evidence to show where I supposedly "made up the term", since you made the claim of fact.

      Do you have some explanation for your story, at least? Could you say how you can argue that I used it first? As if I said it, then asked you what it meant, and you never wondered why I would ask you that question? And then, while I was pointing out that nobody but you uses that term, you argued that the 206 million Google hits supported your use of the phrase, but that's supposed to be consistent with the idea that you were just following along with my theoretical introduction of the term? Your story would seem to rely on you being remarkably dim-witted and confused, unless you can provide some clarifying details.

      Delete
    26. "You would have to be a moron to believe that you could just invent your own terms and think that other people would have to accept them, as you did."

      I think the moron would be the person who thinks a phrase has been "made up" in the year 2014. Income has been around for centuries and you think that phrase was just made up? Maybe your little league education didn't teach you properly. You must have gone to school in Jersey, I've heard they don't teach the kids very well.

      "Since nobody ever used the term before you did: how would you say that you did not invent the term on your own?"

      You keep making that claim, but you have NEVER backed it up in any way, shape or form. You just assume it's first use occurred during our conversation. Wow, did I make up the word "conversation" too? I don't remember EVER hearing anybody using that phrase before. Note the sarcasm LOL

      "Your story would seem to rely on you being remarkably dim-witted and confused, unless you can provide some clarifying details."

      Hmm, I remember you saying this: "Your use of ad hominem is just another logical fallacy which shows that you don't have a valid argument to make.". Is this an inadvertent admission that you have no valid argument to make?

      Delete
    27. "I think the moron would be the person who thinks a phrase has been "made up" in the year 2014."

      That's amusing, since you claimed that I made it up. Besides that, the fact that it didn't show up in a Google search would lead any rational person to conclude that other people don't use the term.

      "Income has been around for centuries and you think that phrase was just made up?"

      Yes, because the existence of "income" does not assert the existence of "income laws".

      "You keep making that claim, but you have NEVER backed it up in any way, shape or form. You just assume it's first use occurred during our conversation."

      You never showed where anyone else ever used it, even in the Google search. If the term was commonly used or accepted by any sort of authority, you would be able to show that. You've had every opportunity to do so. Ergo, there's a reasonable conclusion to be made regarding the nonexistence of that term, and that's not the same thing as an assumption.

      "Wow, did I make up the word "conversation" too? I don't remember EVER hearing anybody using that phrase before."

      Are you imagining that you made a point with that? Where did you hear "income laws" from, if you didn't make it up on your own? Even in that scenario, should you choose to name some random, unknown person, why does the fact that there's no documentation of that term not lead you to believe that person made it up? Do you really want to present yourself as being that gullible?

      "Hmm, I remember you saying this: "Your use of ad hominem is just another logical fallacy which shows that you don't have a valid argument to make.". Is this an inadvertent admission that you have no valid argument to make?"

      Obviously not, since I explained in detail why your story makes you look like an idiot: "Could you say how you can argue that I used it first? As if I said it, then asked you what it meant, and you never wondered why I would ask you that question? And then, while I was pointing out that nobody but you uses that term, you argued that the 206 million Google hits supported your use of the phrase, but that's supposed to be consistent with the idea that you were just following along with my theoretical introduction of the term?"

      Also, you should already know that an ad hominem is the attempt to dismiss someone's argument by attacking them personally, while I merely pointed out that your story makes you look stupid. I didn't even say that you are stupid, I simply demonstrated the problem with your story and gave you the opportunity to clarify. So, no, that isn't even remotely similar to your ad hominem attacks.

      And on top of that, you didn't even try to make your story conform to the reality of what happened at all. So it still makes you look remarkably dim-witted, whether that's genuine stupidity on your part or the result of your dishonesty and desperation at this point.

      Delete
    28. "That's amusing, since you claimed that I made it up."

      I think I've already clarified that one by saying you were the first one to use it in this conversation, so you were the who made it up in this conversation.. But, I'm glad to see you are able to follow along. Note the sarcasm.

      "Yes, because the existence of "income" does not assert the existence of "income laws"."

      Honestly, how could you believe that?

      " Ergo, there's a reasonable conclusion to be made regarding the nonexistence of that term, and that's not the same thing as an assumption."

      You keep believing that, if it gets you through the day.

      "Are you imagining that you made a point with that?"

      Yes, and it's one you can't (and haven't) logically or intelligently argued.

      "you argued that the 206 million Google hits supported your use of the phrase"

      I never argue that. I said that I found a law covering income among those millions of hits. ERGO: income law. Simple huh?
      Why are you having such a hard time understanding that, even to the point of arguing there are NO income laws? Again, honestly, there is no way you could not be a moron while making that argument.

      "Also, you should already know that an ad hominem is the attempt to dismiss someone's argument by attacking them personally, while I merely pointed out that your story makes you look stupid. I didn't even say that you are stupid,"

      Well, thanks for the moronically stupid excuse you just used to excuse your use of ad hominem attacks. Is that the correct way of doing it? LOL@U

      "And on top of that, you didn't even try to make your story conform to the reality of what happened at all."

      Right, and your story of how there are no income laws, in a country dependent on how much income people make, is a reality? OK, you fly with whatever makes you feel good. Isn't that the usual liberal way?

      "So it still makes you look remarkably dim-witted, whether that's genuine stupidity on your part or the result of your dishonesty and desperation at this point."

      Is that another example of your non-ad hominem attacks? You wanna start over and try a different color of paint in order to work yourself out of that corner?



      Delete
    29. "I think I've already clarified that one by saying you were the first one to use it in this conversation, so you were the who made it up in this conversation.."

      In this conversation? So citing your previous behavior qualifies as "made it up", somehow? No, that's not how it words, and you're not clarifying anything. You said it first, so from that point on I'm not responsible for having "made it up". Previously, for your reference, you said "our" conversation, which didn't specify this thread.

      However, by that standard, you must have made up the term when you first used it. So, that didn't really help you out at all.

      "Honestly, how could you believe that?"

      Because of logic. The existence of "income" does not assert that there are "income laws". If you think that there's a logical process which actually contradicts that, feel free to explain it in detail. And you just saying that something involves income so it must be "income law" isn't logical, so you're aware.

      "You keep believing that, if it gets you through the day."

      You forgot to add substance to your response. You should try to give me a reason not to "believe" what I said.

      "Yes, and it's one you can't (and haven't) logically or intelligently argued."

      Again, you forgot to include anything of substance. I justified my comment, and you obviously didn't feel comfortable addressing that part.

      "I never argue that."

      You're lying: "I'm not sure what context you used those quotes from (no link), but if there are 206 million results, obviously many people use that phrase."
      And:
      Me: "Funny how there seem to be zero references to them on the internet."
      You: "Funny how I know how to work the internet, but you do not.
      http://www.google.com/#q=income+laws. Pay close attention to the 206 MILLION results."
      And, you: "You DO know there are thousands more pages with more information on income laws, right?"
      http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2013/07/another-old-friend.html?showComment=1387330413707#c5221368045909861013
      So, no, you very clearly argued that the Google search supported your use of the phrase. If you didn't feel that the term needed to be validated, you could have simply said that you made it up instead of arguing that other people use it.

      Delete
    30. "I said that I found a law covering income among those millions of hits. ERGO: income law."

      You were arguing that there are "income laws" before you started clinging to ERISA.
      Remember, you: "Yes. Now it is up to you to find it."
      http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2013/07/another-old-friend.html?showComment=1384783087044#c7787675805302368206
      That was previous (18 Nov 2013) to you ever noticing ERISA (17 Dec 2013); you insisted that the phrase "income laws" existed in the Google search, without even being able to cite one. Even ERISA didn't qualify, of course, because the phrase "income law" is not associated with it.

      "Well, thanks for the moronically stupid excuse you just used to excuse your use of ad hominem attacks."

      What you just did is an ad hominem attack, because you used an insult instead of reasoning to dismiss my comment. Note, in contrast, that I explained myself in both previous comments.

      "Right, and your story of how there are no income laws, in a country dependent on how much income people make, is a reality?"

      Obviously, since nobody other than you has ever promoted the use of that term.

      "OK, you fly with whatever makes you feel good. Isn't that the usual liberal way?"

      You seem to be running with your personal belief that there's such a thing as "income law", even when all of objective reality is going against you. As long as it makes you feel good, apparently.

      "Is that another example of your non-ad hominem attacks?"

      It's not an ad hominem. If you make a hilariously stupid argument, then I have every right to point out what's wrong with it. Which is exactly what I did, and you haven't provided a valid response to anything that I said. You insisting that I did something wrong doesn't magically make it true; you actually have to justify your complaint with something of substance.

      Delete
    31. That should be "how it works", of course.

      Delete
    32. "You're lying:"

      Using my statements out of context does not help your case.

      "You insisting that I did something wrong doesn't magically make it true; you actually have to justify your complaint with something of substance."

      You mean like bringing an example of an income law? Done that. Thanks for playing

      "What you just did is an ad hominem attack, because you used an insult instead of reasoning to dismiss my comment."

      I know, just like yours.

      "You should try to give me a reason not to "believe" what I said."

      The best reason not to believe you would be that you're a liberal. Ever notice how often liberals lie? Read any of Eddie's articles, he lies (at least once) in virtually every one of them. He is a liberal. You lie every day you post, here, and your a liberal. If that isn't reason enough, then I don't know what is.

      Delete
    33. "Using my statements out of context does not help your case."

      Making assertions without evidence doesn't help your case.

      "You mean like bringing an example of an income law?"

      The actual context here is your ignorant accusations of ad hominem attacks, so no. But, you still never brought any "example" of an "income law", since you're the only person who uses that term. You brought something that you decided to call an "income law", even though you never demonstrated how it determines "what income is". It's not even consistent with your own definition, as far as you've shown.

      "I know, just like yours."

      Not at all, because I explained my reasoning. You never addressed that, because you couldn't.

      "The best reason not to believe you would be that you're a liberal."

      Mindless generalizations don't help your argument, either.

      "You lie every day you post, here, and your a liberal."

      You've never proven a lie on my part. On the other hand, you: "You haven't denied living in New Jersey, either." That was proven to be a lie, since you admitted awareness of that denial previously.

      You seem to be done here, since you're reduced to empty assertions and bigoted generalizations. Of course, you never really had much more to offer.

      Delete
    34. "Making assertions without evidence doesn't help your case."

      You brought the evidence by bringing the link. You lose.

      " But, you still never brought any "example" of an "income law", since you're the only person who uses that term."

      Not true, you've been using the term for over a year, now, right?

      Delete
    35. "You brought the evidence by bringing the link."

      So your claim is that you simply forgot to explain what you were basing your accusation on? That would make you appear to be rather stupid. Obviously, you have to cite the surrounding text that supposedly changes the meaning, and show how. Just saying "context" doesn't magically prove anything all by itself, sorry.

      "Not true, you've been using the term for over a year, now, right?"

      No, I've been disputing your use of it. The fact that I have to repeat it in order to discuss it doesn't mean that I've been "using" it the way that word applies to you. That distinction has been made clear throughout the discussion, and especially by this phrasing: "since nobody other than you has ever promoted the use of that term."

      Do you have any other idiotic diversions in mind, or have you suffered enough?

      Delete
    36. "Do you have any other idiotic diversions in mind, or have you suffered enough?"

      Says the guy who diverted the topic from Jimmy Carter and religion to income laws. And then couldn't even hold his own during any of the topics. So, if this is the best you can do, then you should crawl back into your hole and wait for another chance to look stupid (or liberal-like).

      Delete
    37. "Says the guy who diverted the topic from Jimmy Carter and religion to income laws."

      After you diverted it to New Jersey, of course. And I shot down your Jimmy Carter claim in no uncertain terms, so it's not as if I was avoiding anything.

      "And then couldn't even hold his own during any of the topics."

      Your assessment is meaningless, since you've never displayed any hint of objectivity whatsoever. To highlight that, notice that you didn't even maintain your claims of quote-cropping and "using the term". You abandoned your hilariously weak arguments, and then projected your failures onto me.

      Run away, now.

      Delete
    38. "Your assessment is meaningless, since you've never displayed any hint of objectivity whatsoever."

      Objectivity? I guess if truth and objectivity are different then you are right.

      "After you diverted it to New Jersey, of course."

      Oh, of course, you never changed the topic, huh?

      Run away, now

      Delete
    39. "Objectivity? I guess if truth and objectivity are different then you are right."

      You proclaiming yourself to be some beacon of truth has no merit, naturally. All that does is highlight your rampant ego.

      "Oh, of course, you never changed the topic, huh?"

      No, not really. You had quit talking about Carter on your own long before that. I brought up your "income law" lie in order to point out your hypocrisy, and that was in response to your off-topic comment about Eddie's claim anyway. So, if you think that you can bring up whatever topic you like, then you give me every right to do the same.

      Anything of substance, or are you just going to keep coming back to whine at me over and over again?

      Delete
    40. " All that does is highlight your rampant ego."

      The best usually have some kind of ego. It goes with the territory.

      "No, not really."

      ROTFLMAO@U

      Delete
    41. "The best usually have some kind of ego."

      That doesn't mean that everyone who has an ego is one of "the best", though. Your failures to substantiate your recent assertions demonstrates that quite clearly.

      "ROTFLMAO@U"

      That's an appeal to ridicule, which is a logical fallacy. That isn't something that "the best" do, of course.

      Delete
    42. "That doesn't mean that everyone who has an ego is one of "the best", though."

      Really? Perhaps you could fully explain why not.

      "That's an appeal to ridicule, which is a logical fallacy."

      No, that's a fact.

      Delete
    43. "Perhaps you could fully explain why not."

      I didn't assume that you were stupid enough to need an explanation for that. Those who have an ego aren't synonymous with "the best". This should be especially obvious, because you didn't even try to make "the best" and "ego" automatically connected; you said that the best usually have some kind of ego. Since there are people in that category who do not have an ego, by your admission, it's equally possible that there are people who have an ego who are not in that category.

      "No, that's a fact."

      It's actually an appeal to ridicule, even if you want to call it a "fact". Instead of making an argument, you simply acted as if what I said was ridiculous, instead of addressing it with anything of substance. Obviously, you can do that with anything that anyone says, so it's not a valid response.

      For instance:
      A: "Water is wet."
      B: "ROTFLMAO@U"
      The response clearly didn't dispute what was said; it merely pretended that it wasn't a valid statement.

      Do you need anything explained further?

      Delete
    44. "Since there are people in that category who do not have an ego, by your admission, it's equally possible that there are people who have an ego who are not in that category."

      No, I said "usually", that does not mean "equally". You are wrong, I am right. Get over it.

      "Instead of making an argument, you simply acted as if what I said was ridiculous, instead of addressing it with anything of substance."

      LIAR!!! Caught you in yet another lie. I think what you said was FUNNY. I never acted like what you said was "ridiculous". This isn't rocket science, you know. Why do you have such a hard time following along?

      "For instance:
      A: "Water is wet."
      B: "ROTFLMAO@U" "

      There's nothing funner or ridiculous about water being wet so your example does not make any sense. What are you trying to explain?

      Delete
    45. "No, I said "usually", that does not mean "equally"."

      I quoted you accurately, emphasizing "usually". I didn't say that you meant "equally" anything, obviously. Since "usually" does not mean "always", you are allowing for separation between "ego" and "the best". Ergo, it's possible that there are people who have an ego who are not "the best".

      "LIAR!!! Caught you in yet another lie. I think what you said was FUNNY."

      You have no way of proving that. It's not relevant, anyway, since it's still a fallacy. It's not as if it becomes legitimate because you think it's funny but failed to explain what was wrong with my comment.

      "I never acted like what you said was "ridiculous"."

      Then what did you think was funny? Do you just laugh randomly, or what?

      "There's nothing funner or ridiculous about water being wet so your example does not make any sense."

      And there's nothing ridiculous about what I said, which is why the example clearly makes sense. I find it amusing that you claimed that you weren't acting as if what I said was "ridiculous", then you don't understand the example because the statement in it is not "ridiculous". What's the difference, then?

      Delete
    46. "I quoted you accurately, emphasizing "usually"."

      You did? I don't see the word "equally" in my quote. Try a better explanation this time.

      Delete
    47. "I quoted you accurately, emphasizing "usually"."

      Good job, Jerseyite, you just admitted that quotation marks aren't required in order to "quote" people. I'll remember that as you cry about 'not using particular words or phrases as I quote your statements.

      Delete
    48. "You did? I don't see the word "equally" in my quote."

      I didn't say that you said "equally".

      "Good job, Jerseyite, you just admitted that quotation marks aren't required in order to "quote" people."

      How do you figure that? The quote you provided includes the word "usually", which you used. Are you mixing up "usually" and "equally", or what? Otherwise, it's not even clear what victory you're hallucinating here.

      Delete