Re: Wishlist for IDE

Roedy Green wrote: 
On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 02:36:01 GMT, Dale King
<DaleWKing@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote or quoted :


provide the quote where Rumsfeld "confesses" to the embezzelment of trillions of dollars (even though the money is missing from before he was secretary of defense).

That is not what I claimed. 

No, what you claimed was:

"Bush crime family lost/embezzled $3 trillion from Pentagon...Rumsfeld confesses on video."

I said that the administration admits there are trillions MISSING, not
that Rumsfeld admits to stealing it.

And there is no admission or "confession" on video. There may be trillions missing. I haven't disputed whether or not there is missing money. Claiming that it was embezzeled is going beyond the known facts, however.

> Rumsfeld effectively confessed 
to a presiding over one massive fuckup/theft, not that he was the
beneficiary.

Saying "we'll get back to you on that" is not a confession. And once again at the time in question Donald Rumsfeld was presiding over a pharmaceutical company, not the Pentagon.

You have also hinted that the video I talk of is a figment of my
imagination even though there are several references to it on the net.

No, I said the link you provided was not valid. And to this day the link is still not valid for me.

I have never claimed that the video you were linking to did not itself exist. I even provided a link to a written transcript of it. Your characterization of what the video contained does appear to be a figment of your imagination.

Obviously, it was available at one point.

But was not available at the point that you insulted someone for not going to view it.

> You were out of the loop at 
the time and did not bother to view it. That does not mean it never
existed.

Once again I never claimed that there was no video. Here exactly is what I said: "Actually the URL is not valid. There is no infowars.com. But I found the transcript on another site and ..."

See the word URL, not video. See how in the same breath I talk about a transcript of what was in the video.

You have had troubles getting through to a site I can get to.  You
blame me for making up a fictitious site rather than some problem with
your own connection, or some party blocking you.  You did no research,
you just accused.

I see no accusation in what I quoted. You told Hal Rosser, "Follow the URL. Rumsfeld Confesses." And I tell you that the URL is not valid (as it still is not). It is rather insulting to tell someone to follow the URL when the URL leads nowhere.

If you are going to accuse me of being a liar in future, please state
clearly the particular lie QUOTING IT.

I've only addressed the one lie and I DID quote it. I quoted it again in this message. Since your memory appears to be failing here is the lie once again:

"Bush crime family lost/embezzled $3 trillion from Pentagon...Rumsfeld confesses on video."

Further, please get out your dictionary and refresh yourself on the
differences between me saying:

You forgot #4 Way off-topic for this newsgroup which is the primary complaint.

1. something you disagree with.

I have no trouble with you saying something I disagree with if it is on-topic for the newsgroup. If it is as far off-topic and controversial as this was it makes no difference if I agree with it or not, it doesn't belong here.

2. something untrue.
3. a lie.

The difference being that if you knowingly tell something untrue with purpose to deceive (particularly with malicious intent) then it definitely qualifies as a lie. I showed that it was untrue and you continued to repeat it, therefore my calling it a lie is well-founded.
--
Dale King
.

Quantcast