- Joined
- Oct 30, 2004
- Messages
- 92,690
- Reaction score
- 28,431
Polish is a great poster, and you know that I hold him in very high regard.
Could you quote the post of Cubo's that led you to believe that Cubo was claiming that Warren claimed to be "full-blooded" Native American?
You can't even say what I lied about. Meanwhile, you were busted red-handed lying about my own claim on multiple occasions. You should probably just delete your account.
In context, yes. The statement is that that was the extent of her claim (as opposed to you falsely suggesting that she claimed to be full-blooded NA).
True statements like Warren only claimed to have a distant NA ancestor.
It's like the Twilight Zone with you. What a brutal self-own. I did indeed say what I'm accusing you of lying about. Here it is again. The statement in the parentheses is what I'm challenging. Do you see?
Oh the irony of your second sentence. Doing exactly what the first sentence falsely criticizes me for (i.e. not even saying what I supposedly lied about).
In that third sentence you originally posted that I should kill myself? Gotta say that puts a smile on my face. Not sure I've ever elicited anything around here as "gotten to" before.
So how about that bet?
I still believe you should. That you are happy that other people don't respect you just reinforces my belief about your fundamental worthlessness.
You've conceded the point under dispute, and at this point all you have left is lying, isn't it?
The end has no end
This thread is for putting up or shutting up, yeah? Based on Jack's meltdown, it looks like it's ending.
The end has no endThe end has no end
This thread is for putting up or shutting up, yeah? Based on Jack's meltdown, it looks like it's ending.
There's no meltdown on my end. As far as I'm concerned, the substantive discussion ended when you conceded my point (and then denied ever arguing against it).
I'm offering you sure wins and you're not taking them? You're the guy who called me a coward for not responding to one of your posts. What do you call not taking a bet over debates you claim to have already irrefutably won? Prudent?
There's no meltdown on my end. As far as I'm concerned, the substantive discussion ended when you conceded my point (and then denied ever arguing against it).
I'm offering you sure wins and you're not taking them? You're the guy who called me a coward for not responding to one of your posts. What do you call not taking a bet over debates you claim to have already irrefutably won? Prudent?
Can I just be clear here that I don't believe a bet about what was said by who isn't going to help this argument at all. You'd just be choosing an arbiter to pick a side that I doubt either of you would then change your mind on your stance.
You seem to be implying some insurmountable ambiguity. It's not that hard. He pulls in the part of the conversation where he asserts I said Warren claimed to be full blood NA and I offer my words of dispute. Three judges decide if my words reach that standard, based on the most reasonable interpretation of word meanings (i.e. not something vague that could possibly be misconstrued because multiple interpretations could be argued). Someone wins and someone loses. Changing minds doesn't factor in.
The fact you two are talking about a conversation that already has happened in the open and still don't agree means, the result on the bet won't be agreed on.
It all just isn't solid enough.