Many people here are, I am sure, tired of this.

[Andrew D]

And I cannot blame you.

I am tired of this.

But I cannot force myself just to roll over in the face of an accusation made by someone who refuses to state the basis of that accusation.

I have tried. People whom I respect, people whose opinions I value, have encouraged me, exhorted me, admonished me -- for my own good -- just to let the matter lie.

But I cannot.

Would you? If someone were constantly telling the world at large that you are a liar? If your accuser had repeatedly refused to state the basis of the claim that you are a liar? Would you just take it without objection?

Maybe you would. Maybe I should. But I cannot.

Perhaps it is a character flaw. Perhaps it is a personal failing. Whatever it is, it compels me.

Bring it on.

Lay out my words -- my exact, directly quoted words -- and state the basis of your claim that those words are dishonest.

[Andrew D]

He has responded to me in various threads.

But not this one.

He can't.

[Lord Jim]

[Econoline]

"Many people here are..."? I would say "everyone here is..." Including even those determined to ignore you. Including, apparently, even yourself. And only you can end it.

Enough said.*






*(Meaning: this single post is all I ever have said and all I ever will say on this subject.)

[Andrew D]

Still nothing.

Still no support for the accusation.

Still nothing.

Just as in bed. Nothing.

[Andrew D]

And only you can end it.

No.

Little Jimmy can support his accusation.

Or he can withdraw it.

Or he can do nothing.

Just as he does in the rest of what passes for his life.

[Lord Jim]

People whom I respect, people whose opinions I value, have encouraged me, exhorted me, admonished me -- for my own good -- just to let the matter lie.

You should have listened to those folks....

Those are obviously people who retain enough affection for you that it pains them to see the way you are publicly showing yourself for the obsessed, vicious crank that you have degenerated into. They clearly want you to turn away from this embarrassing display, and still hold out hope that you can be persuaded away from this self destructive course.

This group is a lot smaller than it was when you started down this road last summer, (at that time, and for sometime thereafter, it included me, for one) and so long as you persist in your meltdown course and determination to grind your former reputation into a fine powder, I suspect it will grow smaller still.

[Andrew D]

And still nothing.

What about this:

Lay out my words -- my exact, directly quoted words -- and state the basis of your claim that those words are dishonest.

is too much for you?

Stop pansying about. Just do it.

[Lord Jim]

[Andrew D]

Still nothing.

Still no answer.

He should be grateful that I am magnanimous.

[Jarlaxle]

You are MENTAL.

Seek professional psychiatric help.

[Andrew D]

Still nothing.

[dgs49]

Calm yourself, Andrew. On this board, words mean whatever the poster wants them to mean.

Maybe, to the offending poster, the word, "liar" and "lie" refer to things that he simply doesn't like you saying.

But certainly, if there was an example of an intentional falsehood, it wouldn't be too much to ask that he produce it.

[Lord Jim]

But certainly, if there was an example of an intentional falsehood, it wouldn't be too much to ask that he produce it.

They were produced repeatedly Dave. If you had followed those discussions (which you may not have) you would know this.

At the time they were produced, he ignored them and pretended they weren't there. They were posted again. Same thing. Again. Same thing. (Anyone who has followed my interaction in exchanges of this nature over the years, knows that my regular habit when exposing someone for deliberate dishonesty is to provide both quotes, and links to the posts from which those quotes were drawn so that the reader can satisfy themselves that the quotes were not taken out of context in order to produce a false impression. I did that when Andrew was deliberately trying to create a false and dishonest impression of what was being said, not once, not twice but many times.)

You have to understand that Andrew's current bleating and whining has nothing at all to do with any sort of honest desire to see evidence that he well knows has already been presented many times. His clear and deliberate objective is to get me, (and BSG, and presumably anyone else who shines a spot light on his dishonest shenanigans) wearing ourselves down wasting time and energy digging up and re-posting the same evidence that was posted before many times, which he will then promptly ignore and demand be produced again.

Now you may ask yourself; why would anyone do this? It's really quite simple.

Look at the way he succeeded in upsetting BSG with his shamelessly out of context quotes, designed to create what he well knows is a completely false narrative about what was actually said. (In reading the past couple of days his bizarrely distorted mischaracterizations of previous discussions I've had with him, it was clear he was trying to provoke the same sort of response in me. )

His objective is get us to either become worn out chasing down his serial prevarications. or so frustrated and angered by his shameless, prolific mendacity, that we become burned out on the place and walk away.

That's the ultimate objective here. To get us to leave. It is not, (it simply cannot be, given the number of times these issues have already been dealt with) an honest request for evidence.

He almost got me to that point (being completely burned out on this place because of his antics) when I did play his endless tail chasing games, and I simply will not give him the satisfaction of drawing me into that again.

I know that you are having exchanges with other posters where you feel that charges are being made and evidence is being requested and not provided. Believe me, you certainly do not want to project what you see as your situation onto this one. (Which is what I get the impression you may be doing.) Trying to draw parallels between your claims and what Andrew is up to, is just about the worst possible thing you (or anyone for that matter) could do for the credibility of their assertions.

[Lord Jim]

In order to understand why Andrew is doing what he is doing now, the key is to bear in mind the strategic objective.

On it's face, it seems quite insane that a person who has been proven to be dishonest, and knows full well that he has been proven to be dishonest, would troll all over the board demanding that the proof of his dishonesty be posted again....

You would think that a minimally sane person would want to slink away from that, and hope people would forget about it; not try to get a klieg light shined on it yet again....Why would he want people reminded of how dishonest he has been? Why would he (as Joe has pointed out) confirm his dishonesty in post after post by demanding proof that everyone who followed these discussions knows has already been presented and knows that he's already seen?

On it's face that would seem like nothing but pure masochism...

That's where the strategic objective comes in....

He knows that most people here are already aware of how deliberately dishonest he has been; he figures he has nothing to lose by having it shown again...

It's not about defending or restoring his reputation...he knows that train left the station...

He obviously no longer cares what anyone here thinks of him...

No, he's focused entirely, laser like on his one primary objective....

Driving off those posters who have had the temerity to stand up to The Great One, and expose his dishonesty.

When you view it with his objective in mind, then everything he has said and done becomes quite logical and understandable. (Including his libelous accusations against me.)

ETA:

Now of course this post will likely be followed up with some thing like : "See? Still no evidence!"

(Oh, no, there I go again with one of my cunning pre-emptive strikes.....)

[Andrew D]

But certainly, if there was an example of an intentional falsehood, it wouldn't be too much to ask that he produce it.

So one is tempted to think. But that production still does not occur.

[Rick]

Andrew my friend, I think it's time to take a page from Sun Tzu here.

You have lost the moral initiative, no matter how many battles over this you win you will never win the war over this issue.

If I only had 2 allies they would be Sue and Guin, they have both weighed in on this matter.

Sorry girls I'm neither a stalker or a Swede.

I still hold out hope for Quad cause I have only seen half of this duo say anything about him.

But I have no credibility, I'm no better than the gum on the bottom of a shoe.

You will not win not even with the help of the Navy, you have already lost, put it in yer pocket and move on to the next issue...

Jim Bob also my friend, winning ain't always that important.

After Vietnam the military boasted that they had never lost a battle.

The response was "so what".

No doubt you 2 will always be at odds, ya'll are not the only ones that post here.

I never posted at Car Talk, I don't guess Guin or Sue post there anymore.

Sue and Guin weighed in on the conflict at CSB they no longer post there.

Did they post at Darwin? If they did they no longer post there, if they didn't maybe it would still be around if they did.

Hmmmm...

[Andrew D]

Anyone who has followed my interaction in exchanges of this nature over the years, knows that my regular habit when exposing someone for deliberate dishonesty is to provide both quotes, and links to the posts from which those quotes were drawn so that the reader can satisfy themselves that the quotes were not taken out of context in order to produce a false impression.

So where are they?

Hundreds of words. By now, perhaps thousands of words.

But not, in the whole mess, the simple, necessary thing: Lay out my words -- my exact, directly quoted words -- and state the basis of your claim that those words are dishonest.

Why is that too much for you?

[Lord Jim]

After Vietnam the military boasted that they had never lost a battle.

The response was "so what".

That's a good analogy Keld, because "quagmire" is exactly where he wants me to go.

Been there done that.

[Daisy]

[mothermode]FFS CUT IT OUT THE PAIR OF YOU!![/mothermode]

Neither of you are going to win this argument, and frankly I don't care who said what when and how.

You're both looking like jerks. So agree that you hate each other, but please for the sake of this place can you please just call it a day?

If there a libellous or legal implications take it up with your lawyers and off board.