Cliques?

[Scooter]

And yet, in the very thread in which she wrote it, you saw fit to post 4 or 5 times after she said it, without taking her to task for it at all. Far from it, you chose to praise her ethics. Because you understood the context in which she wrote it and only now have decided to use it as yet another way of projecting your air of alleged superiority by turning it into something it was not.

Sean was very clear - he said that if he were a defence lawyer who did not fit the picture bsg had painted, he would have taken her to task for it, but not having anything to do with the legal profession and so being incapable of knowing whether what she wrote was true or false, he saw no reason to comment. So what was your excuse? Why did you not immediately jump to the defence of lawyers you now claim were being unjustly slimed?

If this is you back on the sauce, get yourself to a meeting. If this is you sober, time to get back on the bottle.

[Joe Guy]

Andrew,

Jim has shown examples of your dishonesty. I've seen them and I'm guessing anyone else who is paying attention has also seen them.

If I were to hold them in front of your face I'm now convinced that you would not be able to see them.

You are being dishonest with yourself and all of us right now with every post that you write.

It's not fun following this unstable & erratic diatribe of yours.

As I've written often, I come here for entertainment and usually can see humor in just about anything.

This rant of yours is not entertaining.

[Andrew D]

Andrew,

Jim has shown examples of your dishonesty.

Where?

Show me my words and the evidence which supports the claim of my supposed dishonesty.

Show it.

Stop blathering about it.

Show it.

My words, directly quoted. The evidence which supports the claim of my supposed dishonesty.

As another poster put it:

Put up or shut the fuck up, there's a good boy.

Bring it on.

If I were to hold them in front of your face ....

So do it.

Instead of yammering about what might happen if you were to hold them in fornt of my face, just hold them in front of my face.

Just do it.

[Andrew D]

Where were you, Scooter, when Little Jimmy lied about what I posted concerning prosecutors?

Were you there?

I do not recall your being there, but maybe you were.

Were you?

Were you there?

[Scooter]

I guess those poor maligned defense lawyers have been forgotten again...

[Andrew D]

Instead of yammering about what might happen if you were to hold them in fornt of my face, just hold them in front of my face.

Just do it.

Well?

[Joe Guy]

The examples of your dishonesty have been held in front of your face and you’ve chosen to not accept them. You can’t see that your entire rant against Jim is dishonest. You’ve accused him of scamming and bilking people and covering up his evil acts, and then, after being called on that, you tried to redefine what you actually meant.

You gave an example to me saying I could accidentally step on someone’s foot without attempting to do so – and that was your way of explaining that you didn’t actually accuse Jim of anything.

That’s dishonest. You are writing words and then telling us that they don’t mean what we think they do.

You’re smart enough to know how the words you’ve written will be interpreted (I hope). The rest is just a game that you play in which you explain to everyone how you are the only one who can understand your words and the rest of us can’t comprehend what you write.

I’m sure you aren’t going to accept this post as reference to an example of your dishonesty. You will somehow attempt to get around it by redefining your previous words or maybe you will ask for me to again show you what I’ve just shown you.

It’s a circle you’re in that is like muddy water going down a drain.

[Lord Jim]

I really appreciate that post Joe. Well said.

(Unfortunately, if past performance is any indicator, that is precisely the sort of straight forward truth telling that will now earn you a torrent of personal abuse. )

[Andrew D]

You’ve accused him of scamming and bilking people ....

Which part of "wannabe" did you fail to understand?

... you tried to redefine what you actually meant.

What I actually did was quote what I had actually posted.

Not what you imagine that I had posted.

The words which I actually used.

You are writing words and then telling us that they don’t mean what we think they do.

They mean what they actually mean.

Not what you would like them to mean. What they actually mean.

Quote them.

Read them.

Maybe, someday, comprehend them.

[Andrew D]

By the way, this:

One must attempt to do something in order to do it.

is just wrong.

People often do things which they had not attempted to do.

Indeed, people often do the very things which they had attempted to avoid doing.

[Andrew D]

Is something about this:

People who have bothered to read with at least a modicum of care will have noticed that I do not claim that Little Jimmy has ever actually swindled anyone out of anything.

* * *

In case anyone has, by virtue [of] wishing into my postings things which they do not actually say, become confused, let me clear this up:

--> As far as I know, Little Jimmy has never swindled anyone out of anything.

--> As far as I know, no one has ever been defrauded by Little Jimmy.

--> As far as I know, Little Jimmy has not bilked anyone out of any money.

In order to swindle/defraud/bilk anyone, Little Jimmy would have to be competent. I have seen no reason to think that he is.

insufficiently clear?

[Andrew D]

And Little Jimmy has yet to quote the words of mine which he claims are dishonest.

After all this time. After all those postings.

He still cannot do it.

Why are you not on his ass about that?

[Andrew D]

And yet, in the very thread in which she wrote it, you saw fit to post 4 or 5 times after she said it, without taking her to task for it at all. Far from it, you chose to praise her ethics. Because you understood the context in which she wrote it and only now have decided to use it as yet another way of projecting your air of alleged superiority by turning it into something it was not.

"Only now"?

"Only now"?

Did you bother reading the thread which you linked?

Evidently not. Because if you had, you would have encountered, among other things, this:

I see someone who has strong convictions. I see someone who has thrown those convictions overboard.

"Only now"?

What is your definition of "now"?

[Scooter]

[dales]

[Andrew D]

So.

Your "only now" comment has been revealed as utterly false.

And your response is a violin?

You're better than that.

[Joe Guy]

You’ve accused him of scamming and bilking people ....

Which part of "wannabe" did you fail to understand?

We've already covered this. Remember how you avoided my point regarding the fact that that accusing someone of the intent (attempt) to do something like bilking others is as serious as accusing someone of doing it?

You wrote a little story explaining that someone accidentally stepping on someone else's foot doesn't require an attempt by that person.

What I actually did was quote what I had actually posted.

Not what you imagine that I had posted.

The words which I actually used.

You obviously need to work on how you use your words.

When nobody other than you can understand what you really mean, it is time to reconsider how you phrase your written thoughts. It's not the best time for you to criticize those who you believe don't understand you.

Of course, in your head everyone else is wrong. It is not your problem that nobody else interprets your words the same as you do when you retroactively attempt to clarify the "real" meaning of those words.

That's a sad place for anyone to live.

The real question is, as I see it; Do you want to continue to repeatedly declare how nobody but you is smart enough to understand what you mean when you write something, or will you (can you) accept that you are not being clear and you need to not talk in circles?

I don't believe you come here for conversation any more. I think you're here only to vent about how everyone other than you really understands anything at all.

[Andrew D]

I think you're here only to vent about how everyone other than you really understands anything at all.

Okay.

I guess.

Huh?

[Andrew D]

When have I "retroactively attempt[ed]" anything?

Your problem is that you want me to have said things which I did not say.

Not my problem.

Yours.

[Sean]

I think you're here only to vent about how everyone other than you really understands anything at all.

Okay.

I guess.

Huh?

Hop off that high-horse for a minute Andrew...

Anyone with a basic level of intelligence could work out what Joe meant.
If you do not possess that level of intelligence allow me to suggest replacing the word 'everyone' with the word 'nobody' in his post.

No need to thank me...