Cliques?

[Joe Guy]

I cannot answer questions whose answers require the posting of relevant information when I am denied permission to post the relevant information.

You can answer my questions without posting relevant information.

I asked 'Are you claiming...' 'Do you believe?...' and 'Are you accusing.....?'

I'm am not requesting supportive evidence from you. In fact, a simple yes or no answer would suffice.

[Gob]

as you can answer mine;

and how do you know; "That may well be part of the reason why everyone who knows him in real life detests him."

Why is this worth so much to you?

Why are you so obssessed with Jim?

[Jarlaxle]

and how do you know; "That may well be part of the reason why everyone who knows him in real life detests him."


Your obsession with Jim is taking you down very rocky roads Andrew, what will it take to make you realise that you are doing yourself no favours?

Psychiatric help, perhaps?

[Lord Jim]

cannot answer questions whose answers require the posting of relevant information when I am denied permission to post the relevant information.

It is just impossible.

Imagine if you were told that the only way by which you could defend yourself would be to present the very evidence which you are not allowed to present.

It is just impossible.

If you want to blame anyone, blame those who make it impossible.

Let me ask the same question that Joe and Strop have been asking, (expecting of course, the same non answer; since you know full well the implications of an actual answer in the affirmative)

Are you claiming that if you were able to post personal information about me, that you would be able to prove that I have been swindling people out of their money, yes or no?

Do you have the stones to answer that question?

[Andrew D]

... what will it take to make you realise that you are doing yourself no favours?

What will it take to make you realize that "doing [my]self ... favours" is pretty much nowhere on my list of prioirities?

[Andrew D]

Are you claiming that if you were able to post personal information about me, that you would be able to prove that I have been swindling people out of their money, yes or no?

I have not claimed that you have swindled anyone.

You just said so yourself. Remember?

He has already admitted repeatedly that he has no proof whatsoever that I ever swindled anyone out of one thin dime ....

And that was after I had already said so. Remember? I specifically disavowed having claimed that you had swindled anyone. Remember?

--> 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.

So why are you asking me whether I could prove something which I have not alleged?

Something which I have explicitly pointed out that I am not alleging?

Is the word "not" too much for you?

[Andrew D]

I'm am not requesting supportive evidence from you. In fact, a simple yes or no answer would suffice.

Did I not already post:

No.

Did I not again already post:

No.

Did I not already post, yet again:

No.

Did I not already post:

Yes.

Which question would you like yet another answer to?

[Andrew D]

using this as a cowardly cop out just goes to show how low you have sunk.

What do you want from me?

Do you want me to support an allegation which I have not made?

Do you want me to post information which I am apparently prohibited from posting?

(Whose board is this, anyway? Who makes the rules?)

Or what?

Tell me what you want, and I will either give it to you or explain why I cannot.

[Joe Guy]

Andrew, for the third time...

I would like you to answer me directly. Posting a yes, yes, yes, no without including the question you are responding to is not a direct response. And please don't refer me to answers you've given to other people. I would like to see an answer to each of my following questions;

1) Are you claiming that if you had permission to post "relevant information", it would prove that Jim wants to swindle people and everyone should avoid him if they value their bank accounts?

2) Do you believe that Jim is involved with the "free cash machine" in order to swindle people?

3) Are you accusing Jim of lying to cover up a swindling operation?

Here's how you answer...

You copy question # 1 and then post your answer.

Then you copy question # 2 and post your answer.

Finally, you copy question # 3 and post your answer.

If you have any questions regarding how to respond to the 3 questions I've asked, please feel free to ask for advice. I will give you direct informative answers.

[Gob]

What do you want from me?

Some sense would be nice.

how do you know; "That may well be part of the reason why everyone who knows him in real life detests him."

Why is this worth so much to you?

Why are you so obssessed with Jim?

[Andrew D]

Andrew, for the third time...

I would like you to answer me directly. Posting a yes, yes, yes, no without including the question you are responding to is not a direct response. And please don't refer me to answers you've given to other people. I would like to see an answer to each of my following questions;

1) Are you claiming that if you had permission to post "relevant information", it would prove that Jim wants to swindle people and everyone should avoid him if they value their bank accounts?

That is actually two questions.

The relevant information would show what I have asserted that it would show. Would it "prove" it? Ask the OJ jurors.

2) Do you believe that Jim is involved with the "free cash machine" in order to swindle people?

I cannot read his mind. Or what passes for his mind. It is a scam. He is involved with it. Draw your own conclusions.

3) Are you accusing Jim of lying to cover up a swindling operation?

I cannot read his mind.

[Andrew D]

What do you want from me?

Some sense would be nice.

Wouldn't it? It would certainly be a refreshing change.

how do you know; "That may well be part of the reason why everyone who knows him in real life detests him."

How do I know that gravity causes things to fall downward rather than to fly upward?

How do I know?

Well, shit.

I guess that I don't know at all.

[Lord Jim]

What will it take to make you realize that "doing [my]self ... favours" is pretty much nowhere on my list of prioirities?

Exactly...

At long last, one breath of honesty. As I said:

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.)

What he's trying to do here is obvious...

He freely admits that he has no proof whatsoever that I have ever swindled or bilked anyone out of anything...(because he understands the implications for him of making that false claim)

But he still hopes to try and discredit me through the insinuation that if he was only allowed to post personal information about me he would be able to prove this claim that he admits he can't prove...

And when challenged point blank to say "Yes, I can prove Lord Jim is a swindler if I'm allowed to post his personal information" he again slithers away, because he knows the implications of making that false claim as well.

Absolutely reprehensible; a bottom feeder of the lowest sort.

[Gob]

What do you want from me?

Some sense would be nice.

Wouldn't it? It would certainly be a refreshing change.

Up to you to start then.

how do you know; "That may well be part of the reason why everyone who knows him in real life detests him."

How do I know that gravity causes things to fall downward rather than to fly upward?

How do I know?

Well, shit.

I guess that I don't know at all.

So you admit that you made up that as a childish slur. Thanks for the honesty at last.

[Joe Guy]

1) Are you claiming that if you had permission to post "relevant information", it would prove that Jim wants to swindle people and everyone should avoid him if they value their bank accounts?

That is actually two questions.

The relevant information would show what I have asserted that it would show. Would it "prove" it? Ask the OJ jurors.

As I expected. You cannot answer the question directly. Answering my question directly would require that you answer yes or no. Which would not allow you to attempt to divert our attention to some other thought.

2) Do you believe that Jim is involved with the "free cash machine" in order to swindle people?

I cannot read his mind. Or what passes for his mind. It is a scam. He is involved with it. Draw your own conclusions.

Are you now saying that he is not involved with the "free cash machine" and retracting your accusation?

3) Are you accusing Jim of lying to cover up a swindling operation?

I cannot read his mind.

So, you cannot read Jim's mind, but you have no problem implying that he is a swindler (wannabe or actual) but you can't support your accusation with any evidence (because you aren't allowed to do it).

And since you have declared that you're not allowed to give that evidence, apparently, you believe nobody should be allowed to ask for it.

Nice job.

I understand why some people are confused by your evasive tactics.

[Gob]

Andrew is trying to prove that if he was allowed to post personal information about Jim, he would be able to prove charges against Jim that he admits he can't prove...

Andrew also admits that his accusation against Jim that "everyone who knows him in real life detests him" is based on nothing more than his personal opinion of Jim.

Why are we here discussing this? Can someone help me out here?

[Lord Jim]

Why are we here discussing this? Can someone help me out here?

[Lord Jim]

In reviewing some of Andrew's posts since I had to take him off of ignore again, it's nice to see that at least we seem to have agreement on one point:

I do not talk to juries. I have no desire to attempt to persuade juries on factual questions. And no sane client would suggest me as the person to do so....

No jurors are going to find me empathetic. Unless they are completely delusional.

Who in their right mind would hire him to so much as fight a parking ticket?

[Andrew D]

He is involved with it.

Are you now saying that he is not involved with the "free cash machine" ...?

How did you manage to get from "He is involved with it" to "Are you now saying that he is not involved with [it]"?

An astonishing trick, that one.

[Andrew D]

In reviewing some of Andrew's posts since I had to take him off of ignore again, it's nice to see that at least we seem to have agreement on one point:

I do not talk to juries. I have no desire to attempt to persuade juries on factual questions. And no sane client would suggest me as the person to do so....

No jurors are going to find me empathetic. Unless they are completely delusional.

I have no difficulty acknowledging my inadequacies.

They are legion.

If others could find it within themselves to do the same, the world might well be a happier place.