sear

Thank you B #68. Gladly. ADMIN: Please ban me permanently, so I don't blunder back here in years hence. I've already removed this URL from my browser bookmark. But as I too am a BBS admin. I occasionally review other sites. If you don't ban me by pseud (I change ISP occasionally) there's a risk I may return. Clearly neither of us wants that. Again my thanks B. He's already been caught in a lie. One day he's putting down sleds, the next he's a Polaris guy. Zero credability. Quote ckf Advanced Member Administrators 1,436 3,446 posts Location: Island Pond, VT Current Sled: GSX 600 Joined: 19-May-2016 · #40 Posted 5 hours ago · Report post

He's already been caught in a lie. One day he's putting down sleds, the next he's a Polaris guy. Zero credability. Quote ckf Advanced Member Administrators 1,436 3,446 posts Location: Island Pond, VT Current Sled: GSX 600 Joined: 19-May-2016 · #40 Posted 5 hours ago · Report post

I've just done a character string search for "liar". The only pseud under which that string was posted on this page is "Cold War". If you will quote the specific passage you challenge, I will be able to make a more direct response. Meanwhile, are you a liar? "I brought the official debate thread to the top .........post # 222. Care to respond? I noticed you bailed on that thread." CW Your observation may be correct. Your interpretation / attribution, probably not. I spend long periods online. I spend long periods offline. If you PM me a link to the thread at issue, I'll gladly review the last page for any post worthy of response. Rather than avoiding a controversy, I welcome it. I thrive on it. Aristotle said: "Opposition is the path to truth." Thank you for calling the prospective opportunity to my attention. I sincerely welcome it. btw CW, I volunteered for U.S. military service from 1973 - 1977, and served for years in Europe as part of the team that beat the Soviets. Perhaps your pseud suggests you did similar. If so, thank you for your service.

There were two silk-worms in a race at the silk factory. While they were in a race, there was a power surge. They ended up in a tie.

a) I'm flattered you'd care enough to check. b) Hmmm wonder why not a match. Do you suppose it might possibly be because I've been telling the truth since the start? I confess, the richly textured fantasy world you girls live in wildly surpasses any lie I could dream up. Keep 'em coming. It's nearly as entertaining as prime-time TV! Let's see: "lies" falsely attributed to me so far: - I didn't find this site as I described when challenged - my preference in snowmobiles isn't as I stated (I'm concealing a secret love for Arctic Cat ?!). Again, I'm flattered you're so deeply involved, so emotionally invested in me. No insult intended. But candidly, I couldn't care less about you.

"He's already been caught in a lie. One day he's putting down sleds, the next he's a Polaris guy. Zero credability." a) iirc I recounted that I stepped in a steaming pile of Ski Don't, and have been a Polaris man ever since. Prove me wrong. b) That means Polaris is my preference. It doesn't affirmatively assert that I own a Polaris snowmobile at the moment. At the moment I own a brand new Honda Civic, and a Yamaha motorcycle. I'm a hang glider pilot. Half-track sleds are OK, but not worth getting pumped up about. c) Before that challenge I was asked what kind of sled I had. iirc my answer then was "Flexible Flyer". Not a factual error in the lot. NEXT !!

#33 I don't view it as a single mission. In college I was taught the three reasons to address a group are: - to inquire - to inform, or - to persuade. My own agenda adds: - to entertain or amuse. My OVERWHELMING criterion is merely to tell the truth. Again, the exception is an obvious joke punchline. But that should be easily distinguishable from a lie. Partisanship doesn't interest me. Again, I don't wish to publish my résumé here at this time. But my résumé does not leave room for doubting the sincerity of my interest in the welfare of the whole People of the United States, or my devotion to objective truth, in the cases where it exists. I shall make a standing offer, for perpetuity: if I post in error, please correct me. PLEASE correct me! If I thank you for the correction / clarification, we can dismiss it as my human error. If I contradict the correction, and adhere to a lie; it will forever after brand me a liar; and disqualify any further comment I might post. Deal? All you have to do is prove me wrong ONCE! Good luck with that!

" You can give example after example to disprove his posts and like a good lefty, he will never ever believe them. " r2 A reply is not necessarily an example. And belief is not the issue. The issue is whether your reply actually accomplishes what you present it for. I don't have stats on it, but I refuted the two ostensible examples I reviewed, found reason for doubt in each; reason which I gather has not been addressed here. FYI the legal standard in our law courts across the nation is the "reasonable doubt" standard. It may be a pretty low standard. BUT !! At least it's a standard; a standard embraced by our governments for centuries. What standard do you apply? Insulting conservatives by calling us liberals, and then pretend you're half as rational, persuasive, or factually accurate as I am? - pathetic -

Gilbert Chagoury, a billion dollar donor to the Clinton Foundation" S2 #15 And you're pretending he's manipulating her?! HILARIOUS !! "4. The Chinese. Going all the way back to the Clintons’ first White House tour, Chinese citizensfunneled cash into the Democratic coffers, and so did the CEO of a missile technology company. In return, the Clintons worked to declassify missile technology secrets, which were use by the Chinese." S2 You realize this is what's known as "quid pro quo", right? Can you please explain to to us why this is the Chinese manipulating Hillary, and not Hillary manipulating the Chinese? Apart from your own confirmation bias that is. D #17 What goes on between married couples in the bedroom is beyond my circle of interest. Again, what evidence do you have it's Hillary that's manipulated, and not Bill? His breath smelling like fish doesn't necessarily mean he just ate a tuna sandwich. Bottom line =============== #13: You may be absolutely right. But you have not made a persuasive case for it here.

#12 Excellent! Please cite 3 examples of HRC being easily manipulated. Thanks.

"Obama ... has been all for intervening in syria." #1 Please tell that to Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain (R-AZ). McCain has been pleading with Obama to arm the rebels for years! #2 Know it or not, believe it or not, like it or not, admit it or not; President Obama has been very careful to limit U.S. military life & limb exposure to peril on the battlefield. I for one am grateful to him for that. Obama is MUCH BETTER about that than the previous bloke. "Remember the line in the sand?" Do you? a) I thought it was a "red line", not a line in the sand. b) The video / audio I saw / heard of it did not say: if you do that, I'll do this. Obama simply said it crosses a line. He's right.

"Who do you think started the attempted coup in syria?" There was an attempted coup d’état in Syria? I've been reading about the civil war there for over 5 years. This is the first I recall of a "coup". "Who do you think started the attempted coup in syria?" Who do YOU think attempted the coup you allege in syria? "Now think about the other two. Russia has thrown a monkey wrench into our govt's secret plans. Now they/we have to go all in or gtfo..." ? I don't have the date before me, but iirc the civil war in Syria has been ongoing for less than 6 years. Obama has been U.S. president for over 7 years. Obama has been more interested in stopping war than starting it. You've expressed your fantasy scenario sufficiently cryptically, it's difficult to even decipher your implausible imaginings. The reports I've read of it tell a fairly consistent story. The good People of Syria want Assad out, because he's a ruthless tyrant. Please tell us more about this coup d’état.

Russia says a vote vote Clinton is a vote for war... a) Russia is a State. Putin is a thug. Putin can say what he wants. BUT !! b) It's already war. - Haven't you heard of Crimea? - Haven't you heard of Ukraine? - Haven't you heard of Syria? What logical, persuasive argument could there be that Putin would be less aggressive during a Trump administration than a Clinton administration. IT'S PUTIN! He's the same guy! It's War!

#1357 What I like so much about The Doors recordings is their technical excellence. I don't know how much of that we can pin on Ray Manzarak. BUT !! Anyone with top of the line audiophile playback equipment, perhaps a pair of Sony MDR-V6 headphones or better, can hear a purity, an extraordinary S:N ratio.

#157 A house trailer? A small home on wheels?