Text 5582, 92 rader
Skriven 2009-04-29 22:29:00 av Jeff Binkley (1:226/600)
     Kommentar till en text av Dan Ceppa
Ärende: A FUNDY PAIL FULL OF SHIT
=================================
DC> DC> DC>Like hell you do.  You know you can't produce the evidence.
DC> DC> DC>That's why  you made than lame attempt to pawn you role off
DC> DC> DC>on me.  It's not working. Your "logic" isn't.
DC> 
DC> DC> JB> I never claimed I was going to provide you evidence.  I
DC> DC> JB> simply do not  believe you.  I am not sure why you are
DC> DC> JB> having such a difficult time  understanding this.  

DC> DC>It doesn't matter if you believe me or not, Jeff.  

DC> JB> It does to me.  It may not to you.  That is your issue to deal
DC>with.  
DC>Wrong. Jeff.  Once again you try to dkvert your need to provide
DC>evidence  for the negative.  One of these days, you'll understand
DC>why.    

That is your need.  Deal with it.  I don't care whether you have a note 
or not.  Period.  English is a tough language.


DC> DC>The fact is that I've got your promissory note and you can't
DC> DC>prove  that I don't. 

DC> JB> I don't care whether you do or not.  You are welcome to keep it,
DC> JB> frame it and hang it on the wall.  I don't care.  

DC>That's right, Jeff, pretend that:  

DC>A: You never stated that you could prove a negative.
DC>B: Proved that negative and claim victory.  

I have made no such claim in this conversation.  You continue with your 
lies, one after another.  You are totally delusional.  


DC> DC>That only means that you are being obstinate.  It still doesn't
DC> DC>prove I don't have that note. 

DC> JB> It means I don't believe you.  We've been over this how many
DC> JB> times now,  5 or 6 ? 

DC>Yep, and you still haven't gotten it.  

Apparently you haven't.


DC> DC>It's your comprehension that is a fault.  Try as much as you
DC> DC>like, but you  cannot prove I don't have the document.  All you
DC> DC>have done so far is  to refuse to pay.  

DC> JB> I am not trying to prove that you have the document or not.  As
DC>soon

DC>Yes, you are.  

DC> DC>Jeff, you are the one who has clained to not be able to prove a
DC> DC>negative  but have done so.  You still haven't peovwn that I
DC> DC>don't

DC> JB> You lie again.  I made no such claim in this entire discussion
DC> JB> thread. I demand you show where I made such a claim.  You can't.
DC> 
DC>You asked me to provide the proof, Jeff.  You know, that proof you
DC>get.  

I did not.  Please discontinue your lies.  Starting on Friday the new 
moderator rules kick in.  You've already been warned once by your co-
moderator and yet you persist.  You appear incapable of controlling your 
own behavior.


DC> JB> limits.  It tears at the heart of your extremist arguments but I
DC> JB> don't expect you or your pup to recognize it.  Neither of you
DC> JB> have shown any understanding of basic mathematics and logic.

DC>What extremist argument?  Proving a negative is easy for you.  You 
DC>stated just in the past.  Have you forgotten how to do it already?  

In this case I am equating extremist to your desire of absolution in 
regards to mathematical limits.  I realize you have no clue what I am 
talking about.  Had you, you wouldn't have deleted a portion of my 
response which discussed testable limits.  


Jeff

CMPQwk 1.42-21 9999 
Democrats --  The party of economic obstruction ....


--- PCBoard (R) v15.3/M 10
 * Origin:  (1:226/600)