Comment: Fundamental difference Topi

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Oh my (see in situ)

Fundamental difference Topi

Here is a quote of your words:

"Oh my word, Josf, I would say that “pot calling the kettle black” was an ironic choice for the title of your post. Your words toward me were every bit as unkind and slanderous as you claim mine to be."

In fact my intent of responding to YOUR request for me to "enlighten you" was to present to you something simulating what you do, with one exception.

Rather than me claiming to be good, and everyone else is bad, I am showing you a perspective that identifies exactly what YOU do, in fact.

So, and again, exactly what is it that is "unkind"?

Exactly what is it that is "slanderous"?

YOU publicly claim that I am guilty of "slander"?

Note the question mark.

These are your words:

"Your words toward me were every bit as unkind and slanderous as you claim mine to be."

Where in all the world, or only published on this Forum, is an example of you being slanderous?

Where is an example of me being slanderous?

Where can your example of slander be judged, by anyone, to be "every bit as unkind and slanderous" as mine?

I am being accurate. I use quotes. Your words are being re-published, as quotes, to show exactly what you published, and then I ask, with question marks, if I "get it" as to what you are doing - exactly.

If you are merely jerking your knee, acting like a trained robot, in your use of this forum to discredit someone by false association with criminals then that is not willful, in that sense, so I can ask, and you can then avoid the answer by misdirecting the focus of attention away from your willful use of the is forum.

Did you willfully decide to falsely associate a fellow forum member with criminals or was the fact that your words did falsely associate a fellow forum member with criminals happen without your willful intent to do so?

Now you convict me of slander.

Where is the evidence of this slander?

Are you now operating without willful intent as you convict me of slander?

"Your words toward me were every bit as unkind and slanderous as you claim mine to be."

Where is this person who uses the word "slanderous"?

Who is this "you" person in the sentence you are constructing and publishing on this forum as follows?

"Your words toward me were every bit as unkind and slanderous as you claim mine to be."

Where did I supposedly claim that you are unkind or slanderous?

I used the word bad, because that was the claim you made to judge everyone "generally" and I did not use the word unkind or slanderous, so the lies you continue to construct are lies, they are false, and if you are not responsible for those lies, then who is responsible for those lies?

"Your words toward me were every bit as unkind and slanderous as you claim mine to be."

That is a lie. Where did I ever say that your words were unkind or slanderous?

Your Man of Straw may have done things, said things, but what does that have to do with me?

"Correct me if I am wrong, but this is a site that allows two-sided conversations. There was nothing that I stated which the other poster wasn’t free to address or correct if my conclusions were incorrect, thereby, clearing their “good name”."

Which was done, in fact. That is a changing of the subject, a changing of the focus, an alteration of the factual accounting of the fact that what your words did (intended by you or not) was to convict the target of your words of a false association with criminals, and that is what you are now doing to me.

Where am I guilty of slander as you now claim?

These words:

"Your words toward me were every bit as unkind and slanderous as you claim mine to be."

Your words (assuming that you write things that are not of your own free will) falsely associate me with a claim of slander.

When did I ever claim that your words were slanderous?

Your words now are lies, fabrications of your own mind, as I have done no such thing as what you claim that I have done. Why do you lie? Are your lies a product of ritualistic lying, or are your lies a willful intent on your part to falsely associate me with criminals who are guilty of slander?

"Correct me if I am wrong, but this is a site that allows two-sided conversations. There was nothing that I stated which the other poster wasn’t free to address or correct if my conclusions were incorrect, thereby, clearing their “good name”."

Why is defense (a cost) against false associations made by you against the people you falsely associate (with criminals who steal or criminals who commit slander) necessary?

Why does any forum member on this forum have to suffer through your false associations, spend the time and effort, the cost, of defending themselves from your attacks, as you falsely associate your targets with thieves and slanderers?

Who is responsible, and who is to be held accountable, for this introduction of false associations done by you - exactly?

Next you speak of confessions of ambiguous sins. I won't quote all that, since it is of a general nature. How about a specific admission on your part that you have falsely associated one target of yours with thieves that you called socialists, and now, again, you falsely associate me with a nebulous crime of slander. How about confessing the fact that you have done those things, with or without your free will involved? How about admitting what you already have admitted to doing, since it is black and white text on a web page, and you can't actually cover it up, since it is exactly what it is, in fact, so why not fess up instead of misdirecting focus being focused on your false associations of your targets with criminals and slanderers?

"If you want an example of someone who..."

I'm gutting that off at that point, and I can suggest that it is easy to find out what I want or what I don't want, and you don't need to pull the accurate answer out of a hat, and you don't need to have your Man of Straw answer for me.

I want to know if you willfully falsely associated one person on this forum with criminals who you call socialists, since that is what you actually did, and so now I want to know if you were willfully doing what you actually did, or not.

That is what I want to know.

Now I also want to know if you willfully falsely associated me with some nebulous slanderers, whatever that means, since I have not used the word, as you claim I did, and so I want to know if you did so willfully or not.

Did you willfully do the following?

"Your words toward me were every bit as unkind and slanderous as you claim mine to be."

That is what I want to know, as I want to know if you willfully wrote that sentence knowing what you were doing, which was to falsely associate me with the crime of slander - so did you or did you not make that false association willfully - please?

I am being kind, and I mean please, as in please help me know the truth about what you did in fact.

You then confess things not of interest to me in this specific case. I can offer back a confession, despite my focus of attention not wanting to be misdirected in this way, but the fact that I think that my life is a constant battle between good and bad inside me, where I am constantly judging my own actions, as good, and as bad, based upon my own desperate need to know better, may clear up anything you may think I think as if your source of what I think continues to be the Man of Straw that you construct out of thin air.

Your Man of Straw may have said something about slander. I did not.

"Your words toward me were every bit as unkind and slanderous as you claim mine to be."

That is false.

"But I can assure you that my motives are never malicious...if I say something it is because it is what I truly believe or interpret and my perceptions are not always right...this I readily admit."

Falsely associating me with the word slanderous can easily be perceived by me as being a malicious personal attack.

Example:

"Your words toward me were every bit as unkind and slanderous as you claim mine to be."

I can easily perceive that personal attack, that false association of me with some nebulous claim of slander, as a malicious attack upon me.

It is malicious in that sense.

So why do it?

"I am overly hostile to “socialist” thinking because I believe it is an evil system, that although can sound good in theory, never achieves it’s stated goal of economic equality."

I have to go. I can say that the above sentence is meaningless, as it supposedly places responsibility, and thereby accountability, for crimes of some nebulous nature, upon a "system", which is patently absurd. If you are capable of that type of thinking then you are as capable of willfully targeting innocent people and then falsely associating your targets with slander.

I would like to continue my defense against this false association being made by you upon me, but I have other costs to pay at this time.

Someone eventually does have to produce something of value.

Joe