The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!

Comment: More spin

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: It is quite obvious that you (see in situ)

More spin

"to castigate me on in this article"

The false statement was challenged competitively.

That is what I did.

Then you began to produce SPIN (lies), so now those lies, and that spin, is being challenged.

I have little interest in you personally.

"to castigate me on in this article"

For all I know "you" could be a very sophisticated computer program and even that "personality", or lack thereof, is of no interest to me.

I have nothing to do with your personality, it is against the rules to go around assassinating someone's character, and I don't do that, because I have no interest in doing that, not because that is against the rules.

Putting your character aside I am focusing my power of attention on the published words as such:

"to castigate me on in this article"

That is Spin, that is a focus of attention away from what I actually publish, and that is a new focus of attention upon a nebulous intent of someone to do something, to reach the goal of castigating someone.

I did no such thing, and what I did do is published in English and therefore quotable, or erasable, if someone has the power to erase the actual words that I actually did publish.

I did not do this:

"to castigate me on in this article"

I have no interest in castigating any person.

"Your argument is far from sound and my writings prove contrary to your false accusations."

I'm not arguing, and what I am doing does not require your spinning to make what I am doing real, when I publish words those words are what I am doing, and your version of what I am doing is defining what you are doing - spinning.


You are spinning.

Is that true or not?

Here is a specific example of you spinning:

"Your argument is far from sound and my writings prove contrary to your false accusations."

That is an example of you spinning. If you want to acknowledge an example of one of my accusations then you can acknowledge one of my accusations (as you put it) by quoting my published words, and then providing a specific example of what I am actually writing.

You are spinning.

That can be called an accusation, but it is true, even if you call it an accusation, you are spinning in fact.

Does it depend upon what is is or are you spinning in fact?

If you were not spinning in fact then why don't you quote the words that you then spin so as to then have my words handy to compare to your spun version of my words?

"You will find, in my writings, that I am hold the opinion that The Federalist Party, the Whig Party and the Radical Republican Party were nothing more than the same Party with different names but with the exact same goals, those goals were finally realized in the 1860s with Lincoln's Coup and the massive over-throw of the Republic."

I have many faults. One of my faults is to discredit all the words published by someone who publishes lies about me personally?