Comment: Mission Impossible?

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: I don't know why (see in situ)

Mission Impossible?

I can write in English.

I do not argue.

I do not argue when the concept of argument is such that any lie is good enough to win the argument.

I prefer to offer a competitive viewpoint instead of an argument where any lie is good enough to win the argument.

Anything I write can be twisted into meaning anything by you, and I understand that to be something that you demonstrate, something you define, something you do, on a regular basis, not involving exclusively me, as you also demonstrate the same routine twisting of words as you target other people.

Examples of your twisting words written by other people continue, and here is another example of that which you do that way.

"You do not respect me, and expect me to honor you, and understand why you will not respect or honor me."

I, me being me, not you claiming to know what I do, me, the real me, identifies your viewpoint as being a false version of my viewpoint.

Your false viewpoint of me is expressed in English with these words quoted as: "You do not respect me,".

That is false.

Then you write:

"You do not respect me, and expect me to honor you, and understand why you will not respect or honor me."

That is falsehood piled upon falsehood when that is a claim of how I am, when that is a claim of what I think and when that is a claim of what I do, that is falsehood piled upon falsehood, and the source of that falsehood is the source of that falsehood, so what, I can ask, respectfully, and honorably, what is the source of all that falsehood within those quotes?

I respect every source of falsehood I can find, as if I were a person walking through a mine field, respecting the metal sticks that stick out of the ground.

I honor every mine, in the mine field, as being mines, and worthy of respect, worthy of honor for what they are in fact.

So your version of me, a false version, is what it is, and your version of me is not me.

If you are working to win something as you invent, and publish, these lies, then you can proceed, and as far as I am concerned, your lies confess that you are a liar, and the fact that I am your current target is merely incidental.

Another target of yours, a new target to make up lies about, can prove the point soon enough.

An army of targets, you target, and lie about, can prove the point as time goes by, leaving me out of it, thankfully.

Meanwhile, I am the target of your barrage of lies.

"I hope you have a great posting day, and I'll hope that ALL who meet you admire you, LOVE you, and say nothing but kind things to you and about you, that you feel you deserve."

I am not going to waste much time hoping that you stop lying about me, and misrepresenting me, or anyone else for that matter, such as Noam Chomsky, because my hoping that you will stop lying about Noam Chomsky, to me, is counter productive, as if doing so, my hoping, actually eggs you on, and inspires you to greater effort in your quest to discredit the man.

I think lying is a form of torture done by the liar upon the victim. If the victim of the lie expresses discomfort, or pain, what is likely to be the feelings infecting the liar, or the torturer?

In effect, it seems to me, any cry for mercy is seen by the liar, or the torturer as if the victim, the target, is begging for more.

I am, of course, often wrong.

Joe