Private Social Media Platform

4 => Discussions; Public Archive => Topic started by: Dale Eastman on November 24, 2021, 03:20:19 PM

Title: BT
Post by: Dale Eastman on November 24, 2021, 03:20:19 PM
Quote
(http://www.synapticsparks.info/dialog/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1136.0;attach=426;image)

Quote
I present this good faith apprisal, without malice, by the Natural Rights to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle myself and others; as shown in the Declaration of Independence, which as the founding document of this nation; preexisting the U.S. Constitution; justifying separation from England because of violations of humans' Natural Rights which had Natural Law repercussions.

Your continued violations of your fellow humans' Natural Rights will have Natural Law repercussions regardless of ANY inferior so-called "legal qualified immunities".

This document is presented to you to APPRISE you of the International Law, Nuremberg Code & Principles.

This document is presented to you to APPRISE you of Natural Law.

1. Coercing a potentially injurious medical procedure on me is an attempt to injure me.
2. Withholding of information of side-effects of the injection, including death, is injury to me.
3. Actually injecting me is injury to me.
4. Denying me gainful property exchange (employment) to support my life and family on refusal of a potentially injurious medical procedure is an injury to me.

The right to avoid the imposition of human experimentation is fundamentally rooted in the Nuremberg Code of 1947. It has been ratified by the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and further codified in the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations.

In addition to the U.S. regarding itself as bound by these provisions, these principles were adopted by the FDA in its regulations requiring the informed consent of human subjects of medical research.

It is unlawful to conduct medical research even in the case of an emergency unless steps are taken to secure informed consent of all participants.

Article 6, section 3 of the Nuremberg code states: “In no case should a collective community agreement or the consent of a community leader or other authority substitute for an individual’s informed consent.”

Clearly, mandatory Covid-19 vaccinations fail the Nuremberg Code on multiple fronts.

In Doe #1 v. Rumsfeld 297 F. Supp. 2d 119 (2003) a federal court held that the United States military could not mandate Emergency Use vaccines for soldiers:
“The United States cannot demand that members of the armed forces also serve as guinea pigs for experimental drugs”

Furthermore, on November 21, 1947, one year after the end of the first Nuremberg trial (International Military Tribunal), the United Nations passed General Assembly Resolution 177 in order to codify the “Nuremberg Principles.”

You are hereby APPRISED of Nuremberg Principle; number 4.

"The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him."

Orders of a superior includes orders of a non-government superior. For example, your workplace boss, his boss, all the way up the chain to the top officer controlling the company. Incorporation or licensure by Government makes your employer a party to the Nuremberg Code by proxy. This means you are not immune from violating the higher Moral Natural Law or its repercussions.

This Nuremberg Principle is quite clear. You have a duty to disobey orders, commands, and laws you know are morally wrong. Remember, many at the Nuremberg trials who claimed they were “just following orders,” were executed as well as the order givers.

You have a moral choice available. You can choose to refuse to inject/injure people against their will.

I am being coerced, I do not volunteer, I do not agree to this procedure!

I invoke my Natural Law RIGHTS to remedy, repair, & rectification for ANY injury to life, liberty, & property of mine, and of those of my kith & kin. This means IF repair, remedy, & rectification is NOT presented upon request for remedy, repair, & rectification to obtain satisfaction; then, I or my assigns, by ANY means of Nature's Law will be used to redeem satisfaction directly, and personally from you the injurer(s) - REGARDLESS of ANY man-made usurpation of  Nature's Law!

You are hereby APPRISED of the Natural Law repercussions for violating My Natural Rights.

You have hereby been APPRISED of Natural Law.
Quote
Dale: If you believe your Natural Rights have been violated, then you better take it up with the Natural Rights Tribunal, and maybe haul the rest of us in front of a Natural Judge in their Natural Court!
Quote
It's people like you who are the reason I even spend time on fecal book. It's people like you who I publicly archive my discussions with on my website. You are apprised of what I do when I can get people like you to actually engage in substantive discussion.

You are invited to have just such a discussion. You wanna play?

I'll start the transcribing (copy/pasting) your post denying natural rights. I anonymize those I archive unless they're public figures or done want anonymity.
Title: Re: BT
Post by: Dale Eastman on November 28, 2021, 08:29:49 AM
Quote
Dale: You're on the cusp of being self-aware...
(http://www.synapticsparks.info/dialog/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1136.0;attach=420;image)
Quote
Dale: And then, of course, the projection.
(http://www.synapticsparks.info/dialog/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1136.0;attach=422;image)
Quote
➽ If you believe your Natural Rights have been violated, then you better take it up with the Natural Rights Tribunal, and maybe haul the rest of us in front of a Natural Judge in their Natural Court!

How about you prove to me that you even know what Natural Rights are.
Title: Re: BT
Post by: Dale Eastman on November 28, 2021, 09:06:56 AM
Quote
Dale: Nope, the burden of proof is on you.
Quote
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Ever read those words before now?
Quote
Still waiting on you. Second request: How about you prove to me that you even know what Natural Law is.
Quote
Dale: Waiting on me for what? The burden of proof does not magically shift from you to me. You're still the only one making any claims regarding "Natural Law". All you did so far is quote from the Declaration of Independence. From that, I'm assuming you're a subscriber to Lockesian philosophy. Or are you more the old-school type, and a scholar of Aquinas? In either case, you're confusing philosophy with law. You should be looking at the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, not the DoI. And even then, you're only relying on "Natural Law" because every other avenue you tried has proved fruitless. You can't even argue based on morality or human rights, which would be the closest adjunct to your "Natural Law", because you've not been successful with those approaches either.

Now you know why I originally said you need to take this up with a Natural Law judge or the Natural Rights tribunal... assuming you can find one. 😉
Quote
Congratulations. You've partially responded to my request for you to prove you even know what Natural Law is. You've addressed where it has been previously addressed in history.

➽ You should be looking at the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, not the DoI.

Thank you for your opinion. Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

➽ All you did so far is quote from the Declaration of Independence.

There would be NO CONstitution (sic) and NO Bill of Rights without the Declaration of Independence. The D of I is THE first organic document of the United States. Prior to that there was the Magna Carta from 1215.

So back to you. Prove you know what Natural Law is; prove you know what Natural Rights are.
Title: Re: BT
Post by: Dale Eastman on December 03, 2021, 10:33:31 AM
Quote
Dale: Again, the onus is on _you_ to prove your point, not for others to prove they know anything about what you're vomiting out. So far, all you've provided is a disjointed, nonsensical word salad without any authoritative sources. You've jumped from the Nuremberg Code to "Natural Law" to the Declaration of Independence. You have yet to prove any relevance or supply evidence that any legitimate authority supports your position, or that you have a legitimate claim to such authority.

My guess is that you're simply deflecting at this point, daring anyone to disprove your incoherent ravings, with the assumption if nobody can, then it must be true. I'm afraid that's not how it works out here in the real world.
Quote
Dale: BTW, how is this going so far? I hear they actually started "proceedings" now? I can't wait for this to fizzle out too.
Quote
➽ Dale: Again, the onus is on _you_ to prove your point.

I have reviewed this entire conversation. What, specifically, do YOU think is my point?

You must have had some thought in your mind when you chose to make a brainless comment about my Natural Rights being violated.

I will note that your smarmy comment indicated, and still indicates to me, that you have no fucking clue as to what you actually read... That's if you even read anything other than the two words "Natural Rights".

Rather than guess, I'm going to ask you, what, specifically, was your intent; what, specifically, was your point, in making your smarmy comment? What did you mean to communicate?
Title: Re: BT
Post by: Dale Eastman on December 04, 2021, 07:48:53 AM
Quote
Dale: “What, specifically, do YOU think is my point”

Again, why are you asking me what your point is? Had you been able to clearly elucidate your point without dancing around it, you would not need to ask such a thing.🤔 After all, I'm not the one who said your "Natural Rights" are being violated. _You_ brought it up. In case you need a reminder, here is your tedious screed on the subject. Note that your name is attached at the top, not mine.

You are clearly unable to maintain even a semblance of coherent, consistent argumentation in this thread. Sadly, this is exactly what I (and I suspect others still reading this) expected from the start.🤷‍♂️
Quote
➽ Again, why are you asking me what your point is?

Since MY point has changed because of your comments, I'll come back to your question.

➽ Had you been able to clearly elucidate your point without dancing around it

Comment about reading comprehension withheld.

➽ After all, I'm not the one who said your "Natural Rights" are being violated.

On second thought, because you just admitted to not having any reading comprehension, "Mr. Illiterate."

I never said "MY" "Natural Rights" were being violated.

➽ here is your tedious screed on the subject.

Well yes... reading is tedious for the illiterate.

➽ You are clearly unable to maintain even a semblance of coherent, consistent argumentation in this thread.

That's your claim. So, back to "Natural Law" & "Natural Rights".

If you are clueless regarding either concept, as I even more strongly suspect after attempting to have a discussion with you, then of course you would argue my words are incoherent.

Unlike you, if a Spanish speaking persons jabber at this Gringo, I'm not going to claim they're being incoherent just because I don't understand their words.

So again, I am going to challenge you on your understanding of "Natural Law". If you don't know, just admit that fact and you and I can then discuss what it is and what it means.

To answer your question about "my point": My point is now that you don't understand "Natural Law" or "Natural Rights".
Title: Re: BT
Post by: Dale Eastman on December 04, 2021, 03:36:25 PM
Quote from: 1108  4 Dec 2021
Dale: I don't expect you to understand this, but I'll leave it for everyone else in the thread.

Smarmy animation GIF of a soccer goal being moved not saved.
Quote from: 1638 4 Dec 2021
What goal post, specifically, are you claiming I have moved?
Quote from: 1843 5 Dec 2021
Second inquiry: What goal post, specifically, are you claiming I have moved?
Quote from: 0913 7 Dec 2021
Third inquiry: What goal post, specifically, are you claiming I have moved?

Until you give an actual reply, your claim is a vacuous as your skull appears to be.
Title: Re: BT
Post by: Dale Eastman on December 07, 2021, 08:21:16 AM
Quote
Your "friend" chose to comment on something I posted. When challenged to support his comments, you "friend" chose to shit post. I've not stopped just yet because I don't suffer indoctrinated idiots gently.

Since it's your account wall that this interaction between myself and an idjit happened, I will stop... Provided idjit doesn't reply...
Oh... and with the attached last parting shot.

(http://www.synapticsparks.info/dialog/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1136.0;attach=434;image)
Title: Re: BT
Post by: Dale Eastman on December 08, 2021, 10:10:31 AM
Quote from:  BF 0924 7 Dec 2021
Dale, you’re a good pal- my Handyman was an antivaxer and he died 2 weeks ago from Covid. That makes 9 friend’s and family I’ve lost to it. I just got my booster before flying to California. I respect your opinion but I’m on the other side on this one.
Quote
We just lost a close friend within the two weeks. Sorry for your loss, and definitely can relate. This friend was, ironically, a handyman also. doing maintenance for an apartment complex. He caught it from a tenant who did not identify himself as having it.

This friend also had a history of getting pnuemonia for whatever reason. He had just finished his course of antibiotics the week before. So his immunity and resistance was down. In other words: a comorbidity.

Wife and I had contact. Wife was at his place several times to help with his chores. I was there, making physical contact, to get him on his feet so we could take him to the hospital for the third time. I was stubbornly unmasked. I have an immune system that works. No symptoms and it's now past any incubation period.

This brings the total of dead I personally know to two (2). That's 2 of of maybe 6. I'm not sure if the 2 had it or not.

It is my opinion at this point that it's bad for those it's bad for. Everybody else, Meh. Just like the real flu.

Your choice on taking the shot. You do you, I do me.

I do most strenuously object to that injection being called a vaxcination (sic) because it doesn't and it's not. I confers NO immunity. It creates NO memory "T" cells.

That is the segue to the heart of the matter. You've seen my posts in that private group of statists arguing over which pile of shit they want to elect to be their owners while ignorantly believing they are voting for a "leader".

In my lexicon, nescient is not knowing. Ignorant is choosing to not know. The comment made about the apprisal of natural law and the Nuremberg Code shows a fucking slave demanding to stay enslaved.

Respect for your on topic, on point, discussion of our differences.

Anybody else wanting more to hate on me for can go to my Fb account wall and find my website. I am:
http://facebook.com/dale.eastman.75/
Title: Re: BT
Post by: Dale Eastman on December 08, 2021, 10:14:33 AM
Quote
Dale: It is always amusing when people like you can so effectively incriminate yourselves, even when I literally stay silent to see how much of a frenzy you'll whip yourself into.

Here's the deal: you continue to insist that others "prove their worth" because you seek to discredit them, rather than bolster your own arguments. I suspect this is because you know deep down that your stance is indefensible, and since you cannot increase your own credibility, you must therefore attempt to destroy everyone else's. Your "Natural Law" is the homeopathy of medicine. It's the Flat Earth of geology. It is the Sovereign Citizen movement of politics. I have sufficient understanding of all four to know that they have no credibility nor relevance. You reciting many of the common conspiracy theorist and anti-vaxxer tropes only proves my point.

If you were presenting this in good faith, you would not be challenging others to prove their knowledge, or to disprove your unsubstantiated claims. You would simply state your claims, and provide sound, reasonable source for discussion. Instead, you immediately pounce on anyone who disputes your narrative. Your method is essentially to squawk the loudest and longest, equating that with merit. You do not seek to advance the discussion, only to mire it in bad-faith questions. You attack the person without justification or evidence, rather than attacking the argument. It is one of the lowest forms of debate.

For example, you ask "what goal post, specifically, are you claiming I have moved?" Seeing as how you stated it in an earlier comment, either you are extremely forgetful, or you are deliberately trying to derail the discussion. That means you're either stupid, or malicious. And, no, before you even think it, this is not an ad hominem. If you don't understand why, please ask.

Did you not say "MY point has changed" and then "My point is now that you don't understand Natural Law or Natural Rights". There's your goalpost move. You've already abandoned your original point, and confirms my above point: you're only interested in attacking the person, not the argument.
Your analogy with a Spanish speaker also falls short. There's a difference between not understanding a language, and not understanding gibberish. You represent the latter. With all the words you've expended in this thread, you still have not made any coherent or convincing argument, nor presented any evidence that corroborate the claims you made.

Meanwhile, you summarily dismiss all evidence contrary to your beliefs, while chastising others for doing the same to your claims, even though it is reasonable to do so. Then in return, you supply vague or meaningless reference of questionable value. For example, what relevance is your "parting shot" with the Wisconsin numbers? You posted them with no comment. Usually when this happens, it's because you're not entirely sure what point you're trying to make. You want to see how others interpret the numbers so you can adjust your attack accordingly. You should be more transparent and forthcoming with whatever information you have... assuming, again, that you intend to discuss this in good faith.

BF here has graciously offered you an exit to salvage what little credibility and dignity you have left. I encourage you take this opportunity to retreat into your conspiracy cave, because it is clear you choose not to listen to reason. But, having dealt with many others like you, I know you will not be able to resist getting in the last word. You're the proverbial pigeon, after all.


Title: Re: BT
Post by: Dale Eastman on December 09, 2021, 09:10:35 AM
Quote
My apologies for missing this one key clue to your thinking:

➽ You're still the only one making any claims regarding "Natural Law".

What then were these claims about Natural Law you allege I made?

❶➽ "I present this good faith apprisal..."

I suppose my posting of the good faith apprisal "MIGHT" be considered a Natural Law claim. I'll return to this apprisal.

You then wrote:
➽ If you believe your Natural Rights have been violated ...

⓿➽ I'll start the transcribing (copy/pasting) your post denying natural rights.
Not counted because not the actual discussion.

❷➽ How about you prove to me that you even know what Natural Rights are.
❸➽ Second request: How about you prove to me that you even know what Natural Law is.

That's when you wrote this:
➽ You're still the only one making any claims regarding "Natural Law".

Now returning to your latest post that I am replying to wherein you wrote:

➽ If you were presenting this in good faith, [...] You would simply state your claims, and provide sound, reasonable source for discussion.

Since it appears to me from what is just above, according to your own posted words, I posted a 679 word "claim". A "claim" that you dismissed with this 38 word reply:

➽ Dale: If you believe your Natural Rights have been violated, then you better take it up with the Natural Rights Tribunal, and maybe haul the rest of us in front of a Natural Judge in their Natural Court!

Your "dismissal" showed me, and your subsequent words still show me, you did NOT even bother to read that apprisal.

I present this good faith apprisal, without malice, by the Natural Rights to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle myself and others; as shown in the Declaration of Independence, which as the founding document of this nation; preexisting the U.S. Constitution; justifying separation from England because of violations of humans' Natural Rights which had Natural Law repercussions.

Tell me what, specifically, is incorrect about this first paragraph.

Title: Re: BT
Post by: Dale Eastman on December 09, 2021, 12:18:58 PM
Quote
Dale: Haha, again you insist that the other person guess the point you're trying to make. It doesn't work that way. And then you prove you're not asking the question in good faith because you immediately undermine your own position. What Natural Law claims do you make? You answered it yourself. Did you imply your Natural Rights are being violated? Yes, unless you don't include yourself as part of the term "human". You still haven't explained how these "violations" of Natural Law are relevant in a society that isn't governed by them. Maybe you are taking the words too literally. As far mentioned far above, this is a Lockesian philosophy, and not a matter of judicial law. You may believe otherwise, but mere belief does not make reality. No different from the SovCits who insist that their version of civics prevail over reality. The entire foundation of your premise is flawed. I don't need to knock down your house... it falls on its own.

What you really require is an authority in a jurisdiction that recognizes Natural Law over, say, the US Constitution and Bill of Rights (which you mistakenly believe are overridden by the DoI in matters of actual law). And now we are back for the second time to my opening comment about the imaginary "Natural Rights Tribunal", etc. I was right along, and you never even realized it. You still don't. 🤷‍♂️
Quote
You wrote:
➽ You're still the only one making any claims regarding "Natural Law".

You could ONLY be referring to my 679 word post.

All your latest comment has communicated to me is you don't understand what you (allegedly) read.
Time for you to prove you actually read what I posted.

I present this good faith apprisal, without malice, by the Natural Rights to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle myself and others; as shown in the Declaration of Independence, which as the founding document of this nation; preexisting the U.S. Constitution; justifying separation from England because of violations of humans' Natural Rights which had Natural Law repercussions.

Tell me in your own words what this paragraph conveys to you.
Title: Re: BT
Post by: Dale Eastman on December 09, 2021, 05:50:08 PM
Quote
Dale: Once again, you rant and rave about nonsense, and you insist that everyone else try to conjure up sense from it. As I said, that's not how this works. But if you want to know what this "conveys" to me: it conveys the sense that the person writing it is a conspiracy theorist who is also a paragon of the Dunning-Kruger Effect. He is so misinformed and lacking in knowledge, that he does not realize the predicament he is in, instead believing that he is an expert on the topic. Specifically, this person conflates the philosophy of "Natural Law" with actual law, and thus has no standing in the real world of actual law.
Quote
After a bit of meaningless blather you wrote:

➽ Specifically, this person conflates the philosophy of "Natural Law" with actual law, and thus has no standing in the real world of actual law.

In spite of your meaningless blather, you wrote something to advance the discussion. Thank you.

What do YOU mean when you write "actual law"? I want to make sure I understand, EXACTLY, what YOU mean.
Title: Re: BT
Post by: Dale Eastman on December 10, 2021, 09:16:55 AM
Quote
Dale: Look, you're not fooling anyone here. You're still not offering anything meaningful, all while projecting your own shortcomings onto others. If you have a point to make, you should simply state it. Nothing you've said so far is relevant here in the real world, and you are only attempting to deflect and obfuscate. It is obvious what I mean by "actual law": the actual laws that govern our society, arbitrated by the established judicial system. The same system that does not support your fringe views. If it did,, you'd be able to cite decisions that support your stance that our "natural rights" are being infringed. You can't, and you keep dancing around that point. 🤷‍♂️
Quote
➽ It is obvious what I mean by "actual law": the actual laws that govern our society, arbitrated by the established judicial system.

Thank you. Answering my clarification question wasn't too hard, was it. ⇐ Rhetorical. No question mark.

How do "the actual laws that govern our society" come into existence?
Title: Re: BT
Post by: Dale Eastman on December 10, 2021, 09:46:52 AM
Quote
Dale: See? You're just stalling further, and admitting you're just being rhetorical. You continue to disguise your nonsensical arguments with false pretenses. Shit, or get off the pot. Next, you'll say "if you cannot answer my simple questions, then it is clear you do not wish to have a discussion". 👌
Title: Re: BT
Post by: Dale Eastman on December 10, 2021, 09:47:29 AM
Quote
How do "the actual laws that govern our society" come into existence?
Quote
Dale: Irrelevant.
Quote
From your very first post you have been attempting to present your narrative that Natural Law doesn't exist. In your attempt to dismiss Natural Law as a mere meaningless concept you have made multiple references to "actual law": Therefore your claim of "Irrelevant" is itself irrelevant. Two of your references are:

➽ conflates the philosophy of "Natural Law" with actual law, and thus has no standing in the real world of actual law.

➽ It is obvious what I mean by "actual law": the actual laws that govern our society, arbitrated by the established judicial system.

Thus: How do "the actual laws that govern our society" come into existence? is very relevant to YOUR claims about the alleged superiority of "actual law".

So I ask a second time: How do "the actual laws that govern our society" come into existence?
Title: Re: BT
Post by: Dale Eastman on December 10, 2021, 10:49:39 AM
Quote
Dale: Where did I say Natural Law doesn't exist? I've been saying it is irrelevant, and is not applicable the way you describe it. No, how our laws came into existence is not relevant to your claims of violations against Natural Law. Again, you are asking somebody else to do the homework for you. In the meantime, no court of law has supported any of your Natural Law claims. In fact, none of your claims hold water.
https://www.reuters.com/.../fact-check-covid-19-public...
Quote
➽ I've been saying it is irrelevant, and is not applicable the way you describe it.

How, exactly, have I described Natural Law?
Title: Re: BT
Post by: Dale Eastman on December 10, 2021, 02:12:18 PM
Quote
Dale: Again, shouldn't you know that? Why do you keep asking other people what you mean?
Quote
Since you have failed, and continue to fail, to actually articulate your contentions with the claims you keep implying and alleging I have made in regard to Natural Law and Natural Rights, I have decided to make it easy-peasy for you.

Because of my knowledge of your personality and character, based upon my interaction with you, I proviso this easy-peasy interaction with these stipulations:

(A) I am going to make a series of claims.
(B) I am going to number each claim.
(C) Any claim not answered by you defaults to, and is deemed as, your admission that the specific numbered claim is true.
(D) Any post not answered by you defaults to, and is deemed as, your admission that every numbered claim in that post is true.
(E) Because of the vagaries of life, stipulation (D) does not apply until I have notified you three times, and/or attempted to notify you three times, that I have posted my numbered claims.
(F) Any numbered claim denied without explanation of the denial defaults to your admission that the specific numbered claim is true.
(G) Any explanation you present to explain your denial of my claims is itself subject to further numbered claims by me.

Admit or deny with proof:

(1)YDOM! You don't own me.
(2) In the following context, "authority" means "a right to control".
(3) You don't own me; you do not have authority over me.
(4) You can not delegate authority over me that you do not have.
(5) I have, and I am, the highest authority in regard to any of my property.
(6) My body is my property.
(7) My life is my property.
(8) My rights are my property.
(9) My right to make my own choices is my property.
(10) My labor is my property.
(11) The results of my labor is my property.
(12) Anything I receive in exchange for my labor is my property.
(13) Concurrent with my right to my property is my right to protect, defend, and secure my property from any entity that caused harm, attempted to cause harm, or intends to cause harm.
(14) Any attempt to take my property against my will or without my permission, whether by force or by fraud, is an intent to cause harm.
(15) Any attempt to damage my property is an intent to cause harm.
(16) These rights are the same for every human.
Title: Re: BT
Post by: Dale Eastman on December 14, 2021, 08:50:35 PM
Quote
I'm sure you believe that writing it in faux legalese style somehow confers more legitimacy (while throwing in the odd "easy-peasy" 😆), but if you want to treat it as such, then I decline the terms of your agreement. Since you cannot unilaterally dictate them and hold another party to them, you are left with nothing. 🙃 Now are you ever going to get around to explaining to the rest of the class what any of this has to do with vaccines? I assume ifnyoubhad any clue, you would have simply opened with that. But since you didn't and still haven't... 🤷‍♂️
Quote
Thank you for admitting these 16 points are true.

(1)YDOM! You don't own me.
(2) In the following context, "authority" means "a right to control".
(3) You don't own me; you do not have authority over me.
(4) You can not delegate authority over me that you do not have.
(5) I have, and I am, the highest authority in regard to any of my property.
(6) My body is my property.
(7) My life is my property.
(8 ) My rights are my property.
(9) My right to make my own choices is my property.
(10) My labor is my property.
(11) The results of my labor is my property.
(12) Anything I receive in exchange for my labor is my property.
(13) Concurrent with my right to my property is my right to protect, defend, and secure my property from any entity that caused harm, attempted to cause harm, or intends to cause harm.
(14) Any attempt to take my property against my will or without my permission, whether by force or by fraud, is an intent to cause harm.
(15) Any attempt to damage my property is an intent to cause harm.
(16) These rights are the same for every human.
Title: Re: BT
Post by: Dale Eastman on December 15, 2021, 09:07:48 AM
Quote
Dale: Heh, isn't it interesting that you believe you can simply declare something to be true (including other people's beliefs), with absolutely no proof? It's the only way conspiracy theorists like you can justify their beliefs in their own minds. You even said it yourself: "admit or deny with proof". Notice how you do not require proof for your beliefs, but _do_ require it of those who disagree. That is logically inconsistent, self-contradictory, and hypocritical. Maybe that's what you need to admit, even though you will never do so publicly. 🤔
Quote
You were given opportunity to deny my claims.
you did not.
Thank you again, for admitting these these 16 points are true.

(1)YDOM! You don't own me.
(2) In the following context, "authority" means "a right to control".
(3) You don't own me; you do not have authority over me.
(4) You can not delegate authority over me that you do not have.
(5) I have, and I am, the highest authority in regard to any of my property.
(6) My body is my property.
(7) My life is my property.
(8 ) My rights are my property.
(9) My right to make my own choices is my property.
(10) My labor is my property.
(11) The results of my labor is my property.
(12) Anything I receive in exchange for my labor is my property.
(13) Concurrent with my right to my property is my right to protect, defend, and secure my property from any entity that caused harm, attempted to cause harm, or intends to cause harm.
(14) Any attempt to take my property against my will or without my permission, whether by force or by fraud, is an intent to cause harm.
(15) Any attempt to damage my property is an intent to cause harm.
(16) These rights are the same for every human.
Title: Re: BT
Post by: Dale Eastman on December 15, 2021, 09:53:00 AM
Quote
Dale: You can declare all you want, but it does not necessarily mean it is true. But then it's obvious you're not really interested in the real truth... just the version you've gaslit yourself into believing. You are not Sir Thomas More, after all. "Qui tacet consentire videtur" does not apply here, no matter how much you want it to. And even now, you have yet to make your point. 🤷‍♂️
Quote
You were given opportunity to deny my claims.
You did not.
Thank you again, for admitting these these 16 points are true.

(1)YDOM! You don't own me.
(2) In the following context, "authority" means "a right to control".
(3) You don't own me; you do not have authority over me.
(4) You can not delegate authority over me that you do not have.
(5) I have, and I am, the highest authority in regard to any of my property.
(6) My body is my property.
(7) My life is my property.
(8 ) My rights are my property.
(9) My right to make my own choices is my property.
(10) My labor is my property.
(11) The results of my labor is my property.
(12) Anything I receive in exchange for my labor is my property.
(13) Concurrent with my right to my property is my right to protect, defend, and secure my property from any entity that caused harm, attempted to cause harm, or intends to cause harm.
(14) Any attempt to take my property against my will or without my permission, whether by force or by fraud, is an intent to cause harm.
(15) Any attempt to damage my property is an intent to cause harm.
(16) These rights are the same for every human.

QUI TACET CONSENTIRE VIDETUR
Latin, meaning He who is silent appears to consent.

Proof #2:
The words of Justice Field of the Supreme Court in 1884:

    These inherent rights have never been more happily expressed than in the declaration of independence, that new evangel of liberty to the people: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident'-that is, so plain that their truth is recognized upon their mere statement-'that all men are endowed'-not by edicts of emperors, or decrees of parliament, or acts of congress, but 'by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.'-that is, rights which cannot be bartered away, or given away, or taken away, except in punishment of crime-'and that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and to secure these'-not grant them, but secure them- 'governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.'
    BUTCHERS' UNION CO. v. CRESCENT CITY CO., 111 U.S. 746 (1884)

The words of Justice Matthews of the Supreme Court in 1886:

    When we consider the nature and the theory of our institutions of government, the principles upon which they are supposed to rest, and review the history of their development, we are constrained to conclude that they do not mean to leave room for the play and action of purely personal and arbitrary power. Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. And the law is the definition and limitation of power.
    YICK WO v. HOPKINS, 118 U.S. 356 (1886)

The words of the Preamble of The Constitution of The United States:

    We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The words of Thomas Jefferson, (the guy who wrote most of the Declaration of Independence):

    Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.
Title: Re: BT
Post by: Dale Eastman on December 18, 2021, 08:46:34 AM
Quote
Dale: Not surprising that you make illogical leaps with all your arguments. Like mistakenly believing that "not denying" is the same as "agreeing". Or that "Natural Law" has anything to do with public health mandates. And in both cases, thinking that simply repeating yourself somehow strengthens your argument, yet never actually explaining how that works. Meanwhile, you are no closer to justifying the point you were originally trying to make. What's stopping you? Perhaps you were never actually pushed this far? 🤔
Quote
(1) YDOM! You don't own me.
Admit, deny, or STFU.
Title: Re: BT
Post by: Dale Eastman on December 19, 2021, 08:37:48 AM
Quote
Dale: Again... relevance? You don't own me either. CHECKMATE, CLOWN. 🤡
Quote
Relevance?
You have to learn to crawl before you can learn to walk.
You have to learn to walk before you can learn to run.
You don't shingle the roof before the basement is dug.
And YOU, specifically, need to learn about YDOM before you can understand Natural Law and Natural Rights.
Title: Re: BT
Post by: Dale Eastman on December 19, 2021, 10:04:52 AM
Quote
Dale: You're still barking up the wrong tree. It would be like telling people "you have to understand succussion and vibrational memory before you can understand homeopathy"... when ultimately the discussion is about public health. "Alternative medicine" isn't medicine the same way "natural law" isn't law. The former is junk science, the latter is philosophy. You may discuss it as philosophy, but you are trying to apply it as a legal framework, where it has no jurisdiction. If there was any legitimacy to it, the world would have heard something about it by now. It's been two years now, and still nothing.

Also, it's pretty telling that your profile image and the very first thing you bring up, YDOM, does not even seem to exist outside of your little fantasy bubble. It seems my questions about your legitimacy are indeed justified. 🙃
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=ydom
https://bing.com/search?q=ydom
https://google.com/search?q=ydom
🤷‍♂️
Quote
(1) YDOM! You don't own me.
Admit, deny, or STFU.
Title: Re: BT
Post by: Dale Eastman on December 19, 2021, 05:12:18 PM
Quote
Dale: Again, you seem to be hung up on insisting that others prove or disprove your crazy claims. This is your argument, not mine. Odd that you seem to care so much about what I think. You can't tell me what to do... after all, You Don't Own Me. 😉
Quote
➽ Dale: Again, you seem to be hung up on insisting that others prove or disprove your crazy claims.

MY Claim numbered 1:
(1) YDOM! You don't own me.

YOUR CLAIM: "YDOM" is a crazy claim.

➽ This is your argument, not mine.

I have been attempting to get you to actually articulate your argument from your very first reply to my comment.

Third presentation:
(1) YDOM! You don't own me.
Admit, deny, or STFU.

Title: Re: BT
Post by: Dale Eastman on December 20, 2021, 04:21:36 PM
Quote
Dale: Seeing as how there are seemingly no other references to this mysterious "YDOM", as I proved earlier, it must be something of your own delusional invention. Again I ask, why do you ask that others validate your made-up beliefs? What are you trying to prove? Or are you setting things up to say "I, Dale Eastman, am the sole authority on these matters. Therefore, all others must capitulate to me"? Again, that's not how it works. You're just declaring "YDOM" and insisting someone else define it. It's a nonsensical approach. If you were a legitimate authority, you would be able to provide reputable sources. So far, you've provided nothing more than the lunatic ravings of a madman. 🤡
Quote
➽ Seeing as how there are seemingly no other references to this mysterious "YDOM",

Seeing as how you are seemingly too stupid to understand what an acronym is.

YDOM!
YDOMe!
YDOwn Me!
YDon't Own Me!
You Don't Own Me!

Fourth presentation:
You Don't Own Me.
Admit, deny, or STFU.
Forgot you can't handle acronyms...
STFU = Shut The Fuck Up.
Title: Re: BT
Post by: Dale Eastman on December 21, 2021, 09:09:20 AM
Quote from:  Dale In response to a WOW! react.
I am trying to understand what his "issue" is with the post he could have just scrolled past. He just refuses to have meaningful dialog.
Quote
Dale, you guys are making me happy!!! You’re obviously on two different planets, but you’re both engaging each other, THREE WEEKS LATER! That’s what discourse used to be, you two are bringing it back in style!
Quote
I'm holding out for the full four weeks. 😉
Title: Re: BT
Post by: Dale Eastman on December 22, 2021, 11:25:39 AM
Quote
Dale: Once again, you provide evidence that you are not having a discussion in good faith. You seek to shut others down, and when you fail, you resort to making up grievances about the other party. No person in their right mind would think my issue is that I don't realize "YDOM" is an acronym. Yet you have decided to make that your focus, therefore you must not be in your right mind. Given how you've repeated yourself at least four times on this singular point (and that being only the latest example of your monotonous repetition), I suspect you have no other material prepared. 🤔🤡

(http://www.synapticsparks.info/dialog/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1136.0;attach=461;image)
Quote
Dale: I am trying to understand what your "issue" is with the post you could have just scrolled past. You just refuse to have meaningful dialog. 🤡
Title: Re: BT
Post by: Dale Eastman on December 22, 2021, 11:39:45 AM
Quote
➽ You don't own me either.

Now that you have admitted point # 1, we can move on with your education.

(1)YDOM! You don't own me!
(2) You do not have a "right to control" me.
Admit or deny.
Title: Re: BT
Post by: Dale Eastman on December 22, 2021, 03:34:36 PM
Quote
Dale: Again, you can't mount a coherent argument of your own, so you resort to putting words into other people's mouths. You had a full month to explain your position, and so far most of what you've down is simply repeat yourself via copy-and-paste. You've added nothing to the discussion, and bizarrely continue to insist that others agree with you before you proceed. What a strange person you are.
Quote
Second presentation:
(2) You do not have a "right to control" me.
Admit, deny, or STFU.
Title: Re: BT
Post by: Dale Eastman on December 23, 2021, 05:39:50 PM
Quote
Dale: The funniest thing is that it takes you nearly a full day to basically repeat yourself. 🤣
Quote
Third presentation:
(2) You do not have a "right to control" me.
Admit, deny, or STFU.
Title: Re: BT
Post by: Dale Eastman on December 24, 2021, 12:34:10 PM
Quote
Dale: You don't merely lack self-awareness, you actively deny it. Hilarious. You still can't explain the lack of relevant jurisdiction of your original comment. It's been over a month now. You really didn't think this through, did you? 🤡
Quote
Thank you for admitting (2) You do not have a "right to control" me.
Title: Re: BT
Post by: Dale Eastman on December 25, 2021, 01:35:54 PM
Quote
Dale: So it seems your threshold is three tries, then declaring yourself the winner anyway. Why even bother going through with the performance, if not as a self-serving masturbatory exercise? Did I already link this earlier? I can't be bothered to scroll back to check, but here you go: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Pigeon%20chess 🤡
Quote
I'm so proud of you. You can count to 3.

Did you have three opportunities to admit or deny the numbered point?
Title: Re: BT
Post by: Dale Eastman on December 26, 2021, 07:32:01 AM
Quote
Dale: Only you would consider counting to three to be some kind of achievement worthy of mention. So this is the extent of your arsenal, eh? Socrates, you are not. Still waiting for you to elucidate the jurisdiction of your initial claim. I'm pretty sure you've had far more than three opportunities now. 🤡
Quote
(3) You do not have "authority" over me.
Admit or deny.
Title: Re: BT
Post by: Dale Eastman on December 28, 2021, 07:44:04 AM
Quote
Dale: At least you've given up on the "STFU" option. 🤡
Quote
I'm doing what I know I should not do. I'm feeding the troll. Trolls don't STFU.

Second presentation.
(3) You do not have "authority" over me.
Admit or deny.
Title: Re: BT
Post by: Dale Eastman on December 28, 2021, 10:00:46 AM
Quote
Dale: You know, you would save both you and me a lot of time if you skipped over the theatrics, and simply declared what I supposedly know and don't know, since you're going to do that anyway. At this point, I'm just letting out more rope. 🤡
Quote
Dale: As I said earlier, you're completely predictable and no different from every other conspiracy theorist I've put in their place. But do go on! 😇

(http://www.synapticsparks.info/dialog/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1136.0;attach=471;image)
Quote
➽ As I said earlier, you're completely predictable and no different from every other conspiracy theorist I've put in their place.

That is a claim.

I accept your request that I follow your red herring.

What conspiracy, specifically, are you claiming I am theorizing about?
Title: Re: BT
Post by: Dale Eastman on December 29, 2021, 08:34:55 AM
Quote
Dale: Finally, a change of pace! Let's start with your stance that there isn't really a pandemic, and then you can talk about how you believe there is a conspiracy to cover up violations of the Nuremberg Code and "Natural Law/Rights".
Quote
➽ Let's start with your stance that there isn't really a pandemic

Yes. Let's start with your straw man claim. I never specifically claimed there is not a pandemic. I posted a meme - comment card with these specific words:

⍺ ⍺ ⍺ ⍺ ⍺ ⍺ ⍺ ⍺ ⍺ ⍺
WHY THE FUCK AM I NOT DEAD YET?
Where's all the dead bodies after over a year of this "Pandemic"?

As of 6 December 2021

0.157% Ratio Deaths to Wisconsin Population
1.027% Ratio Deaths to Confirmed Cases
5.27% Ratio Hospitalized to Confirmed Cases
19.5% Ratio Deaths to Hospitalized
Ω Ω Ω Ω Ω Ω Ω Ω Ω

➽ and then you can talk about how you believe there is a conspiracy to cover up violations of the Nuremberg Code and "Natural Law/Rights"

The word "conspiracy" has only been used by you. Seven times so far. So your second straw man can now be ignored.

➽ conspiracy to cover up violations of the Nuremberg Code and "Natural Law/Rights"

My original post was never about covering up violations. You failure to understand what you read is on you. As you might have figured out, I am willing to put the time into discussing differing thoughts.

What, specifically, do you object to in this first paragraph?

I present this good faith apprisal, without malice, by the Natural Rights to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle myself and others; as shown in the Declaration of Independence, which as the founding document of this nation; preexisting the U.S. Constitution; justifying separation from England because of violations of humans' Natural Rights which had Natural Law repercussions.
Title: Re: BT
Post by: Dale Eastman on December 29, 2021, 07:46:11 PM
Quote
Dale: Again, you are just making stuff up now. You posted an image that put the words "pandemic" in scare quotes, along with information typical of those who claim "there is no pandemic!" What you are now basically saying is "just because I post it doesn't mean I'm making that claim". If so, then that calls into question the legitimacy of everything else you said, because nobody can be sure whether you're making that claim, or just posting it for no apparent reason. 🤷‍♂️
Quote
Yeah... I notice you ignored the "OFFICIAL" Wisconsin Dept. of Health's numbers and what those numbers show.. (I hope I didn't scare you by putting OFFICIAL in quotes.)

Again, here's what those numbers show:
As of 6 December 2021

0.157% Ratio Deaths to Wisconsin Population
1.027% Ratio Deaths to Confirmed Cases
5.27% Ratio Hospitalized to Confirmed Cases
19.5% Ratio Deaths to Hospitalized

Second presentation:
What, specifically, do you object to in this first paragraph?

I present this good faith apprisal, without malice, by the Natural Rights to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle myself and others; as shown in the Declaration of Independence, which as the founding document of this nation; preexisting the U.S. Constitution; justifying separation from England because of violations of humans' Natural Rights which had Natural Law repercussions.
Title: Re: BT
Post by: Dale Eastman on December 30, 2021, 02:41:28 PM
Quote
Bill: A new milestone! 😅

(http://www.synapticsparks.info/dialog/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1136.0;attach=475;image)
Quote
Dale: I'm not ignoring the Wisconsin numbers, but they're not the thing that's problematic with your graphic. It's your implication that there is no "pandemic" (quotes included) because of those stats. Yet you provide no justification for that position. It would seem that, for example, that having nearly 1 in 5 people die after being hospitalized due to an illness would be quite alarming? Or having 1% of people merely contracting the disease dying afterwards? And why bring up the first ratio at all? That's not how mortality rates are measured.

Your lack of context and nuance continues, exemplified by your mention of "natural rights" and "Nature's God" and the "Declaration of Independence". As I've already said multiple times already, what is the relevance? Are you implying that vaccines are somehow contrary to the DoI? That they are in violation of certain "Natural Laws"? If so, why do you think this is important? Do you expect some action to be taken? Is there a court somewhere taking up your case? 🤔
Quote
➽ That's not how mortality rates are measured.

Do tell.

And while you're at it, do tell how one calculates the mortality of playing Russian Roulette.

You have previously shown me that I need to limit how much I present to you at one time to keep you from being overwhelmed.

I am specifically NOT yet addressing this set of your words at this moment:
➽ Your lack of context and nuance continues, exemplified by your mention of "natural rights" and "Nature's God" and the "Declaration of Independence". As I've already said multiple times already, what is the relevance? Are you implying that vaccines are somehow contrary to the DoI? That they are in violation of certain "Natural Laws"? If so, why do you think this is important? Do you expect some action to be taken? Is there a court somewhere taking up your case?

I repeat your words because you have asked the correct questions. I'm only setting them aside for the moment. I'm chomping at the bit to address those words.
Title: Re: BT
Post by: Dale Eastman on December 31, 2021, 02:13:33 PM
Quote
Dale: Where have I "previously shown [you] that [you] need to limit how much [you] present to [me]"? Are you aware of the "Gish gallop"? You attempt to overwhelm your opponents with quantity rather than quality. This is plainly seen in your very first comment... and yet you still have not addressed any of my concerns. This is just another example of your projection: you accuse others of not being able to digest information quickly enough, but it is inarguable that you are the one actually guilty of this.

What is the "Russian roulette" part of this? I can only assume you are aware that mortality rates are calculated not on the entire population size, but only on the relevant strata. You are attempting to minimize the impact of COVID-19 because it supports your conclusion that it isn't a pandemic, or at least not as serious of one as you believe the media is portraying. There's a reason why we use IFR and CFR, and not simply dividing the number of deaths by everyone.

Please, address all my words, because you seem to be making up excuses not to.
Quote
Dale: Where have I "previously shown [you] that [you] need to limit how much [you] present to [me]"? Are you aware of the "Gish gallop"?

There you go, calling me by your maiden name... Again.

The Gish Gallop is what you have been doing from your very first reply.

Please, address all my words, because you seem to be making up excuses not to.

There you go, calling me by your maiden name... A third time.

Right back at you: "Please, address all my words, because you seem to be making up excuses not to."

Third presentation:
What, specifically, do you object to in this first paragraph?

I present this good faith apprisal, without malice, by the Natural Rights to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle myself and others; as shown in the Declaration of Independence, which as the founding document of this nation; preexisting the U.S. Constitution; justifying separation from England because of violations of humans' Natural Rights which had Natural Law repercussions.

In case you have forgotten, that is the first paragraph of my post that you felt compelled to comment on.
Title: Re: BT
Post by: Dale Eastman on December 31, 2021, 02:48:41 PM
Quote
Dale: I'm not sure you know what "maiden name" means. Nor, apparently, what the Gish Gallop is. Here you go:
https://speakingofresearch.com/2012/09/11/gish-gallop/
Why do you keep repeating the same questions that I've already answered? Is it because you don't like my answers? Or because my answers are factual and logical, and you've so far ignored facts and logic? Or do you have some personal ritual where you must ask something three times, and then you simply declare the answer you wanted to hear? I guess we'll find out soon enough! 🤡
Quote
Fourth presentation:
What, specifically, do you object to in this first paragraph?

I present this good faith apprisal, without malice, by the Natural Rights to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle myself and others; as shown in the Declaration of Independence, which as the founding document of this nation; preexisting the U.S. Constitution; justifying separation from England because of violations of humans' Natural Rights which had Natural Law repercussions.
Title: Re: BT
Post by: Dale Eastman on December 31, 2021, 02:58:27 PM
Quote
Dale: As I said, "why do you keep repeating the same questions that I've already answered?"
Quote
Your lack of context and nuance continues, exemplified by your mention of "natural rights" and "Nature's God" and the "Declaration of Independence". As I've already said multiple times already, what is the relevance? Are you implying that vaccines are somehow contrary to the DoI? That they are in violation of certain "Natural Laws"? If so, why do you think this is important? Do you expect some action to be taken? Is there a court somewhere taking up your case? 🤔
Quote
➽ why do you keep repeating the same questions that I've already answered?
Because, contrary to your lying bullshit, you have NOT answered my question(s).

Fifth presentation:
What, specifically, do you object to in this first paragraph?

I present this good faith apprisal, without malice, by the Natural Rights to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle myself and others; as shown in the Declaration of Independence, which as the founding document of this nation; preexisting the U.S. Constitution; justifying separation from England because of violations of humans' Natural Rights which had Natural Law repercussions.

If you do not have a specific objection to this paragraph, say so and I'll move on to the next.
I you do have a specific objection to this paragraph, articulate your objection.
Title: Re: BT
Post by: Dale Eastman on December 31, 2021, 03:25:15 PM
Quote
Dale: Again, you make statements without any basis in fact, and indeed are plainly untrue. Do you think merely repeating yourself makes a statement true? It would be behaviour with conspiracy theorists. 🤔
Quote
➽ Dale: Again, you make statements without any basis in fact, and indeed are plainly untrue.

Sixth presentation:
Which statement, specifically, in the first paragraph is untrue?

I present this good faith apprisal, without malice, by the Natural Rights to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle myself and others; as shown in the Declaration of Independence, which as the founding document of this nation; preexisting the U.S. Constitution; justifying separation from England because of violations of humans' Natural Rights which had Natural Law repercussions.
Title: Re: BT
Post by: Dale Eastman on December 31, 2021, 03:48:00 PM
Quote
Dale: Now you're moving the goalposts. You previously asked if I had an "objection" to the paragraph, a term you used twice in the last sentence of your comment before this one. Now you're asking which statement is untrue. Why the sudden shift? I never mentioned anything about truthfulness of that paragraph, but relevance. Again, since you seem to be attracted to repetition:
Quote
➽ Dale: Again, you make statements without any basis in fact, and indeed are plainly untrue.

Seventh presentation:
Which statement, specifically, in the first paragraph is untrue?

I present this good faith apprisal, without malice, by the Natural Rights to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle myself and others; as shown in the Declaration of Independence, which as the founding document of this nation; preexisting the U.S. Constitution; justifying separation from England because of violations of humans' Natural Rights which had Natural Law repercussions.
Title: Re: BT
Post by: Dale Eastman on December 31, 2021, 05:03:45 PM
Quote
Dale: Why do you deliberately misinterpret other people's words? You really don't understand context, do you? I never said whether any of that paragraph is true or untrue. I only mentioned relevance. What does my quote above have to do with that paragraph? Or are you taking it out of context again? Perhaps this will help:

(http://www.synapticsparks.info/dialog/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1136.0;attach=477;image)

Quote
Why do you deliberately refuse to clarify your words when questioned about them?
Title: Re: BT
Post by: Dale Eastman on December 31, 2021, 06:24:20 PM
Quote
Dale: Are you at the "I know you are but what am I?" stage of discourse? Did I not correct your misinterpretation just above? Did I not rephrase my challenge to your initial comment when you asked? Have you any examples where I "deliberately refuse to clarify [my] words when questioned"? If there are any examples, I suspect it is because you are asking those questions in bad faith, or the questions themselves are irrelevant.
I'll score this one as another example of your projection: you accuse me of refusing to clarifying my words when asked, and yet you still have not clarified your initial assertions, despite repeated challenges. More hypocrisy on your part. So again, I draw your attention to the highlighted questions:

Title: Re: BT
Post by: Dale Eastman on January 02, 2022, 12:50:50 PM
Quote from: 1250 2 Jan 2022
It seems Dale may have given up? Or has he? 🤔

(http://www.synapticsparks.info/dialog/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1136.0;attach=482;image)