On Sep 25, 9:53 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <8d064db9-2f6a-4de0-9ae9-2f8270d58...@a7g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,Because Lane called CE399 "undeformed" and it isn`t. He knew it wasn`t
> Bud says...
> >> >On Sep 24, 3:47=3DA0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> >> >> =3DA0 =3DA0Mark Lane clearly lied when he stated that CE399 was "undef=
> >> > =A0As expected Ben ran, and I got my enjoyment.
> >> I see you snipped my response... here it is again:
> > I didn`t snip anything. My response appeared before yours did, is
> Actually, you replied to your own post. (as anyone can see for themselves
> >> ********************************************************
> >> Forgetful, aren't you?
> >> I told you to go read Chapter Five, then get back to me when you could
> > Has what to do with whether Lane lied? Since when does the truth need
> If you don't even know what the topic is, how can you accuse someone of
and lied about the evidence. Why does the truth need lies to support it.
And why can`t you admit that Lane lied?
> "Queen's Bishop pawn to QB4."Of course I can. Lane lied. It doesn`t matter if the the topic of the
> Truth or a lie?
> If the topic isn't understood, YOU CAN'T MAKE A TRUTHFUL AND ACCURATE
chapter of the book is about the migration of birds, once he said CE399
was "undeformed", he lied.
> And just for the fun of it, toss a coin and give me the answer, 'truth' orLook at you with the misdirection and dancing. How is any of this
> a 'lie', and I'll demonstrate that you're wrong.
going to make CE399 "undeformed"?
> >> You seem to think that it's okay for *you* to duck questions, but demandShow that I am wrong when I say that Lane called CE399 "undeformed".
> >> answers from others.
> > You seem to be confused about the process. You are putting ideas up for
> But you *aren't*.
> You're challenging what you *THINK* is the idea.I *know* the idea Lane was going for, he stated it. He was representing
a deformed bullet as being "undeformed". He was lying, and you haven`t the
character to admit it.
> But since you don'tIf I am wrong, what idea was Lane going for when he called CE399
> *understand* the idea, you aren't even on the same page.
> >I can ignore what I like and address what I like. Right now IYou are still trying to pretend it is some failing of mine that Lane
> >like focusing on the lie Lane told about CE 399. Why are you running from
> >this issue?
> Because *YOU* are running... and the only way to get you to stop running
lied about the evidence.
> >> I'll answer this in full as soon as you provide the answer to *MY*Certainly you are free to run from Lane`s lies.
> >> question.
> > Doesn`t work that way.
> You don't have a choice.
> >You are producing Lane`s work. You have beenNo? Lane can say something that is clearly untrue and it still isn`t
> >challenging LNers to shows lies in this work. When lies are shown, you
> You've not produced a lie yet.
a lie? Then why do you keep challenging people to show Lane`s lies
when apparently you think he being truthful when he says untrue
> You've produced what you *claim* is a lie based on a misunderstanding ofCorrect my "misunderstanding", that should be fun. Show how it is my
> what Mark Lane actually said.
misunderstanding of the word "undeformed" that us causing me to
> >> Fair enough, right?You don`t have any choice to erect them. You surely can`t admit Lane
> >> Or would you like to keep running?
> > Why should I be misdirected by your strawmen?
> You don't have a choice.
lied, your whole flimsy house of cards goes crashing to the ground once
> Ben Holmes
> Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.