Freedriver made this post


freediver wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2017 at 1:33pm:

It has finally happened. In an effort to defend Muslims, the apologists are now declaring it is also wrong to criticise Nazis. John Smith wrote on Aug 20th, 2017 at 12:21pm: freediver wrote on Aug 20th, 2017 at 12:17pm: So we should refrain from criticising Nazis until they actually do something wrong, or openly reveal their hate? a rather simplified comment but pretty much spot on, yes. John went on to spend several pages pretending he did not say this, and that he was talking about jailing people rather than criticising them. He now refuses to give a straight answer, but continues to post endless deflections: John Smith wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 1:16pm: freediver wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 1:09pm: You are confused John. You did not answer my question before I asked it. Sure I did.

It is a total misrepresentation

What John_Smith autually replied was.....

John Smith wrote on Aug 20^th, 2017 at 12:21pm:

a rather simplified comment but pretty much spot on, yes. You can't jail people for thinking bad thoughts fd.

.

With Free Driver editing the quote to remove the words " You can't jail people for thinking bad thoughts fd"
That is not playing fair. It is dishonest. It's un-Ausralian. 

Let's have proper debates won or lost on the strength of the argument not on the cheap shot

Has John ever claimed it is a misrepresentation? Try asking him if it is and see if you can get a straight answer from him. This is now the 4th thread dedicated to John avoiding that very question.


Lastone wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2017 at 11:22pm:

Freedriver made this post freediver wrote on Aug 22nd, 2017 at 1:33pm: It has finally happened. In an effort to defend Muslims, the apologists are now declaring it is also wrong to criticise Nazis. John Smith wrote on Aug 20th, 2017 at 12:21pm: freediver wrote on Aug 20th, 2017 at 12:17pm: So we should refrain from criticising Nazis until they actually do something wrong, or openly reveal their hate? a rather simplified comment but pretty much spot on, yes. John went on to spend several pages pretending he did not say this, and that he was talking about jailing people rather than criticising them. He now refuses to give a straight answer, but continues to post endless deflections: John Smith wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 1:16pm: freediver wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 1:09pm: You are confused John. You did not answer my question before I asked it. Sure I did. It is a total misrepresentation What John_Smith autually replied was..... John Smith wrote on Aug 20th, 2017 at 12:21pm: a rather simplified comment but pretty much spot on, yes. You can't jail people for thinking bad thoughts fd. . With Free Driver editing the quote to remove the words " You can't jail people for thinking bad thoughts fd" That is not playing fair. It is dishonest. It's un-Ausralian.  Let's have proper debates won or lost on the strength of the argument not on the cheap shot

BTW, can you explain how it is a misrepresentation for me to claim that John pretended it was actually about jailing people?

This is John's favourite trick. Say something incredibly stupid. Revel in the attention it brings him. Then start backpedaling. Why else do you think John says incredibly stupid things so often?

Yes you edited the quote to delete part of it. You had hit the quote button then highlight part of it and hit the delete button in order to produce the quote that you did. Why delete part of the quote?

If you want to criticize someone have a go at me. He believe/she believes in I disagree with what you say but defend your rights to say it. Me I have the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If your exercise of free speech seeks to restrict my rights to the above then it should be your rights at risk not mine.

So basically neither of you can explain how I misrepresented John. John will not even say that I misrepresented him. But he will let you say it and continue leading you up the garden path.

The post I quoted is where I would put John's transition in this debate from imbecile mode to jellyfish mode. He has not actually said anything on the topic since, and won't until he starts backpedaling in earnest. He just offers more and more elaborate excuses for why he cannot possibly give a straight answer.

Still, it must amuse him to see you leap to his defense and give the answers he cannot give. Are you suggesting that John wholeheartedly agreed with my summation, but then started backpedaling in the same post by pretending I said something completely different?

How many threads do you think we should have about John's irrational fear of giving a straight answer?

Quote:

So basically neither of you......

Huh?  How many 'Lastones' are there?

freediver wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2017 at 8:55am:

So basically neither of you can explain how I misrepresented John. John will not even say that I misrepresented him. But he will let you say it and continue leading you up the garden path. The post I quoted is where I would put John's transition in this debate from imbecile mode to jellyfish mode. He has not actually said anything on the topic since, and won't until he starts backpedaling in earnest. He just offers more and more elaborate excuses for why he cannot possibly give a straight answer. Still, it must amuse him to see you leap to his defense and give the answers he cannot give. Are you suggesting that John wholeheartedly agreed with my summation, but then started backpedaling in the same post by pretending I said something completely different? How many threads do you think we should have about John's irrational fear of giving a straight answer?

Read the first post in this thread. It explains exactly how you misrepresented him.

Johns Reply to you was
Quote:

a rather simplified comment but pretty much spot on, yes. You can't jail people for thinking bad thoughts fd.

You edited the quote deliberately and with malicious intent to read.

Quote:

a rather simplified comment but pretty much spot on, yes.

The edited part of the quote
Quote:

You can't jail people for thinking bad thoughts fd.

Quite clearly is a reference to free speech. and puts the first part of the quote in a different context. In editing that section you made it appear that john was defending Nazi's, when he was actually defending free speech.

That is all up there and explained in the first post of this thread.

So when you write.


freediver wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2017 at 8:55am:

So basically neither of you can explain how I misrepresented John. John will not even say that I misrepresented him.

You have once again misrepresented the situation as this has been explained.

Further when John writes ....

John Smith wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2017 at 7:46am:

freediver wrote on Aug 22nd, 2017 at 11:23pm: Behold the tapdancing apologist. John Smith wrote on Aug 20th, 2017 at 12:21pm: freediver wrote on Aug 20th, 2017 at 12:17pm: So we should refrain from criticising Nazis until they actually do something wrong, or openly reveal their hate? a rather simplified comment but pretty much spot on, yes. Is this misrepresenting you John? still pretending ehh FD. Where's the rest of that conversation? Ar eyou worried you'll look an even bigger fool if you put it up? ;D ;D

The highlighted section clearly indicates that John feels he was misrepresented. So when you write
Quote:

John will not even say that I misrepresented him.

that now has been shown to be a misrepresentation.

By my count that is strike 3

Aussie wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2017 at 9:34am:

Quote: So basically neither of you...... Huh?  How many 'Lastones' are there?

"We are Legion" ;D :D :) ;) :o

Lastone wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2017 at 9:38am:

freediver wrote on Aug 23rd, 2017 at 8:55am: So basically neither of you can explain how I misrepresented John. John will not even say that I misrepresented him. But he will let you say it and continue leading you up the garden path. The post I quoted is where I would put John's transition in this debate from imbecile mode to jellyfish mode. He has not actually said anything on the topic since, and won't until he starts backpedaling in earnest. He just offers more and more elaborate excuses for why he cannot possibly give a straight answer. Still, it must amuse him to see you leap to his defense and give the answers he cannot give. Are you suggesting that John wholeheartedly agreed with my summation, but then started backpedaling in the same post by pretending I said something completely different? How many threads do you think we should have about John's irrational fear of giving a straight answer? Read the first post in this thread. It explains exactly how you misrepresented him. Johns Reply to you was Quote: a rather simplified comment but pretty much spot on, yes. You can't jail people for thinking bad thoughts fd. You edited the quote deliberately and with malicious intent to read. [Quote]a rather simplified comment but pretty much spot on, yes.

The edited part of the quote
Quote:

You can't jail people for thinking bad thoughts fd.

Quite clearly is a reference to free speech. and puts the first part of the quote in a different context. In editing that section you made it appear that john was defending Nazi's, when he was actually defending free speech.

That is all up there and explained in the first post of this thread.

So when you write.


freediver wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2017 at 8:55am:

So basically neither of you can explain how I misrepresented John. John will not even say that I misrepresented him.

You have once again misrepresented the situation as this has been explained.

Further when John writes ....

John Smith wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2017 at 7:46am:

freediver wrote on Aug 22nd, 2017 at 11:23pm: Behold the tapdancing apologist. John Smith wrote on Aug 20th, 2017 at 12:21pm: freediver wrote on Aug 20th, 2017 at 12:17pm: So we should refrain from criticising Nazis until they actually do something wrong, or openly reveal their hate? a rather simplified comment but pretty much spot on, yes. Is this misrepresenting you John? still pretending ehh FD. Where's the rest of that conversation? Ar eyou worried you'll look an even bigger fool if you put it up? ;D ;D

The highlighted section clearly indicates that John feels he was misrepresented. So when you write
Quote:

John will not even say that I misrepresented him.

that now has been shown to be a misrepresentation.

By my count that is strike 3


[/quote]

It clearly indicates that John has an irrational fear of giving a straight answer. You are putting words into John's mouth. You are saying things on behalf of John that he cannot bring himself to say on his own behalf. But he will continue to lead you up the garden path. All it takes is a vague hint to give you certainty.

You are becoming the stereotypical dupe who gets taken advantage of over and over again because he cannot realise he has been taken advantage of unless the person doing it admits to it. You are being taken advantage of by a jellyfish.

freediver wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2017 at 11:26pm:

Has John ever claimed it is a misrepresentation?

:D :D :D :D :D




John Smith wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2017 at 5:36pm:

I'll just ignore the fact that you are misrepresenting what I said for now FD, and ask are you declaring that we should criticise people for what you think they think?

you idiot

Thanks Lastone but this is FD's standard operating procedure. It doesn't suit his agenda to be honest lest he have to concede that he is an Islamaphobic . FD will cheat and lie about anything to further his anti muslim rhetoric.


He does this with everyone, not just me.

freediver wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2017 at 11:26pm:

This is John's favourite trick. Say something incredibly stupid. Revel in the attention it brings him. Then start backpedaling.

the only one saying anything stupid is you when you insist I haven't answered your question despite having done so multiple times. Your real problem is that you actually think you're being clever, but all you are really doing is highlight just how stupid you are.

freediver wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2017 at 8:55am:

So basically neither of you can explain how I misrepresented John

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


Here he goes again ::). Lastone has given you that answer several times already.

I know what you can do FD, you should start another thread claiming Lastone refuses to answer . Just be sure to edit out anything that doesn't support your argument. :D :D :D

How have I misrepresented you John?

Queue the jellyfish.

freediver wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2017 at 10:22am:

How have I misrepresented you John? Queue the jellyfish.

I've asked you multiple times to put up the rest of that conversation FD. Why do you run away from it? Are you worried your bullsh1t won't stand up to scrutiny?

John Smith wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2017 at 10:25am:

freediver wrote on Aug 23rd, 2017 at 10:22am: How have I misrepresented you John? Queue the jellyfish. I've asked you multiple times to put up the rest of that conversation FD. Why do you run away from it? Are you worried your bullsh1t won't stand up to scrutiny?

No you haven't John.

How have I misrepresented you John?

And what sound does a jellyfish make?

it would be interesting to kn ow if lastone
has noticed how some members only attack other members   in other words its always personal...

the word "idiot" gets used a lot...as well as islamphobe and drunk...have you noticed that lastone??...

to be honest I have never seen fd use those terms...


not sure about jellyfish   thats a new one I havent seen before.

perhaps fd can explain the connection.

A jelly fish lacks a spine. Or any kind of strength.

Likewise John cannot give a straight answer to a simple question, like "should we refrain from criticising Nazis unless they do something wrong or openly reveal their hate."

I call this John's jellyfish mode. He starts with imbecile mode, where he will say increasingly stupid things to get attention, because it is the only way he knows how. Then jellyfish mode, where he will pretend everyone is out to get him and won't give a straight answer to anything. Soon he will go into reverse and start furiously backpedaling.

FD, how do you know they are a Nazi if they don't "openly reveal their hate"?

freediver wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2017 at 10:45am:

A jelly fish lacks a spine. Or any kind of strength.

A subject you excel at.

Of course you could always grow that spine and put up the full quote?

freediver wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2017 at 10:41am:

John Smith wrote on Aug 23rd, 2017 at 10:25am: freediver wrote on Aug 23rd, 2017 at 10:22am: How have I misrepresented you John? Queue the jellyfish. I've asked you multiple times to put up the rest of that conversation FD. Why do you run away from it? Are you worried your bullsh1t won't stand up to scrutiny? No you haven't John. How have I misrepresented you John? And what sound does a jellyfish make?

bullshit


John Smith wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2017 at 8:51pm:

freediver wrote on Aug 22nd, 2017 at 8:46pm: Is this misrepresenting you John? why didn't you put up the rest of that conversation FD? the original version? This is the third thread you've dragged this conversation to ... are you trying to get some distance between the conversation and your twist on it? :D :D

and again


John Smith wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2017 at 9:12pm:

freediver wrote on Aug 22nd, 2017 at 9:00pm: You have not answered once John. The dance of the apologist continues.... I've answered several times FD. Why don't you put up the rest of that conversation if you're so sure I haven't answered? In it's entirety.

but wait, there's more



John Smith wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2017 at 9:25pm:

freediver wrote on Aug 22nd, 2017 at 9:20pm: Because you have spent several pages running away from the question John I did no such thing. I spent several pages explaining to you that it had already been answered. I even copy pasted the answers for you on three different occasions. Fkked if I'm going to do it again. You want them , you fetch. I notice you're hesitant to put up the rest of the conversation we had FD. Why is that? why did you feel the need to start a third thread on the same crap?  :D :D :D

hold on, we're not done yet folks




John Smith wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2017 at 9:25pm:

still pretending ehh FD. Where's the rest of that conversation? Ar eyou worried you'll look an even bigger fool if you put it up? ;D ;D

so I asked you to show the rest of the conversation on at least 4 seperate occassions, and that's without my going back to the original thread FD, and you're still pretending I never asked.  ;D ;D


tell me FD,  is it that you are partially blind and honestly don't see my replies? or is it simply that you're a lying dishonest jellyfish?

cods wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2017 at 10:42am:

it would be interesting to kn ow if lastone has noticed how some members only attack other members   in other words its always personal... the word "idiot" gets used a lot...as well as islamphobe and drunk...have you noticed that lastone??... to be honest I have never seen fd use those terms... not sure about jellyfish   thats a new one I havent seen before. perhaps fd can explain the connection.

You mean like when they use words 'liar,' 'stirrer,' 'childish,', 'goose,' and similar?

"A jelly fish lacks a spine. Or any kind of strength."

My understanding is that the animal with the most toxic venom is a BOX JELLYFISH. That's some kind of strength.

thecuriousmail wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2017 at 8:02pm:

"A jelly fish lacks a spine. Or any kind of strength." My understanding is that the animal with the most toxic venom is a BOX JELLYFISH. That's some kind of strength.

yes, but FD's not allowed to play with them, he's restricted to the kids petting pool.

Lastone wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2017 at 11:22pm:

Freedriver made this post freediver wrote on Aug 22nd, 2017 at 1:33pm: It has finally happened. In an effort to defend Muslims, the apologists are now declaring it is also wrong to criticise Nazis. John Smith wrote on Aug 20th, 2017 at 12:21pm: freediver wrote on Aug 20th, 2017 at 12:17pm: So we should refrain from criticising Nazis until they actually do something wrong, or openly reveal their hate? a rather simplified comment but pretty much spot on, yes. John went on to spend several pages pretending he did not say this, and that he was talking about jailing people rather than criticising them. He now refuses to give a straight answer, but continues to post endless deflections: John Smith wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 1:16pm: freediver wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 1:09pm: You are confused John. You did not answer my question before I asked it. Sure I did. It is a total misrepresentation What John_Smith autually replied was..... John Smith wrote on Aug 20th, 2017 at 12:21pm: a rather simplified comment but pretty much spot on, yes. You can't jail people for thinking bad thoughts fd. . With Free Driver editing the quote to remove the words " You can't jail people for thinking bad thoughts fd" That is not playing fair. It is dishonest. It's un-Ausralian.  Let's have proper debates won or lost on the strength of the argument not on the cheap shot

John Smith has now spent 16 pages in the other thread offering excuses for why cannot possibly explain how this is a lie. All he is brave enough to say is that it is something to do with quoting him.

do you need to be spoon feed at dinner time FD?

If you are going to get all hysterical about me 'misrepresenting you', you can't also complain about having to explain your idiocy. Every time I assume you are making sense, you prove me wrong, then blame me for it.

freediver wrote on Aug 27^th, 2017 at 3:51pm:

If you are going to get all hysterical about me 'misrepresenting you', you can't also complain about having to explain your idiocy. Every time I assume you are making sense, you prove me wrong, then blame me for it.

the only hysterics is coming from you.  Your lies have been explained to you many times. If you don't get it because you're to thick, than I can't help you.

You have found a dozen different ways to say I lied by quoting you. You still can't give a straight answer though.

freediver wrote on Aug 27^th, 2017 at 3:55pm:

You have found a dozen different ways to say I lied by quoting you. You still can't give a straight answer though.

life's a bitch ain't it?.

Why are you afraid of giving a straight answer John?

why are you afraid to accept the answers given when they are given FD?

Can you give an example?

freediver wrote on Aug 28^th, 2017 at 1:10pm:

Can you give an example?

sure, just go back to the original thread where you started this particular song and dance and you'll find your example.

freediver wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2017 at 11:26pm:

Has John ever claimed it is a misrepresentation? Try asking him if it is and see if you can get a straight answer from him. This is now the 4th thread dedicated to John avoiding that very question. Lastone wrote on Aug 22nd, 2017 at 11:22pm: Freedriver made this post freediver wrote on Aug 22nd, 2017 at 1:33pm: It has finally happened. In an effort to defend Muslims, the apologists are now declaring it is also wrong to criticise Nazis. John Smith wrote on Aug 20th, 2017 at 12:21pm: freediver wrote on Aug 20th, 2017 at 12:17pm: So we should refrain from criticising Nazis until they actually do something wrong, or openly reveal their hate? a rather simplified comment but pretty much spot on, yes. John went on to spend several pages pretending he did not say this, and that he was talking about jailing people rather than criticising them. He now refuses to give a straight answer, but continues to post endless deflections: John Smith wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 1:16pm: freediver wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 1:09pm: You are confused John. You did not answer my question before I asked it. Sure I did. It is a total misrepresentation What John_Smith autually replied was..... John Smith wrote on Aug 20th, 2017 at 12:21pm: a rather simplified comment but pretty much spot on, yes. You can't jail people for thinking bad thoughts fd. . With Free Driver editing the quote to remove the words " You can't jail people for thinking bad thoughts fd" That is not playing fair. It is dishonest. It's un-Ausralian.  Let's have proper debates won or lost on the strength of the argument not on the cheap shot BTW, can you explain how it is a misrepresentation for me to claim that John pretended it was actually about jailing people? This is John's favourite trick. Say something incredibly stupid. Revel in the attention it brings him. Then start backpedaling. Why else do you think John says incredibly stupid things so often?

Lastone I am afraid you have gotten John terribly confused. He has summoned the courage to point his finger in the general direction of these posts and mumble something about lies, but he can't quite figure out where the lie is or why it is a lie. He didn't even decide it was a lie until you told him it was.

Perhaps you could explain it for him, seeing as you are the only other person who can see it?

John Smith wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2017 at 10:11am:

freediver wrote on Aug 22nd, 2017 at 11:26pm: Has John ever claimed it is a misrepresentation? :D :D :D :D :D John Smith wrote on Aug 22nd, 2017 at 5:36pm: I'll just ignore the fact that you are misrepresenting what I said for now FD, and ask are you declaring that we should criticise people for what you think they think? you idiot

Did FD answer this one, JS?

I'm curious.

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/07/47/55/0747558df46e7c9938a4a8468f3651ec--football-humor-minnesota-vikings.jpg

Karnal wrote on Aug 29^th, 2017 at 1:51pm:

John Smith wrote on Aug 23rd, 2017 at 10:11am: freediver wrote on Aug 22nd, 2017 at 11:26pm: Has John ever claimed it is a misrepresentation? :D :D :D :D :D John Smith wrote on Aug 22nd, 2017 at 5:36pm: I'll just ignore the fact that you are misrepresenting what I said for now FD, and ask are you declaring that we should criticise people for what you think they think? you idiot Did FD answer this one, JS? I'm curious.

FD is still pretending his questions are being ignored.

John Smith wrote on Aug 29^th, 2017 at 1:54pm:

Karnal wrote on Aug 29th, 2017 at 1:51pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 23rd, 2017 at 10:11am: freediver wrote on Aug 22nd, 2017 at 11:26pm: Has John ever claimed it is a misrepresentation? :D :D :D :D :D John Smith wrote on Aug 22nd, 2017 at 5:36pm: I'll just ignore the fact that you are misrepresenting what I said for now FD, and ask are you declaring that we should criticise people for what you think they think? you idiot Did FD answer this one, JS? I'm curious. FD is still pretending his questions are being ignored.

So he's running away from questions put to him and playing the victim?

Karnal wrote on Aug 29^th, 2017 at 1:57pm:

John Smith wrote on Aug 29th, 2017 at 1:54pm: Karnal wrote on Aug 29th, 2017 at 1:51pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 23rd, 2017 at 10:11am: freediver wrote on Aug 22nd, 2017 at 11:26pm: Has John ever claimed it is a misrepresentation? :D :D :D :D :D John Smith wrote on Aug 22nd, 2017 at 5:36pm: I'll just ignore the fact that you are misrepresenting what I said for now FD, and ask are you declaring that we should criticise people for what you think they think? you idiot Did FD answer this one, JS? I'm curious. FD is still pretending his questions are being ignored. So he's running away from questions put to him and playing the victim?

he's got lots of experience at doing that

Lastone, can you explain why it is so wrong? What do you think John actually meant? He won't say.

freediver wrote on Sep 10^th, 2017 at 11:20pm:

Lastone, can you explain why it is so wrong? What do you think John actually meant? He won't say.

I'd say he said it pretty well here, FD, don't you?


John Smith wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2017 at 10:16am:

Thanks Lastone but this is FD's standard operating procedure. It doesn't suit his agenda to be honest lest he have to concede that he is an Islamaphobic . FD will cheat and lie about anything to further his anti muslim rhetoric.

Oh. You won't say.