freediver wrote on Jul 19^th, 2012 at 12:13pm:


WTF are you talking about?

SOB

freediver wrote on Jul 19^th, 2012 at 5:46pm:


Gawd. I answered that more than once. You just scroll back and read. Comprehend. You seem to have problems with that. Interesting how you NEVER answer any questions though. You just keep quoting out of context and asking did you beat your wife type questions.

SOB

Would you want Australia to have the right to defend itself if attacked?

freediver wrote on Jul 19^th, 2012 at 6:05pm:

I had a question on the first page.
Grow some balls and face reality.

Quote:


To which I responded that you often make the same claim without limiting it to the media, and also pointed out that the exact same question applies to the media - should it really self censor? Do you think that individuals should not self censor? What do you direct all your complaints about making Muslims angry to us mere mortals rather than 'the media'?

I offered to dig up some more quotes where you made it a more general claim. Do I need to do that to get a straight answer? Or would it make no difference and you would find something else to deflect about?

Quote:


To which I also responded at the time. Repeating your comments that the debate makes Muslims angry without adding that we should self censor does not mean you did not previously say we should self censor. It just means you are making an intellectual retreat to stating the obvious, without having to balls to say what you think we should do about it.

Quote:


Yes you did - in the quote I keep posting.

Quote:


Which would be perfectly reaosnable if I ever claimed that all Muslims are terrorists. Otherwise it is just another red herring.

Quote:


I attempted to get a straight answer out of you countless times.

Quote:


Is this a good thing or a bad thing? Should we self censor as a response?

freediver wrote on Jul 19^th, 2012 at 6:01pm:


Who cares if Muslims are angry they are the most disorganized set of people in the world.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 18^th, 2012 at 11:03am:




The nature of deception is that in a relationship involving an intentionally deceptive person and a truthful person, is that it is always easy for the deceiver to misrepresent themselves.

And even when they are 'found out', for them to then make false accusations.

And with those false accusations, force the 'other' to always defend their position.

Meanwhile the deceiver remains 'free' to continue to misrepresent and hide their own true position, and agenda.




Claims [accusations] are easy to defend to make, when the people who [claim that they] are being 'misrepresented' have a 'skill' in misrepresenting and hiding their own true positions, and agendas.

In any relationship involving an intentionally deceptive person and a truthful person, the truthful person can never win [or get ahead].

Such a relationship will always fail, in the end.

Such a relationship is like the nature of the circumstance of war [between two people].

It requires two [sincere] people with the same 'mind', to secure and maintain a peace.

But it only takes one person ['party'], to start a war [which necessarily involves the 2nd 'party'].





The lesson ?

Avoid relationships with those who are known to be liars [deceivers].




+++


John 8:44
Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

Yadda you are talking about freediver. He never ever answers question and instead of answering throws accusations and misquotes. He wants to reinterpret things to mean what he wants them to mean. I doubt abu or falah have said the things he says they have.

SOB