Freedriver made this post

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


It is a total misrepresentation

What John_Smith autually replied was.....
John Smith wrote on Aug 20^th, 2017 at 12:21pm:
.

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

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?

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?

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


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

Johns Reply to you was Quote:


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


The edited part of the quote Quote:
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:


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:


The highlighted section clearly indicates that John feels he was misrepresented. So when you write Quote:
that now has been shown to be a misrepresentation.

By my count that is strike 3

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


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.

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 23^rd, 2017 at 8:55am:






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.

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


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?