> The problem lies entirely in the words you’ve
> chosen to use. No one is twisting them.
Maybe you'd like to think so, but the reality is that the problem lies in arguments that rely heavily on technical differences in the definition of the same word in different dictionaries instead of paying attention to what people are actually saying.
If I thought Reisner was trying to pull a fast one, then why would I correct myself immediately after misusing the word "hoax"?:
- "But if "hoax" also implies "try to fool people into believing something you know isn't true" then I do NOT think it was a hoax since I honestly believe Reisner subscribed to his own BS."
"...And I might very well agree it was indeed a "hoax" except that I think Reisner truly believed his own fabrication, so perhaps "hoax" is going a bit too far by today's standard."
I have always staunchly denied that I thought Reisner engaged in conspiracy or deception. And so any interpretation of my posts to the contrary is either uninformed or disingenuous.
> “Fabricate” used as you use it suggests wilful deception...
Wrong. I can play that game too:
- Fabricate: To make up something artificial or untrue.
Siri gives the same definition (as do others):
> Lee/Thanos is right: you did say
> things which most would read as impugning
> Reisner’s honesty.
Wrong again. Thanos and a couple others have challenged me on my perspective many times, and I've always given exactly the same answer: I do not impugn Reisner; I simply accuse him of applying the lower standards of proof of his day. This is the resounding theme through virtually every one of my posts over the past 2 years.
> > Did you take the time today to go through every
> > single one of them? I did. . . .
> ROTFLMAO! Newsflash: your posts just ain’t that interesting.
You didn't read my posts and yet claim to know my position on Reisner.
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08-Jun-16 04:01 by Origyptian.