$500

I was taking it up with Yurt, when you interjected. I assumed based on your tone & what you wrote that you knew who said what.

Apparently not.

I assume from your actual writing that you assume to know everyone's opinion about certain issues. Why am I not surprised that you actually don't?
 
Let's assume that "seem" is not wussified...why would I even "seem" to support union money?

As for the last assertion, what does supporting union money have to do with a question about union money corrupting? If anything, your asking me if I think union money corrupts is a natural follow-up to the idea that I "seem" to support union money.

Face it - you stepped in it, and now you want to back out. You shouldn't be posting here anymore.

you claimed i in fact said you support union money...i never did...i said it looked that way...then i asked a follow up question

you dishonestly claimed i outright said you support union money. thank you for finally admitting i did not. though oddly, you still dishonestly believe i shouldn't be posting here. why don't you man up and admit you fucked up by not reading what i said properly. saying something appears or seems a certain way is NOT claiming it absolutely is, which proves without a doubt that you lied when you said i claimed you support union money.

amazing that its taken you this long to own up to it, even if in a weasily way.
 
you claimed i in fact said you support union money...i never did...i said it looked that way...then i asked a follow up question

you dishonestly claimed i outright said you support union money. thank you for finally admitting i did not. though oddly, you still dishonestly believe i shouldn't be posting here. why don't you man up and admit you fucked up by not reading what i said properly. saying something appears or seems a certain way is NOT claiming it absolutely is, which proves without a doubt that you lied when you said i claimed you support union money.

amazing that its taken you this long to own up to it, even if in a weasily way.

Actually, yes - you did.
 
Read what? All I did was posit a theory based on facts in this thread.

But you admitted that you didn't even know who said what (a.k.a. "the facts").

Just a good rule of thumb going forward: when you jump in the middle of a discussion, it's a good idea to know what is actually being discussed.
 
But you admitted that you didn't even know who said what (a.k.a. "the facts").

Just a good rule of thumb going forward: when you jump in the middle of a discussion, it's a good idea to know what is actually being discussed.

For the record, I responded to this post:

Who to believe...Yurt, or everyone else?

Tough one....

Since I am obviously included in the set of "everyone", I felt the need to set the record straight.
 
Actually, yes - you did.

you obviously need english lessons....

Definition of SEEM
intransitive verb
1: to appear to the observation or understanding
2: to give the impression of being

now put the word seem in a sentence onceler and you'll maybe finally realize that saying something seems a certain way, is NOT claiming it IS a certain way...

so, no, i did not claim you support union money...
 
you obviously need english lessons....



now put the word seem in a sentence onceler and you'll maybe finally realize that saying something seems a certain way, is NOT claiming it IS a certain way...

so, no, i did not claim you support union money...

But you didn't use seem - you made a point of not using it.

I'll ignore that it's ridiculous & stupid to even say it "seemed" like I supported union money. No idea where you'd even get that.

You said what you said - you said I supported union funds. You shouldn't be posting here.
 
But you didn't use seem - you made a point of not using it.

I'll ignore that it's ridiculous & stupid to even say it "seemed" like I supported union money. No idea where you'd even get that.

You said what you said - you said I supported union funds. You shouldn't be posting here.

and did i say why i purposefully didn't use the word seem? why, yes, yes i did because i was purposefully making fun of you.....and did i put a joke smilie after saying you support unions? why, yes, yes i did.

get over yourself onceler, i even put a smilie so it would be OBVIOUS i was kidding...but no, you, nigel and booger want to dishonestly pretend i was being serious.
 
and did i say why i purposefully didn't use the word seem? why, yes, yes i did because i was purposefully making fun of you.....and did i put a joke smilie after saying you support unions? why, yes, yes i did.

get over yourself onceler, i even put a smilie so it would be OBVIOUS i was kidding...but no, you, nigel and booger want to dishonestly pretend i was being serious.

The joke smilie could more easily be interpreted as you rejoicing in another perceived "gotcha" (perceived by you only), that you caught someone else in their "hypocrisy" over opposing corp money but not union money.

And the lameness of your contention that the follow up question on whether I thought union money corrupts "shows" that you didn't say I supported union money cannot be overstated.

You should stop posting here.
 
The joke smilie could more easily be interpreted as you rejoicing in another perceived "gotcha" (perceived by you only), that you caught someone else in their "hypocrisy" over opposing corp money but not union money.

And the lameness of your contention that the follow up question on whether I thought union money corrupts "shows" that you didn't say I supported union money cannot be overstated.

You should stop posting here.

yeah....i really believed you supported union money, thats why i ASKED if you think union money corrupts right after i made fun of you....LOL

the entire sentence is me making fun of you for your dumbass "seem is a wussified word" and the sentence isn't a gotcha at all....thats beyond dishonest, even for you...

carry on onceler, you're just an annoying dishonest prick
 
Back
Top