Marx fabricated screen shots to get Alfonso banned.

[Al Swearegen]

Yes, I think that's exactly what you did. I think your words are saying he fucks dogs. Just like you've understood my words to be saying you've broken the law, you've broken the tos, or you're a bad person for saying he fucks dogs. Yes, I do see the problem here.

I'm not hypothetically accusing someone of a crime. Am saying that's exactly what you did; you said someone fucks dogs and fucking dogs is a crime.

... doesn't really mean you said he fucks dogs.

What are you saying? You do not seem consistent. You seem to be changing the goalposts whenever I try to pin you down to backing a claim. Why are you changing goalposts all the time?

Am I to believe

You THINK that is exactly what I said?

I'm not hypothetically accusing someone of a crime. Am saying that's exactly what you did; you said someone fucks dogs

You think that is what my words are "saying" (implying)?

I think your words are saying he fucks dogs

Or you know I did not "say" that at all?

... doesn't really mean you said he fucks dogs.

These things say three entirely different things. It is like three people giving three different accounts. Why is that?

You see why I am finding it difficult in seeing anything you are trying to say and why (when I see you seemingly jumping around the place from one position to the next - scrambling for purchase) that I have a few misgivings about being told that the crux of the matter was just

Sorry, missed the part you added. The crux of the arguement is I think you crossed the line and were out of order with the dog fucking, and you don't. This is what I understand this arguement to be about.

[Jack]

Yes. That's what I think. I didn't bother nitpicking every instance where you used the words 'you said' in this discussion, where I disagreed that's what I said, because that's your opinion and interpretation of what I said. Yes, do see why you're having difficulty here. You're free to think whatever you wish about what you said, and so am I.  Your reaction, or anyone else's reaction to what I think isn't going to change what I think. This is where your difficulty lies. Am actually going to stop responding to this now. It would be easier to do that without you posing more questions. Of course, you are free ask me more questions, but am having trouble seeing the point is us continuing this. I'm not going to say you are in the right in calling cartman a dog fucker because I don't think that's true, but I will say your point of view in this discussion in valid because you believe it and it's important to you.

[Jack]

Holy crap. Just noticed I wrote, in valid, instead of, is valid. That totally wasn't a freudian slip. Truly do appreciate your point of view, Sir. If you were having this discussion with someone else, would totally be rooting for both of you. Sorry if I sucked things up with you.

[Al Swearegen]

Yes. That's what I think. I didn't bother nitpicking every instance where you used the words 'you said' in this discussion, where I disagreed that's what I said, because that's your opinion and interpretation of what I said. Yes, do see why you're having difficulty here. You're free to think whatever you wish about what you said, and so am I.  Your reaction, or anyone else's reaction to what I think isn't going to change what I think. This is where your difficulty lies. Am actually going to stop responding to this now. It would be easier to do that without you posing more questions. Of course, you are free ask me more questions, but am having trouble seeing the point is us continuing this. I'm not going to say you are in the right in calling cartman a dog fucker because I don't think that's true, but I will say your point of view in this discussion in valid because you believe it and it's important to you.

Nor DID I call him a dog-fucker if you were actually being honest. You are being honest right? That is not your way of making a claim that is complete bullshit (and you know is bullshit, because I got you to find where i actually said that, and you couldn't) is it?

See that is the thing about accusing people, it is not just opinion.

Someone DID accuse him of screwing dogs. Accused him a number of years ago. That person was not me. I DID:
1) Say I had read this somewhere
2) Did post the quote by someone else where THEY made such a claim.
3) I did say I had not made it up - Someone else may have but it did not originate from me
4) I did say I was just creating rumours - you know rumours don't you Jack. Ask yourself "Rumours are true stories or false stories?" ask yourself again "If I was disclaiming something as all rumour am I wanting it to be seen as a truth or not?"

Well....that is it. That was the "evidence" of me calling him a "dog fucker"

Problem is....I didn't...anywhere.

So you say

I'm not going to say you are in the right in calling cartman a dog fucker because I don't think that's true

but then if I didn't say that about him (as evidenced by your inability to find where I did and....well the fact I did not) then what bloody sense does your statement really make?

You keep falling over on this sticking point. I should not call Cartman a dog fucker. I didn't so therefore I get to believe what's important and you should believe I should not have called him a name I did not call him?

Jack that is silly.

Stop saying I have called him a dog fucker, and find where I have. It would be an insult to your integrity, credibility and intellect to hold a position you know to be incorrect. You have already gone searching when I asked you last time and you could not find something you stated 'that is exactly what you said". So it is not that you even "think" I said it. You have search and "know" I have not said it.
Just as you know what things I did say were not in breach of Laws, TOS or Rules. You know this too. Maybe you did not at the start of this thread but you do now.

"There are no boundaries here over what may be said, save for one rule - be prepared to back up your words."

I will not contest your right to say I have called Alfonso dog fucker but you need to find where I called him that in the first place. I AM aware others have past and present but you made the charge to me....so back it. You really have not.

[Al Swearegen]

Holy crap. Just noticed I wrote, in valid, instead of, is valid. That totally wasn't a freudian slip. Truly do appreciate your point of view, Sir. If you were having this discussion with someone else, would totally be rooting for both of you. Sorry if I sucked things up with you.

Thanks Jack. I misread it as "is".

I honestly think if I was reading this, I would be thinking "He makes some good points but does go on and on" and I would be thinking "Jack is a lot shorter and easier to read but what does Jack mean? It makes no sense? Can Jack show what they are meaning or translate it or back it up or something?"

That is kinda where I am now.

I do like you Jack but I have no idea why you would cast accusations that are found to be insubstantial and keep them leveled at me as though they were still of substance. Makes no sense. Logic circuits overloading in trying to process your posts.

As a disclaimer too. I did say the position you were holding was bullshit and you knew it. I don't know it. I can't see how you would not know because it makes no logical sense. I can't say you know it is bullshit.

[Jack]

Say what ever you want about my intellectual integrity. I know what I think about what you said, and wont lie about what I really think. This is my honesty and integrity, regardless of my intellect. Honestly wishing for never having this discussion, seeminly loosing a friend over some oh so not so huge deal. Also say what you want about my moral high horse. This is true, moral stick up my butt. I believe it and it's very important to me. We're very different and this isn't fixable. This could be why I don't have friends. Like said before, that you were even involved in this attack, much less the initiator, was a complete surprise. Sorry poking too personal with you, Sir. Usually try to avoid that sort of thing, and wouldn't have gone looking for it with you.

[Al Swearegen]

Then show where I called him a dog fucker.
That is what you said that I called him.
Find it and be are on the same page.

You have shown me where I haven't. You have shown where I have said that I read it somewhere.
What I am asking is for where I have said that as you have claimed. Should not be that hard.

I don't actually mind of being accused of what I said. Sometimes I say nice things and sometimes not. Do not like being accused of what I have not said.

For what it is worth, Jack, I would have preferred it if I had not have had this discussion but form says I always defend my claims nor hide behind others or what I do or say. Were it to have been anyone else at any time, the result would be the same.

[Jack]

Have already shown you your post and told you what I think. We disagree.

[Al Swearegen]

Have already shown you your post and told you what I think. We disagree.

OK. Then if that IS what you think tell me, out of interest, what you think of the below hypothetical exchange.

John: Hello Mary. I was reading a book last night that said Adolph Hitler was a nice bloke.

Mary: How could you?

John: What?

Mary: You said he was a nice bloke. He was a murdering immoral fiend.

John: No it was not me, it says here

Mary: I know what it says and what you said John, and I am not going yo argue. Believe what you want. I think he was terrible and you are wrong saying otherwise

[Jack]

I understand you can't see my point of view, and the only way I know how to do that, would require me to step out of line. That would be to recreate your post to contain something bad I once read someone here write about you. Their attack on you was a bannable offence, in my opinion, and this attack of yours was not, because one topic is worse than the other. I know if I were to read a post like that about me, that person wouldn't be able to talk their way out of whether or not they were saying I do it. I would win, and you would support me against whoever said it.

[Al Swearegen]

I understand you can't see my point of view, and the only way I know how to do that, would require me to step out of line. That would be to recreate your post to contain something bad I once read someone here write about you. Their attack on you was a bannable offence, in my opinion, and this attack of yours was not, because one topic is worse than the other. I know if I were to read a post like that about me, that person wouldn't be able to talk their way out of whether or not they were saying I do it. I would win, and you would support me against whoever said it.

Again the sticking point - "said it" - said what? Certainly not you said that I said because given your best efforts you find no mention of Me saying it.

What is this "talking my way out of"? I am not. Much like  what I said, I am happy to own what I have done but not what I haven't. Much like I am not going to confess to breaking the rules of I believe I haven't but if you find I have I will accept it and act appropriately. The expression "trying to talk myself out of" suggest I am in a position from whichiI am trying to free myself. I am simply not, and you should know this because you have, when given the opportunity, not been able to show me saying what you said I exactly said.

But now this hypothetical? I dunno if it is moving goalposts again or if I even understand it but here goes

If I had been physically threatening women and 15 year old girls and you found an old post by perhaps a disgruntled member, saying I had sex with dead people, then......what?
If I was that person I guess I would argue it? Maybe I would scarper as I was being stood up to by someone I perceived not to be weaker than myself in the same way a 15 year old girl isn't?

But yes pretend this is what happened and you found someone else said that. I might have someone with a misguided sense of moral outrage racing to my defence but someone like my actual self wouldn't. Someone like me here now, might even quip something like "lol dead people? Ewwwww"

So this sound about accurate?
How's the hypothetical?

[Jack]

This is really terrible. Was really hoping you and I could simply accept each other's view. I'm not in this discussion with you to win it, but it seems that's the only thing you will accept from me.

Alfonso was into having sex with dogs.

You said cartman fucks dogs. Point loudly to all the other words around it and tell me how clever you were in the use of those words, and how those words really mean you didn't say these words. You did say these words and no amount of words you will ever produce will change that. It's also not a huge fucking deal. This isn't fixable, sir, and I want to walk away from this with you being okay with me. I need you to shake my hand and call it a day.

[Al Swearegen]

This is really terrible. Was really hoping you and I could simply accept each other's view. I'm not in this discussion with you to win it, but it seems that's the only thing you will accept from me.

Alfonso was into having sex with dogs.

You said cartman fucks dogs. Point loudly to all the other words around it and tell me how clever you were in the use of those words, and how those words really mean you didn't say these words. You did say these words and no amount of words you will ever produce will change that. It's also not a huge fucking deal. This isn't fixable, sir, and I want to walk away from this with you being okay with me. I need you to shake my hand and call it a day.

No I didn't

I think I read some where that Alfonso was into having sex with dogs. Is that true?

This was the original quote. My quote has an entirely different meaning than yours BECAUSE you have not posted it complete. It is that John and Mary thing I alluded to earlier.

I could say that I read somewhere that Adolf Hitler was a nice bloke. It may or may not be true that i did read that. I may be mistaken. If in fact I did, I may have any view on how nice he was or none at all. I may be just saying this and knowing I had never in fact read it.

If mentioning I had read this to Mary makes her accuse John of having a strong opinion on it because he read it or knowing what that opinion is, then Mary is being silly. Isn't she Jack? Logically speaking?

This IS terrible. Accepting that I said something I never said? Never. Your quote-cropping was...well you will see what I mean in terms of honesty. I really don't think you Jack have really been honest and smart about this whole argument. I think that that the "point loudly to the words around it" is just a rather transparent attempt to say the sentence as a whole was not important as the quote-crop

you Jack have really been honest and smart about this whole argument.

Now read above, is that was I said? Or was this doing exactly the same thing as you to say something different. Do not try to say words around it have no meaning or significance or do not alter what is said. Either you do not believe this as most thinking people won't or you are unable to communicate rationally.

Which is it Jack?

Yes it is terrible.

[Jack]

[Jack]

I accept your poing of view, sir, but I disagree.