alt.politics.economics

wrote

>>>>>>>>It's more evil to be a slave-owner than to be a slave, and yes there
>>>>>>>>are those who would opt not to be more evil.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Very, very few
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Care to try to prove yourself?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Care to prove your assertion that "very, very few" people would opt
>>>>>>"more
>>>>>>evil" than "less evil"?
>>>>>
>>>>> Inevitably, you just baldly lie about what I said.
>>>>
>>>>Well, Richard said that "there are those who would opt NOT to be more
>>>>evil"
>>>>and you said "very very few"
>>>>
>>>>And then you assert that I lied about what you said.
>>>
>>> Of course you lied, as you know very well. You snipped the context of
>>> Richard's statement of the options: "more evil because slave owner" or
>>> "less evil because slave," changing it to just, "more evil" or "less
>>> evil."
>>
>>Here is his quote in it's entirety:
>>"It's more evil to be a slave-owner than to be a slave, and
>>yes there are those who would opt not to be more evil."
>>
>>You - just above - added: "more evil because slave owner" or "less evil
>>because slave,"
>>
>>Why did you feel the need to add those words to his statement?
>
> To restore the original meaning of his statement



Hey dufus. When you *add* words to someone's post, it *changes* what was
written, and by default it changes the meaning of what was written. Your
changes were not merely fixing typos, but the addition of whole words.

How desperate and despicable are you anyway?




>>What do you hope to accomplish by changing the words of others?
>
> LOL!! Re-read the first 10 lines of this post, fool, and note that
> you even dropped the word, "not" in your haste to lie as much as
> possible.


Here: These are Richards own words:

From: "Richard Eich" < @ >
Subject: Re: Are the Filthy Rich Necessary?
Date: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 7:56 AM

"It's more evil to be a slave-owner than to be a slave, and
yes there are those who would opt not to be more evil."


And I followed up with:

"Well, Richard said that "there are those who would opt NOT to be more evil"


I have not dropped the "not" from his post - nor have I added anything to
his post....

As you seem to have the need to do.





>>Do you really think that you are fooling anyone?
>
> Oh, definitely not.


LMAO. So you know that everyone here knows you to be - well - you.



> But you obviously think you are.


Yet. I'm not the one with the need to change people's posts to make a
point - or in some vain effort to "be manly"





> Which proves that you lied, above, when you claimed that Richard
> presented a choice between more evil and less evil. Right.



But he didn't present a choice, and I've never claimed that he did.




>>>>"It's more evil to be a slave-owner than to be a slave", he said.
>>>>and he continued with "there are those who would opt not to be more
>>>>evil."
>>>>
>>>>So his limited choices are "evil" or "more evil".
>>>
>>> No, that is another lie. His choices are "more evil because slave
>>> owner" and "less evil but slave."



Why do you feel the need to add to his words? What do you hope to gain by
doing so? Who do you think you're fooling?

Does anyone believe you to be honest ???



> Yes, of course it is, as everyone but you can see (and you probably
> can, too, but are just lying about it out of habit).



Yet I'm not the one having to change the historical words of others.




What kind of loser are you anyway.



--
Two Reasons Why It's So Hard To Solve A Redneck Murder:
1. All the DNA is the same.
2. There are no dental records.
--------------------------
Paul A. Thomas, CPA
Athens, Georgia