False Accusation?

[KrustyKidd]

I have been accused of cheating in an argument and desire some proof of it. Here is that statement that was presented to me by one of the people opposed to my arguments in the thread Saddam, resolution 1441 , and weapons inspectionsHere is what is given to me in place of an argument for a point given;

Myata

One thing missing though was logic and honest discussion. You misquoted your opponents and did not answer direct questions.

Myata's proof to date

I ask this person to provide proof and they don't seem to have any yet continually tell me to find it (the proof myself) so, possibly, other members can find the proof for me.

Thanks.

[myata]

I ask this person to provide proof and they don't seem to have any yet continually tell me to find it (the proof myself) so, possibly, other members can find the proof for me.

That itself is a lie, isn't it? You were provided with the address of the original post that caused the issue, as well as explanation of your misrepresentation. I'm sorry but I have to conclude that you either have trouble reading, or deliberately wouldn't notice. That makes any further argumentation pointless.

[Charles Anthony]

Just give eachother your marbles back and call it even.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear KrustyKid,

I believe myata clarified his/her position with...

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....st&p=142747

My apologies. Misinterpreted or misreported would be a better word. And again, I take it, you have no problem with the rest of my post? We'll leave it at that then.

The USNC is a court Myata, the highest on the planet and, they don't believe the US acted illegaly. In short, nobody with authority has even said a crime has been commited. So, it is legal and, certainly not illegal.

Actually, Kofi Annan, when pressed, said it was illegal.

[KrustyKidd]

That itself is a lie, isn't it? You were provided with the address of the original post that caused the issue, as well as explanation of your misrepresentation. I'm sorry but I have to conclude that you either have trouble reading, or deliberately wouldn't notice. That makes any further argumentation pointless.

Yes it does. You have shown yourself to allude to me giving some sort of extreme slight to yourself saying I am not honest when, if one can even find it the ONE peice of proof you think is it, it is nothing I am sure. You said post #171 and when I went to it found nothing but you saying that you believe the US is a perpetrator on the UNSC and that you also belive the UNSC is controlled in their vote. You said their vote was not fair on those grounds. So, what did you mean if not that?

Actually, Kofi Annan, when pressed, said it was illegal.

How many votes does he have on the UNSC? And, what type of law does he practice? Is he the dictator of the UN or the head administrator? In your world does the speaker of the house run the counrty? As I said to a few people, probably even you "oh ya? My cleaning lady says it's legal" both have equal power on this matter.

I believe myata clarified his/her position with...

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....st&p=142747

Oh, is tying Myata's posts together dishonest and my arguments not logical? He works on pure emotion continuing to throw in rants with legal arguments to cloud the issue. It is obvious that Myata intended to mean that the US controls the UNSC as he said the council was controlled and that the perpetrator was a member of it who voted. I asked who they were controlled by and there was no reply. As for the questions, they had no meaning other than to make a point thus, when I countered with how fairness is not a prerequisite of the definition of a court and therefore can skip those as they are redundent/ He has still not answered mine. He can find them by going to the tread in question and looking for them as he doesn't belive in presenting evidence. In all though, it is a minor point which he has blown up in order to escape a losing argument.

Just give eachother your marbles back and call it even.

You think that being accused of arguing in bad faith is nothing? Then why don't we all just accuse each other of being clowns, assholes, niggers, bastards and so on and forth and save thought and argument altogether? When somebody can bring up bullshit like this to escape having to back up an argument with proof and fact, then we may as well give up on this forum as a place to find honest and logical thought.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear KrustyKid,

Oh, is tying Myata's posts together dishonest and my arguments not logical? He works on pure emotion continuing to throw in rants with legal arguments to cloud the issue

My apologies, I was not trying to minimize the importance of truth and fact, and to be honest, I only skimmed through that thread to try to find where this problem lay. I certainly don't see you as dishonest, I have never seen you post something that you wouldn't back up with links or quotes. However, I thought that some of the issue regarding the accusation of 'misrepresentation' had been assuaged in the link to the post I quoted, and in my mind it seemed to be a retraction by myata of that specific accusation., though I could be wrong.

[KrustyKidd]

He spoke of multiple infractions yet provided proof to one that is bullshit citing 'bad hair day' type excuses and frustration for not going further in documenting something that remotely comes into the rhealm of arguing in bad faith and being dishonest. Having lost the argument he stands by the accusation but, has no proof save a technicality which, to anyone, would be what I said it meant. He never argued what I put forth, so, as he says in one of his posts, "it stands."

In order to vindicate himself by proving me wrong, he refuses to answer the question as to who he meant controls the UNSC. Why do you think that Lonious? A person such as this, who has not stopped posting refutations but does not produce the devastating proof that would prove me to be a dishonest and manipulating poster here. Who could pass up on an opportunity to do that to an opponent?

Myata is who. And, not because he is benevolent and wishes me well. In fact, he fabricates a make believe slight to get out of the real argument so, where is the other instances? Non existant is where.