Re: Are the Filthy Rich Necessary?


<royls@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:470b000f.11777947@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Mon, 8 Oct 2007 09:24:52 -0400, "Paul Thomas, CPA"
<paulthomascpapc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

<royls@xxxxxxxxx> 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.

Hey lying garbage, when you *delete* words from someone's post, it
*changes* what was written,



I did not delete anything from his post. But you did add to his words and
that addition changed them.





and by default, restoring the meaning
requires those words to be restored.


But they were not there initially. You added them.



You _DELETED_ the words, "slave" and "slave owner"
from what Richard wrote,



Nope, I did not delete anything.



Here: These are Richards own words:

From: "Richard Eich" <richard.eich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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.

<yawn> Here are the first 9 quoted lines of the previous post:

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"?

<sigh> Notice, stupid garbage: Richard said, "there are those who
would opt _NOT_ to be more evil" (emphasis added, because you are
clearly too stupid and dishonest to admit the word 'not' is there).



You've got to be desperate, because for anyone who gives a ***, they can
easily go back and look it up.

Why you have to change the words of others is beyond me.




I replied, "Very, very few."




You then said, "Care to prove your assertion that "very, very few"
people would opt "more evil" than "less evil"?


And I'm still waiting - on you to prove that "very very few" people would
"opt not to be more evil".

That is the context of his post, and you've done everything under your power
to sidestep answering.





Can you really still pretend you don't see? I stated that very, very
few would opt _*NOT*_ to be more evil,



Waiting on that proof that I have been asking for for weeks now.




and you then claimed my assertion was that
very, very few _*WOULD_OPT*_ for "more evil."


Nope, it's clear that you believe that "very very few" would opt not to be
more evil.

In plain-speak, you assert that the majority of people, "very very many" in
fact, would opt TO be more evil.

I asked you to prove your assertion.






You removed the "not" from my statement.


And how I worded it would not change the end results.

Your claim is that "very very few" people "who would opt not to be more
evil".

It carries forward that you believe that many many people WOULD opt to BE
more evil.



I've been consistent in my tense. You however, have evaded answering the
question.

How many people do you believe would opt to be more evil?






I did not remove a negation from your statement.


Clearly you are pretending that it has a different meaning than what it
always had.




You removed a negation from mine.


Nope, you only claim that. And you are doing so to detract from your
non-answer about how many people would opt to be more evil.

You've already boxed yourself in a corner by claiming that "very very few"
(that's you) "who would opt not to be more evil" (that's Richard).

Ergo, you believe that many many people would opt TO be more evil.




That makes you the lying garbage. Not me.


No, it makes me right, and....well, it would make you look like a fool, but
you looked that way long before you came over to the tax newsgroup.




You lied about what he wrote.


Sorry, but anyone can look it up for themselves.




<yawn> Why did you deliberqtely change the meaning of what he wrote
by DELETING the words, "slave" and "slave owner"?


You seem to be a very tired person. >pun not intended, but it fits so
nicely<

Your "very very few" applies to the second part of his post:
"and yes there are those who would opt not to be more evil."

And you said "very very few", which can only be read as that you believe
that very very many would opt TO be more evil.

And then I asked you to prove out that claim, of which you have done
everything in your power (which isn't enough) to distract from that issue.







So what DO you believe? Would "very very few" people opt NOT to be more
evil, or would "very very many" opt TO be more evil?



It's your choice.



Either way you prove yourself wrong, or you prove me right.




--
Have no fear of perfection - you'll never reach it.
----------
Paul A. Thomas, CPA


.