Re: Are the Filthy Rich Necessary?

On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 14:08:16 -0400, "Paul Thomas, CPA"
<paulthomascpapc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

<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.

?? Oh, of course you did, you stupid, lying sack of $#!+. You
deleted all the context, as you usually do to change the meaning of
what other people write.

But you did add to his words and
that addition changed them.

No, I restored his original meaning, which you had changed.

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

But they were not there initially. You added them.

No, you are of course lying again. He specified "slave owner" and
"slave." You dishonestly removed those words. I restored them. You
are stupid, dishonest, lying garbage.

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

Nope, I did not delete anything.

Yes, of course you did, lying garbage.

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 invite others to look it up and verify that you are indeed, and
irrefutably, garbage.

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.

Liar. I have restored the context, and you re doing everything you
can to obscure it.

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.

Then why did you claim the opposite?

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.

By lying about what I had said...

You removed the "not" from my statement.

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

Yes, it would, it completely reversed the meaning!

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.

Yes. Many, not few as you claimed I said.

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?

Well, I'll start with a gimme: you.

I did not remove a negation from your statement.

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

?? No, you are just evading the fact that you lied about what I had
said.

You removed a negation from mine.

Nope, you only claim that.

I proved it, and anyone can go back and verify it.

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.

Rather than be the victims of the same evil. Right.

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.

Yep. And all that do will see that you lied.

<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<

I am definitely tired of you.

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.

<yawn> And which of your myriad silly claims have you ever offered
any evidence for, hmmmm?

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.

?? They're the same!

Stupid.

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

ROTFL!!

-- Roy L
.