You reap what you sow....

[Dill]

(12-02-2021, 08:32 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It's rather obvious that the media lied about the Rittenhouse case as they were scrambling to issue "corrections" after the verdict.  This isn't exactly an unknown thing.  You heard "crossed state lines with a weapon" or "his mother long after it was proven that did not ever happen.

Who or what are you including under that huge umbrella term "the media"? Apparently not the MSM sources you yourself trusted to argue your case. 

"Corrections" imply misstatements and errors of a sort common to initial reporting of shooting events. Their existence in this case would not constitute evidence of "obvious" lying, either originally or "continually." At what point does hyperbole of this sort itself become a "lie"? 

If you are calling the MSM "liars" on this flimsy ground, without even offering examples (because they are "everywhere," lol), then you are really holding them to a higher standard of accuracy in statement than you yourself are willing to meet. 

(12-02-2021, 08:32 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Sure I do.  You asked for proof of a claim in the Rittenhouse thread, that the weapon did not cross state lines.  I gave it to you.  Then you ignored it and restated your erroneous position, then I posted the part that specifically disproved it.  Then you ran away.

Not the first time you've sought to revise yesterday's public record to fit your narrative of the moment.

I asked how you knew that Rittenhouse did not carry his illegally purchased weapon across state lines. Your "proof" was a link to an MSM source (#117). Using another MSM source, I then asked how we could be sure that a weapon purchased in WI did not go home with R--a question, not the "restatement of an erroneous position." From that same MSM source, you extracted a prosecutor's statement to the effect it was kept at the friend's house (#126).  Apparently the MSM is "trustworthy" on points you want to agree with. After I read more about R's home life, the prosecutor's claim seemed plausible enough to let that issue go. 

And then I "ran away" to challenge the hyperbole in your rendering of video footage and your turn to ad hominem which followed. When pressed to identify the "mob" with Rosenbaum, or why it is a "blatant falsehood" to say that R fired two shots at jump-kick man which missed, you got "bored" and turned tail with a Parthian shot.

(12-02-2021, 08:32 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You do raise a good point about projection, I just don't think you understand why.  I do thank you for reminding me why I, and pretty much everyone else, don't bother responding to you anymore.  It's certainly not conducive to my desire to remain civil in this sub-forum.  So, I do honestly thank you for that.  Please enjoy the rest of your day.

No one responds to me more than you do. That won't stop anytime soon. I just don't think you understand why.

What I have reminded you of, again, is how easy it is to quote you against yourself.* Unable to respond in kind, you end up here, as on the Rittenhouse thread and many others, implying there is something dark, underhanded, dishonest, and uncivil in my posts which you cannot demonstrate. 

A final note: on the Rittenhouse thread you sought to rebrand yourself as the guy committed to logic and evidence. That commitment isn't compatible with hasty generalizations about the MSM and "the left" and the constant projection of dishonest motives onto those with whom you disagree, both and outside the forum. 

*As I did on the Rittenhouse thread (#280) http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-Kyle-Rittenhouse-Trial?page=14