Tuesday, September 25, 2012 10:44:10 AM
@mark: Actually, there's still even more that I can attack here (you gave me a lot of material to work with).
When I proved your defendants were not voters You did not prove this. You showed that they were not voting, but you did not prove that they were not voters. They are voters, and your statement here is incorrect because of that fact.
Furthermore, using your own logic, you are both "changing your stance" and "shape shifting".
[quote]The New Black Panthers stated before the election that they would deploy 300 poll watchers across the United States.[/quote] [quote]A black man standing in front of a poling place beating a night stick against his hands hits me as voter intimidation.[/quote] Well which is it? You first try to imply that they were merely security, then you say you think it hints at voter intimidation. Quit changing your stance.
Tuesday, September 25, 2012 10:31:34 AM
@mark: I have had one main unchanged stance that it was thrown out because no voters came forward to say they were intimidated. You said that I was incorrect. Here is yet another example of you saying something that is INCORRECT. You meant to say something else, but the words you wrote down are wrong.
To prove that statement incorrect, I need to show that someone came forward who was both a voter and claimed he/she was intimidated.
First part, let's prove that the man who came forward was a voter. He is a citizen over 18 with no felony record. Therefore, he is a voter. Perhaps he was not voting, but he is a voter.
Next part, he directly claims to have been intimidated. Done.
See? Again, you meant to say more, but you didn`t. The literal statement you`ve provided is logically incorrect.
Tuesday, September 25, 2012 10:26:37 AM
@mark: OK; here is what is wrong with your comments and here is why I am correct:
"At no point IN THAT POST did I say that YOU were wrong"
See now? I highlighted it for you. The example you provide is from a much earlier post, not the post being referenced here.
Next, here is your statement:
Funny how not one single voter came forward to say they had actually been intimidated So your logical argument is composed of two pieces: not a single voter came forward; and no person came forward claiming they had been intimidated.
I presented a person who IS A VOTER (how can you claim he is not a voter??) AND claimed that he was intimidated. You need to rephrase your statement because, what you said is INCORRECT.
You meant that "no person came forward and claimed that they directly suffered from voter intimidation." You did not say this.
Tuesday, September 25, 2012 10:17:30 AM
"Next, you stated that not a single voter came forward and I disagreed. I gave evidence that a US citizen (therefore a voter) came forward and stated that he was intimidated. I DID NOT claim that he was voting at that time, nor that he was intimidated away from voting. I stated that, a) he is a voter (this is true), and that b) he was intimidated (sworn testimony). "
Tuesday, September 25, 2012 10:15:38 AM
"How did you arrive at the conclusion that I've changed my stance? If by "change in stance" you mean present a clear and definite logical path, then I`ll submit as guilty right now."
I have had one main unchanged stance that it was thrown out because no voters came forward to say they were intimidated. You said that I was incorrect. When I proved your defendants were not voters you changed this to you feel the evidence is voter intimidation. You do this all the time. Not as bad as CrakrJak.
"At no point in that post did I say that YOU were wrong"
Really? "I`m sure you know that I will admit when I`m wrong, but I am not in this matter; you are incorrect." This is the problem with being shifty is you can`t keep track of the spin.