re: puttin up the 'Bat signal' .....been since Jan 3 per her post history....

quote:

---

The post of mine that you put on here clearly says " poster after poster, which is plural . That clearly shows I never said it was just you. So your whole 1st paragraph was shot down by your own post previously. So you're the only contradiction.

Maybe Im wrong about you being the first I will accept that and take any blame however you were one of the first and admitted saying it so why does it matter if you were 1st or 3rd it was still said.
You accused me of hijacking the Sorrels thread but admitted that it started with the discussion on Freeman, whuch you know I didn't start because that post is still there that started it. So that is a lie.
You're saying I said you were the only one when you already posted my statement of say " poster after poster, not conway after conway.
So that was a lie.

Don't have to believe me but believe this.

---

The post where you said "poster after poster" was not directed at me, it was a post directed at CG, and before this stupid little argument where I'm caught in it. It wasn't directed to me.

The post that WAS directed to me, days later than the "poster after poster" post, was the above post that implied that I turned the discussion with my post about CG attacking me, which I stated mis-represented the facts and I still say it does. You've even now indicated that the implication is not correct.

And I was wrong to imply that the thread hijack was "began" by you: "I posted one fricking post about CG in the thread that was hijacked - beginning with you - with multiple posts about CG". It WAS hijacked with multiple posts about CG, and you WERE one of the posters who began it - you weren't the 1st poster, you were the 2nd one.

There are two deleted posts from Firstcl@sscocks and from Gamecockboyo that preceded my 1st post, which was my post about CG attacking me - either or both could've been posts about CG attacking them or others. I seem to recall there were more than one post before mine.

I never tried to deny that I posted my post about CG attacking me, so I don't understand your implication that I'm trying to deny anything about it. I have nothing to hide about it: she attacked me for no reason at all, and that's the truth. I haven't really denied anything, to be honest: I only accused you of mis-representing the facts in your above post, which directed at me. And I believe I have proven the mis-representation.

You did say the "poster after poster" post before, but it was not directed at me, and was not in response to this argument that has started today, so your recent posts that DID, and were directed at ME, were contradicted by your earlier "poster after poster" post that you directed at CG days ago.

Now you're trying to use what exposed your mis-representation TODAY, as justification that you DIDN'T mis-represent the events today, but to do that, you would have to just forget that you posted those posts today, and focus instead on a post you made days ago, that wasn't even directed towards me, and wasn't in response to this current argument. That sounds pretty desperate to me....

Again, when someone posts "I posted one fricking post about CG in the thread that was hijacked - beginning with you - with multiple posts about CG", it is the same thing as saying, "I posted one fricking post about CG in the thread that was hijacked with multiple posts about CG, beginning with you". But the thread WAS hijacked with multiple posts about CG. So that was not a lie. The part about it beginning with you - you weren't the 1st post, but you were the 2nd - is a mis-representation on my part, so I will admit to that. Although the argument can be made that since I was referring to "multiple" posts, and not just one singular post, and since your post was the 2nd in a string of multiple posts, it is a subjective interpretation that the 2nd of a string of multiple posts CAN be regarded as the "beginning" of an act of hijacking the thread. It's a bit of a stretch, yes, but nothing at all like a lie, just like slightly missing the bullseye not necessarily equating to missing the target altogether.

And again, your "poster after poster" was not even directed at me, and was not a part of this argument. When you DID direct a post at me, and in regards to this argument, you DID NOT SAY "poster after poster", you said:

quote:

---

The discussion on CT was about Elcid/Freeman and I made a post that said he butted heads with CG and she was in the right and drug Freeman across the internet, you came out that CG had mental issues and then gave your story of y'all getting into it.

---

That does NOT imply "poster after poster", in any way. You also stated in another post:

quote:

---

The way it started was elcid posting a comment by Freeman and I posted that CG and Freeman got into it that is when you posted that she had issues and told the story of y'all getting into it. Thats how it started so get it right

---

So that's a SECOND post where you make zero reference of "poster after poster", and instead imply that I was the first to post about CG attacking others not named freeman.

So you prove my point NOT ONCE BUT TWICE, with two different, separate posts made today. The "poster after poster" post was not directed at me, nor was in response to this current argument, so THAT'S why I referenced it to begin with, to show the contradiction between WHAT YOU POSTED BEFORE, and WHAT YOU'RE POSTING TODAY, as being a MIS-REPRESENTATION.

And certainly NOT a lie on my part. But keep calling me a liar. AND THIS IS WHY I SAID BACK THE frick DOWN, IF YOU'RE GOING TO KEEP CALLING ME A LIAR WHEN YOU'RE TOO frickING STUPID TO UNDERSTAND....