Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso
fraudster funny coming from someone who post video after video,
I'll call that an exaggeration rather than a lie. I think you actually believe that I post video after video. Video after video is a rhetorical construction or locution that suggests an endless procession of videos or an excessive, fairly continuous, number of them. I don't post that many, especially compared to the number of non-video posts I submit. Nor much more or less than you do. Or others, such as Pete F, do. But it is a bit fraudulent that you do want to imply that I do post a whole lot, probably more than is necessary or useful.
suggesting their content are fact and Truths .. not opinions.
Another somewhat fraudulent comment. I don't "suggest" that they are fact or truth or opinion (which any or all of them might be all three of those things at the same time). I post them for discussion (which you usually don't engage in, but rather search for some way to kill the messenger).
Then demanding others disprove their content .. 
Again, with the fraud. I don't post them in order to demand that "others" disprove their content. I only ask that after "others" (usually you) try to prove them wrong without even bothering to discuss them, or without even looking at them, but instead they try to disprove them because of who is saying them--kill the messenger without even discussing or looking at the message.
You're free to agree or disagree, but at least have the common courtesy of discussing what you agree or disagree with. Trying to discredit the speaker by relating what others have said about him or her and not about the video, is a way of deceitfully painting it as wrong or worse. It is a form of fraud.
And all your YouTube links are solely to back up your opinions .... that much is certain |
I have never distanced myself from the videos I've posted, never have said or implied that they are not a way of expressing my opinion.
You implied that Maher's statement was "his" opinion (ergo not yours) as if it had nothing to do with the rest of your post. You said your opinion was about the green new deal.
Either you began your post merely, I guess we're to assume, in case for some reason we might be interested in that factoid--an off the cuff unconnected opinion of Maher's--which wasn't relevant to the rest of your "real" post, or it really was connected to and informed the context of the rest of your post--which it did. And you obviously intended it to. Fraud.