I won't dig back for the exact quote, but in the homeschool discussion, you kept saying that I said something when in fact it was someone else that said it...and continued to claim that even after you were corrected several times.
1. You claim that I was saying that by Palin bearing culpability that it makes it less of a crime. No such thing was ever said or even insinuated. 2. Claiming that my logic says that the ends justified the means...again, something that was never stated or implied by any of my logic. I only said that she shouldn't be surprised when someone hacks her when she doesn't use proper security. 3. "Actually, by blaming the victim, you do, in a way, say its OK to commit the crime." That's really pulling shit out of your ass based on what Dana and I have stated. That is making shit up. 4. Claiming that we are defending the hacking itself, when no such claim was made or insinuated. That's just a few of them... Eric -----Original Message----- From: Scott Stroz [mailto:boyz...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 1:20 PM To: cf-community Subject: Re: Palin email hacking case - guilty! Please show me where I did that. Please show me where I claimed to quote you and did not use an exact quote form you. I may have tried to use a different example of what you were saying to get a better idea if where you are coming from, but I never said " Eric said 'X' when in fact you did not say 'X' " I will also admit to stating that in my opinion what you said is akin to something else, but that is not quoting you or even attributing things to you without some kind of disclaimer that it is my opinion. Falsely accusing people is also dishonest. On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 1:48 PM, Eric Roberts <ow...@threeravensconsulting.com> wrote: > > That is because when you make shit up, it is lying and dishonest. You are > attributing to us things that we never stated, much like you did with me in > our discussion about homeschooling. > > Eric > > -----Original Message----- > From: Scott Stroz [mailto:boyz...@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 11:14 AM > To: cf-community > Subject: Re: Palin email hacking case - guilty! > > > I have not made up anything. I have expressed my opinion and > interpretations of what you and Dana have said - most of the time > trying to find some clarity. > > Its kind of funny how anyone who disagrees with you eventually gets > called a liar and dishonest. > > On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Eric Roberts > <ow...@threeravensconsulting.com> wrote: >> >> And that has what to do with what was stated? I am beginning to think you >> need some glasses there Scott as you seem to not be able top read very > well. >> "She bears some blame for not properly securing her account" does not > equal >> "It's ok if they don't have a warrant if they fiond something illegal". >> That's pretty asinine Scott and not based on any form of reality. So >> instead of talking about my (and Dana's) opinion, you and Sam feel it >> necessary to dishonestly make shit up and claim that Dana and I stated > that. >> That is called lying and is very dishonorable. Try honesty for a >> change...you will feel a lot better about yourselves. >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Scott Stroz [mailto:boyz...@gmail.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 10:39 AM >> To: cf-community >> Subject: Re: Palin email hacking case - guilty! >> >> >> You have said that you feel she bears some blame for what happened. >> That is an opinion, not fact. (and pretty much the only thing I think >> we disagree on - at least on this issue) >> >> On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 11:36 AM, Eric Roberts >> <ow...@threeravensconsulting.com> wrote: >>> >>> Please show where either of us have stated that Sam. I know it's hard to >>> argue when the facts are against you, but please stop making shit >> up....that >>> is very dishonorable and dishonest...granted that is something that is >>> expected from teabaggers... >>> >>> Eric >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Sam [mailto:sammyc...@gmail.com] >>> Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 7:22 AM >>> To: cf-community >>> Subject: Re: Palin email hacking case - guilty! >>> >>> >>> The kid didn't have a warrant and you've been bitching for years about >>> wireless wiretapping. Based on what both of you have said a warrant >>> isn't needed if they find something illegal. >>> >>> On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 11:43 PM, Dana <dana.tier...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> I think it's called a warrant, lol...that thing you are againt >>>> requiring for wiretaps. >>>> >>>>> So, you are saying the government or anyone else can invade your >>>>> privacy as long as they end up finding illegal activity? >>>>> How's that saying go? You have nothing to worry about as long as you >>>>> don't do anything wrong >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology-Michael-Dinowitz/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:317406 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
