On Sun, Nov 03, 2019 at 12:18:15AM -0300, Punk - Stasi 2.0 wrote:
> >On Sun, 3 Nov 2019 13:32:19 +1100
> >Zenaan Harkness <
zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
>
>
>> > Folks around here have been trying REALLY hard to stay pleasant, and
> >> respectful, and constructive, towards you specifically.
>
>> > This includes everyone you rail against - me, Rayzer, Busby etc.
>
>
>> what the fuck are you talking about - the only thing US military
>> agent tazer has done is trolling and show that he is a completely
>> retarded fucktard by claiming "the whole archive is missing" when
>> it ovbviously isn't.
>Sometimes we just don't see what we can't see.
I guess you are using truisms with other people, too.
>Rayzer has (relatively gently/ light heartedly in my extremely high
opinion) attempted to mention "alternatives" to Jim, since Jim's
thinking seemed (possibly) to be both
> a) limited
? b) inclined to accusations of others
>Frankly, although Jim was not able to hear that part of Rayzer's
attempt to communicate with him, that's at least a part of what may
be read into Rayzer's words - some good intentions.
> it is pretty obvious that the archive provided by ryan lackey, US
> MILITARY CONTRACTOR IN IRAQ, has been tampered with.
>Of course this may well be the case.
>Nothing I've said suggests otherwise.
>Jim fell into threats,
Thank you for reminding me! I knew there was something I'd _forgotten_ to add to my comments! I forgot the THREATS! Ha ha!
>against someone who at least on a superficial
reading of his (Busby's) words, was attempting to assist Jim's
investigation.
Who was that person? Quote him.
>I am suggesting that Jim ought tone it down, for Jim's own benefit.
Well, since you seem to have misinterpreted my attempts at humor as something else...
>Threats are ugly.
Lies are ugly, too. Falsely implying that somebody else made "threats" is a lie. NOW, maybe you'll claim, "Jim falsely accused me of saying he'd given threats!". See how this works?
> They are also demeaning to the one making the
threats and expose intolerance, anger and possible intentions
unspoken.
See, you write a general statement, as if you are referring to something else somebody actually said, and you OMIT the evidence or quote.
>Threats
Again, you imply that somebody has written a "threat". How so? Quote it. Exact words, please.
> bring the attention of the law,
Actually, I have discovered that at least in America, in 1995 and later, using no threats at all, ALSO "brings the attention of the law". Seemingly ANYTHING "brings the attention of the law".
>and possibly of psych ward
"infirmaries", and so it may be in Jim's interest to tone down in
regard to threatening folks.
It's curious that you are repeatedly using various forms of that word, "threat", "threats", "threatening", etc.
As if by your mere repetition of them, you could make your claim (or implications) true.
One interesting interpretation is that you are aware, or at least you believe, that a "law enforcement" person could employ your imaginative uses of various forms of "threat" language, and write some form of a warrant which happens to gloss over the actual absence of any "threat", but focuses solely on somebody else's (your) repeated false implications. Maybe the cop would write, "this Zenaan repeatedly accused the other person of giving threats!!!". Perhaps some judges are too 'slow' to notice such slick manipulation.
Sorta the same way the Democrats got those FISA warrants in 2016.
Maybe you think you're slick.
>And in this regard, Razer is also bang on topic!
