Deceiver of the whole world

@fmf said
Ah yes, just as I thought.

What does that mean?

Do you have a little secret?

@secondson said
What does that mean?

Read my post before it.

@secondson said
I can see Kelly's point of view though. I believe he's justified in ignoring those he feels are disingenuous in debate.

A few hours before this latest boycott started, he congratulated me for the way I debate, the way I put forward my ideas, and for the thought that I put into what I post. There was nothing "disingenuous" about calling him out about the family thing.

@secondson said
Well, the whole matter is none of my business anyway.

It's up to you.

@fmf said
I think you are probably lying about this so that you can pluck some self-serving "analysis" about it out of thin air.

Why should I lie? I recall the incident. Not the details as I was not personally involved as far as I recall.

But it appears you are now resorting to you usual "analysis" mode because you think everyone else has the same motives as you.

@secondson said
That's it. I'm not here to join a circle jerk to stroke someone's ego.

BUMP for SecondSon.

Are you referring here to men masturbating together in a group? "Circle jerk"?

@secondson said
Why should I lie? I recall the incident. Not the details as I was not personally involved as far as I recall.

I just don't believe you.

@secondson said
But it appears you are now resorting to you usual "analysis" mode because you think everyone else has the same motives as you.

Everybody here has their own unique set of motives, interests, analyses and agendas. Everybody here has their own unique online persona.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
I agree that we are each under no compulsion to respond to posts or posters. However, we were not talking about 'responding' to posts but 'reading' them.

Say the 2 of us had exchanged several posts in a particular thread on a very specific subject, and because Kelly never read my posts he instead responded to one of your posts in isolation with no knowledge of the ...[text shortened]... en, due to him not taking the times to read the few posts that preceded my own. It's a tad annoying.

I hear ya!

It's like the way divegeester accuses me of getting angry, for no apparent reason, except for his misinterpretation of my intent, when its just annoyance.

@fmf said
Read my post before it.

I did. You think I'm lying. Nice debating with you today. At least in this thread. 🤥

@fmf said
BUMP for SecondSon.

Are you referring here to men masturbating together in a group? "Circle jerk"?

BUMP for FMF for insinuating ill intent because he lost the thread and can't remember the context of the previous posts.

@fmf said
I just don't believe you.

I don't believe you either.

@fmf said
Everybody here has their own unique set of motives, interests, analyses and agendas. Everybody here has their own unique online persona.

Start a thread about it. Might make for a lively discussion.

@secondson said
I did. You think I'm lying. Nice debating with you today. At least in this thread. 🤥

Yes, I think you are lying. Nothing that you posted for 2-3 pages leading up to you suddenly claiming that you "recall" the incident, but "not the details" [ha ha], suggested you had even the slightest clue what the "incident" was about, aside from what I was saying about it. Lo and behold, suddenly you could "recall" it - but only enough to remember that I "took advantage of" KellyJay. Ha ha. What self-serving nonsense. Where is your self-respect?

@secondson said
Start a thread about it. Might make for a lively discussion.

It answered your 'point'. That is sufficient.