Enjoy.

[Zak S]

Zak, I've given links where people can review conversations where you were accused of a 'gish gallop', and judge the evidence for themselves. 

Burden of proof is on the accuser.

"The Gish gallop is a rhetorical technique that involves overwhelming your opponent with as many arguments as possible, with no regard for the accuracy, ..."

You have to prove I have no regard for accuracy, or else admit your claim has no rational basis.

No Zak, I don't.

Again, burden of proof fallacy.

Because you're lying.

You're not a reliable source of information.

[Tubesock Army]

That part about 'basic illiteracy' is an insult....

This all appear to be very old, which is fine, but we'll need to establish order-of-events to understand what you're on about:

Was this before or after your false claim about your tongue-shoving?

Zak moving goalposts, imagine my surprise...

[Rob Necronomicon]

That part about 'basic illiteracy' is an insult....

This all appear to be very old, which is fine, but we'll need to establish order-of-events to understand what you're on about:

Was this before or after your false claim about your tongue-shoving?

Zak moving goalposts, imagine my surprise...

I've missed you Tubesock!

[Zak S]

That part about 'basic illiteracy' is an insult....

This all appear to be very old, which is fine, but we'll need to establish order-of-events to understand what you're on about:

Was this before or after your false claim about your tongue-shoving?

Zak moving goalposts, imagine my surprise...

Asking whether what someone claims to be first-strike aggression is a first strike aggression isn't moving goalposts, it's clarification.

Claiming it's moving goalposts is another lie, and more proof you aren't honest.

[MeganovaStella]

That part about 'basic illiteracy' is an insult....

This all appear to be very old, which is fine, but we'll need to establish order-of-events to understand what you're on about:

Was this before or after your false claim about your tongue-shoving?

Zak moving goalposts, imagine my surprise...
[/quote

Asking whether what someone claims to be first-strike aggression is a first strike aggression isn't moving goalposts, it's clarification.

Claiming it's moving goalposts is another lie, and more proof you aren't honest.

wow, i guess that wojak post was accurate huh

[Tubesock Army]

That part about 'basic illiteracy' is an insult....

This all appear to be very old, which is fine, but we'll need to establish order-of-events to understand what you're on about:

Was this before or after your false claim about your tongue-shoving?

Zak moving goalposts, imagine my surprise...

I've missed you Tubesock!

Thanks brotha! Nice to see you, too!

[Rob Necronomicon]

That part about 'basic illiteracy' is an insult....

This all appear to be very old, which is fine, but we'll need to establish order-of-events to understand what you're on about:

Was this before or after your false claim about your tongue-shoving?

Zak moving goalposts, imagine my surprise...

I've missed you Tubesock!

Thanks brotha! Nice to see you, too!

Things are still as bonkers as ever! 

[deadDMwalking]

Zak,

I am disappointed that knowing you'd have 1-2 days to respond, the best you could come up with is 'liar liar, pants on fire'.  That's only barely a step below 'I know you are but what am I'.  Your juvenile insults are beneath even you, but I do admit, they would appear as good cover for my asserted claim you are an asshole.  Someone so completely immature would have trouble rising to the level of competence required to be an asshole.  Since you're not a naive 14-year-old, I'll just add immature to my list of insults to go with asshole.

Asking whether what someone claims to be first-strike aggression is a first strike aggression isn't moving goalposts, it's clarification.

Zak, one reason that you're so often accused of moving goal posts is that you IMPLY that you would accept something as proof, but never actually state it.  When they finally rise to the bait of proving something you implied you believed, you insist that it wasn't relevant to begin with.  I've asked you this straight out before - if you made an unprovoked attack, does that make you an asshole?  Or a troll?  Or a liar?  Or a person that doesn't even deserve medical treatment in a life-or-death emergency?  Because you have implied it over and over, but not actually said it straight out.

OR

If someone says mean things about other people AFTER provoking, is that a perfect defense?  When Cartman murders your parents, cooks them into a chili, and licks up your salty tears, is that justified if someone else started it?  Or would you agree that there's some principle of 'proportional response' that applies? 

I really want to know because either way, I have sufficient evidence to prove you're an asshole.  I just don't know which one you believe.   

[Zak S]

Zak, one reason that you're so often accused of moving goal posts is that you IMPLY that you would accept something as proof, but never actually state it.

Since it's been repeatedly proved that you lie, for example here:

Zak, I've given links where people can review conversations where you were accused of a 'gish gallop', and judge the evidence for themselves. 

Burden of proof is on the accuser.

"The Gish gallop is a rhetorical technique that involves overwhelming your opponent with as many arguments as possible, with no regard for the accuracy, ..."

You have to prove I have no regard for accuracy, or else admit your claim has no rational basis.

No Zak, I don't.

Again, burden of proof fallacy.

Because you're lying.

You're not a reliable source of information.

...it doesn't really matter what you think "implies" something else.

I am responsible for what I say, not for what your guess or claim is.

if you made an unprovoked attack, does that make you an asshole?

Yes.

That's something you repeatedly do and I didn't.

  Or a troll?

Depends on the nature of the attack. If you shoot someone that isn't really "trolling" it's just murder.

  Or a liar?

If the attack involves a lie, then it makes you a liar

Or a person that doesn't even deserve medical treatment in a life-or-death emergency?

Depends what you did. I'd say Hitler didn't.

  Because you have implied it over and over, but not actually said it straight out.

Who cares? If you're unsure, just ask.

If someone says mean things about other people AFTER provoking, is that a perfect defense?

"provoking" is yet another category, and I don't know what you consider "provoking".Who is provoking? By doing what?

You're derailing from the morally important thing which is dishonesty, to "mean things".

Do you understand that "lying" and "saying mean things" are two different things?

The most important thing is you're not honest. Here's some of the extensive proof of that again in case anyone missed it:

Zak, I've given links where people can review conversations where you were accused of a 'gish gallop', and judge the evidence for themselves. 

Burden of proof is on the accuser.

"The Gish gallop is a rhetorical technique that involves overwhelming your opponent with as many arguments as possible, with no regard for the accuracy, ..."

You have to prove I have no regard for accuracy, or else admit your claim has no rational basis.

No Zak, I don't.

[deadDMwalking]

Nobody reads your eye-cancer posts, asshole.  And since I did show that you attacked me before I insulted you, you've tacitly agreed that you are an asshole.  Progress. 

As for calling me a liar, I don't care.  I think everyone has lied in one way or another, so it's no more insulting than calling someone a human.   It matters if you're lying about the subject of discussion (like caught IN A LIE but I'm not lying when I call you an asshole. 

I'm probably lying when I say something like 'I'm starting to feel bad about calling you an asdhole when I start to think that you have real and deep-seated psychological problems and you should really see a professional psychologist'.  To be clear, I'm not lying when I say you should seek help, just the part about feeling bad.  I feel good when I call you an asshole.  I'll stop doing it when that changes.

[Zak S]

Nobody reads your eye-cancer posts, asshole.  And since I did show that you attacked me before I insulted you, you've tacitly agreed that you are an asshole. 

No I didn't.

You made the first attack, as demonstrated:

You falsely claimed I got something wrong.

I pointed out your mistake.

You didn't admit it, or even engage.

That's you attacking me. If you'd engaged, you might be able to claim it was constructive criticism, but you didn't--so it's just an attack. That's our first interaction.

But, more importantly: you're dishonest.

Whether or not you care that you're dishonest it's important everyone else know so that they don's accidentally believe any of the claims you make here.

[deadDMwalking]

You made the first attack, as demonstrated:

You falsely claimed I got something wrong.

I pointed out your mistake.

You didn't admit it, or even engage.

That's you attacking me. If you'd engaged, you might be able to claim it was constructive criticism, but you didn't--so it's just an attack. That's our first interaction.

Wait, you're legitimately claiming that me not saying anything to you is an attack?  That would be the most unique definition of attack I've ever seen. 

Similarly, your definition of 'liar' is extremely broad and would seem to apply equally to everyone.  As a result, I don't think it's relevant.  Even if I am a 'liar', which I don't think really applies, but ultimately, doesn't bother me as a label, it doesn't logically follow that everything I say is a lie.  More importantly, I have provided almost as much evidence in support of my position as you have.  Since I believe in the intelligence of my audience and don't believe in telling them that they're 'illogical to believe things' that you don't want them to believe, I remain satisfied with letting them draw their own conclusions.  It's in that vein that I am explaining why your argument that 'deaddmwalking can't be trusted' is extremely weak - I'm not ASKING anyone to trust me, and any belief you have (based on a very difficult to comprehend world-view) that I'm dishonest really just becomes a question of validating the source which is what I want.  I mean, I'd also kinda of enjoy you admitting that you're an asshole, but ultimately, I'm satisfied with you having shown it so often in this very thread, so I'm okay with what I have, rather than a pithy summary quote that I could bring up whenever you come up.  I mean, it'd certainly be easier if I could say, 'According to Zak S, he's an asshole, here's the quote'.  But that's just helpful for people that meet you for the first time; I think mostly there's enough people that are aware of you being an asshole now, that those people are likely to receive a warning early.  It's not all on my shoulders. 

[Zak S]

Wait, you're legitimately claiming that me not saying anything to you is an attack? 

No, claiming I was wrong without justification is an attack.

If you drive past a crowd on the street, point at someone and yell "That guy kicked a dog!" and they go "What? When? No I didn't!" and you just drive off, that's an attack.

More importantly, I have provided almost as much evidence in support of my position as you have. 

It's not a contest: Burden of proof is on the accuser.

You accused me, repeatedly--the burden of proving I did something wrong is on you.

You have repeatedly refused to provide that proof.

Since you claim what I did wrong was on the internet(and you clearly are still capable of typing), there is no possible excuse, and no explanation other than you're lying in your claims I did something wrong.

[deadDMwalking]

You accused me, repeatedly--the burden of proving I did something wrong is on you.

Zak, I'm not claiming that you did something wrong.  I'm claiming that you're an asshole.  I mean, I am saying I don't like you and I think there are good reasons why other people shouldn't like you either, but being an asshole isn't doing something wrong. 

Like, read The Scorpion and the Frog.  You're going to act in your nature and I don't have to like it, but it's not wrong.  It'd be wrong of me (and probably anyone else) to expect you to act differently. 

This is not a conversation of good versus evil, or retribution and revenge.  This is about my opinion that you're an asshole.  It boggles the mind that we're 60+ pages into this conversation (roughly 40+ since I joined) and you don't understand what an asshole even is.  It would be easier if you stopped trying to understand and just looked in a mirror. 

[Zak S]

Zak, I'm not claiming that you did something wrong. 

You've repeatedly claimed I was dishonest in a variety of ways, for example the "gish gallop" (see above on this page) as well as making a number of other false accusations throughout the thread.

So even in this comment you are lying in an easily provable way. It's all recorded.

You are not a reliable source of information.