No, YOU added to it, and then I commented on it. If RLENT had brought it up and then you hadn't added to it, I'd have never touched it.
I never accused you of bragging. And the only thing on my agenda is the truth and the accurate relay and dissemination of information.
Do you want a list? do you really want to go there?
I agree. I do, however, think that's ironic considering someone who allegedly made a career out of checking the validity of information would be so cavalier with the truth. Perhaps you have always done so, I don't know.
I agree.
If that actually happened, yeah, it would be childish. But that's not what happened. Remember, my initial reply in this thread addressed the misinformation and outright lies from the Web site you sourced, and I said nothing, not one word, about you.
It wasn't until you defending the post and the posting of it, that you became part of the discussion. I noted some basic observations and commented on them. Pointing out the obvious is not belittling someone. To belittle someone is to portray them or their actions or accomplishments as less impressive or important than appearances and reality indicate, or to denigrate something down to a less impressive stature. It's hard to denigrate reckless, irresponsible and untrustworthy to a less impressive state.
You post pure crap fiction like what started this thread, and then you have the gall to call what I post "nonsense"? Are you kiddin' me?
Again, we have a failure of comprehension and reality. I did not bring up your previous career. That was a tag-team effort between RLENT and you. If you have a problem with your previous career being brought up, then you need to talk to those two people, not me.
As for calling you a liar, I did not. I am very exacting in choosing my words and chose them carefully to mean precisely what they say. I called you someone who purposely spreads lies and falsehoods for your own agenda, which may be a small distinction from a liar, but it is an important one. I said the story from "Before it's News" is a blatant lie, created to incite the anger of others on a substantial scale, and that you read it and believed it. That's not even close to calling you a liar.
Now, if you posted something that you knew to be a lie, and knew it before you posted it, then you'd be a liar. But I've never levied that charge. The charge I accused you with is posting lies and falsehoods without even bothering to find out the validity or truthfulness of the information, which is both reckless and irresponsible. I would think that you, being a former LEO, would have more respect for your fellow man than that.
And while I'm on that subject, I find it troubling that I'm having to re-explain to you what I've already said because you failed to comprehend it the first time. It may be that I have been woefully misinformed, but I have always been under the impression that a police detective was someone in possession of a high level of intellect, as least on the level of a regular cop, and who has an accomplished level of critical thinking and comprehension skills. Have I been misinformed? Because I'm just not seeing it.
If you're going to call me names, the least you could do is use names that have some sort of semblance of validity. An egomaniac is Obama. I am not Obama. An egomaniac is someone with an abnormally high level of egotism, an abnormal and obsessive love for oneself and regard for one's own needs. The only thing I am maniacal about is truth and honesty.
Welcome to the Internet, a place where speeling and grammer will be atrocious and the Grammar Nazi's rule with a heavy hand.
I do have to ask, are you aware that the manner in which you randomly capitalize words, or at least what appears to be random, requires far more effort than simply
not pressing the SHIFT key? I'm not criticizing, I'm more awestruck but it, at least what you write is readable. I would love to know how something that unique and that bizarre developed as a writing style. I know a grammarian who could have a field day with your writing style.
