[Akhenaten]

hurley_108 hurley_108:

Akhenaten Akhenaten:

$1:

So what I was saying is that just because he was picked up by police for odd behavior, and diagnosed with schizophrenia, was not grounds to lock him up indefinitely.

No but it is grounds to keep him under observation to decern if he should be 'locked up' indefinitely....

...observation which he ran away from.

And not 'odd behaviour' (there's that obtuseness again) but rather behaviour which could have posed a risk to either himself or others.



Akh

In case you didn't realize, it's clear as day when you go back and put stuff in your posts you didn't write before:

Last edited by Akhenaten on 2009-03-05, 16:01:36, edited 1 time in total.

Dude i did not add the quote from the article that you refused to read. You are really reaching now. I did not change my assertion -- the one you demanded I back up and my edit, in case you couldn't see comes *before* your demand that I back it up so just stop. You're being silly.

This is the post you challenged me to back up --

current-events-f59/greyhound-bus-killer-found-not-criminally-responsible-t73017-150.html#p1438123

not THIS one:
current-events-f59/greyhound-bus-killer-found-not-criminally-responsible-t73017-150.html#p1438130
where you quote the edit time for the wrong post.

THIS
"Last edited by Akhenaten on 2009-03-05, 15:50:06, edited 1 time in total. "

...so WTF are you talking about with "16:012:36"?!?!!

unbelievable.

Can you or can you not admit that he was already under observation to determine whether or not he should be held indefinitely or released?

Akh

[Akhenaten]

Didn't think so.

[hurley_108]

Akhenaten Akhenaten:

hurley_108 hurley_108:

Akhenaten Akhenaten:

No but it is grounds to keep him under observation to decern if he should be 'locked up' indefinitely....

...observation which he ran away from.

And not 'odd behaviour' (there's that obtuseness again) but rather behaviour which could have posed a risk to either himself or others.



Akh

In case you didn't realize, it's clear as day when you go back and put stuff in your posts you didn't write before:

Last edited by Akhenaten on 2009-03-05, 16:01:36, edited 1 time in total.

Dude i did not add the quote from the article that you refused to read. You are really reaching now. I did not change my assertion -- the one you demanded I back up and my edit, in case you couldn't see comes *before* your demand that I back it up so just stop. You're being silly.

This is the post you challenged me to back up --

current-events-f59/greyhound-bus-killer-found-not-criminally-responsible-t73017-150.html#p1438123

and THIS
"Last edited by Akhenaten on 2009-03-05, 15:50:06, edited 1 time in total. "

...is the last time I editted it, so WTF are you talking about with "16:012:36"?!?!!




unbelievable.
Akh

You've been editing your posts left, right and center, and you're hiding behind the fact that the substance of the edit isn't recorded, dancing around time stamps. You can't even copy and paste correctly. You edited two posts on the previous page, I was referring to the second.

I claim that you added the quote and link after the fact. You claim you didn't. Neither of us can prove our assertion.

[hurley_108]

Just for point of fact, the only thing I changed in the quote in my last point, was to remove the top layer of quote for embedded quotes. You changed your top post on this page at least twice, but not before I made my post. The edit tracker posts an edit note if you edit after another post has been made.

[Akhenaten]

No you're the one hiding. I did not edit the article. That much is obvious and it's the article that backs my assertion. You can't even figure out which post is in question.

$1:

I claim that you added the quote and link after the fact. You claim you didn't. Neither of us can prove our assertion

Yeah actually I can and already did -

I editted it at 15:-something or other last, and you challenged me to back it up after 16:00-whatever.

The FACT REMAINS THE LAST TIME I EDITTED THE POST IN QUESTION WAS BEFORE YOU CHALLENGED ME TO BACK IT UP AND NOT ONCE SINCE, SO LOGICALLY EVERYTHING THAT WAS THERE WHEN YOU CHALLENGED ME TO BACK IT UP IS STILL THERE AND HASN'T CHANGED. DO YOU GET IT YET? LOGICALLY I COULD NOT HAVE ADDED ANYTHING AFTER YOU CHALLENGED ME TO BACK UP WHAT IS SITTING RIGHT THERE IN THE ARTICLE.

Sorry Hurly but you're the one hiding. Answer the question at hand and quit making shit up.


unbelievable. Are you 12 or something?


Akh

[hurley_108]

Akhenaten Akhenaten:

No you're the one hiding. I did not edit the article. That much is obvious and it's the article that backs my assertion. You can't even figure out which post is in question. The FACT REMAINS I EDITTED THE POST IN QUESTION BEFORE YOU CHALLENGED ME TO BACK IT UP AND NOT ONCE SINCE, SO LOGICALLY EVERYTHING THAT WAS THERE WHEN YOU CHALLENGED ME TO BACK IT UP IS STILL THERE. DO YOU GET IT YET?

Sorry Hurly but you're the one hiding. Answer the question at hand and quit making shit up.



Akh

That you edited the post after I challenged you for proof does not prove that it was there, only that you edited your post before anyone else posted.

[hurley_108]

Akhenaten Akhenaten:

No you're the one hiding. I did not edit the article. That much is obvious and it's the article that backs my assertion. You can't even figure out which post is in question.

$1:

I claim that you added the quote and link after the fact. You claim you didn't. Neither of us can prove our assertion

Yeah actually I can and already did -

I editted it at 15:-something or other last, and you challenged me to back it up after 16:00-whatever.

The FACT REMAINS I EDITTED THE POST IN QUESTION BEFORE YOU CHALLENGED ME TO BACK IT UP AND NOT ONCE SINCE, SO LOGICALLY EVERYTHING THAT WAS THERE WHEN YOU CHALLENGED ME TO BACK IT UP IS STILL THERE AND HASN'T CHANGED. DO YOU GET IT YET?

Sorry Hurly but you're the one hiding. Answer the question at hand and quit making shit up.


unbelievable.


Akh

See how much stuff is in this post now than in the quote in my post above? do you claim you did not edit that post?

[hurley_108]

Akhenaten Akhenaten:

No you're the one hiding. I did not edit the article. That much is obvious and it's the article that backs my assertion. You can't even figure out which post is in question.

$1:

I claim that you added the quote and link after the fact. You claim you didn't. Neither of us can prove our assertion

Yeah actually I can and already did -

I editted it at 15:-something or other last, and you challenged me to back it up after 16:00-whatever.

The FACT REMAINS THE LAST TIME I EDITTED THE POST IN QUESTION WAS BEFORE YOU CHALLENGED ME TO BACK IT UP AND NOT ONCE SINCE, SO LOGICALLY EVERYTHING THAT WAS THERE WHEN YOU CHALLENGED ME TO BACK IT UP IS STILL THERE AND HASN'T CHANGED. DO YOU GET IT YET? LOGICALLY I COULD NOT HAVE ADDED ANYTHING AFTER YOU CHALLENGED ME TO BACK UP WHAT IS SITTING RIGHT THERE IN THE ARTICLE.

Sorry Hurly but you're the one hiding. Answer the question at hand and quit making shit up.


unbelievable. Are you 12 or something?


Akh

Edited again.

[Akhenaten]

$1:

above? do you claim you did not edit that post

No. What does that have to do with anything? Nothing.
There's that obtuseness again.

one more time lets see if you get it yet. It's really very simple:
The FACT REMAINS I EDITTED THE POST IN QUESTION BEFORE YOU CHALLENGED ME TO BACK IT UP AND NOT ONCE SINCE, SO LOGICALLY EVERYTHING THAT WAS THERE WHEN YOU CHALLENGED ME TO BACK IT UP IS STILL THERE AND HASN'T CHANGED. DO YOU GET IT YET?

Do you understand the concept of linear time or not? The post was editted before you challenged me to back it up and never since. Do we need to draw you a diagram?



Akh

[Akhenaten]

OMG -- what a squirmer this Hurley guy is. All because he's afraid to face the question.

[hurley_108]

Akhenaten Akhenaten:

$1:

above? do you claim you did not edit that post

No. What does that have to do with anything? Nothing.
There's that obtuseness again.

one more time lets see if you get it yet. It's really very simple:
The FACT REMAINS I EDITTED THE POST IN QUESTION BEFORE YOU CHALLENGED ME TO BACK IT UP AND NOT ONCE SINCE, SO LOGICALLY EVERYTHING THAT WAS THERE WHEN YOU CHALLENGED ME TO BACK IT UP IS STILL THERE AND HASN'T CHANGED. DO YOU GET IT YET?

Do you understand the concept of linear time or not? The post was editted before you challenged me to back it up and never since. Do we need to draw you a diagram?



Akh

Quoted for posterity.

[hurley_108]

Akhenaten Akhenaten:

OMG -- what a squirmer this Hurley guy is. All because he's afraid to face the question.

Quoted for posterity.

[Akhenaten]

Still ducking the fact that you've been lying about this post editting stuff from the beginning? Still hiding?

I'll ask it again:

The FACT REMAINS I EDITTED THE POST IN QUESTION BEFORE YOU CHALLENGED ME TO BACK IT UP AND NOT ONCE SINCE, SO LOGICALLY EVERYTHING THAT WAS THERE WHEN YOU CHALLENGED ME TO BACK IT UP IS STILL THERE AND HASN'T CHANGED. DO YOU GET IT YET?


Care to answer? Your original charge that I editted my post after you challenged me to back it up has been proven false. Thank you.

[Akhenaten]

hurley_108 hurley_108:

Akhenaten Akhenaten:

OMG -- what a squirmer this Hurley guy is. All because he's afraid to face the question.

Quoted for posterity.

^^ Hurely ducking the question he knows he can't answer. Quoted for hilariousness and perhaps for later nomination for douche of the year.

[hurley_108]

The fact is that you edited your post to put in a quote that wasn't there. hat the edit notes don't capture that does not mean you did not make the edit. I know you made it, you know you made it, and you're hiding behind incomplete logs.