Tell me FD, would you call accusing me of "lying" because I said something that you disagree with - a lie?
Would you describe blatantly misrepresenting me by claiming the 3 articles I posted were to prove the resolutions were reported on - when in fact I couldn't have been more clear that thats not why I posted them - a lie? And what do you call continual evasion about this and your inability to concede that what you said was patently false? Would you call it hypocricy, and/or perhaps irony?
I disagree because it is a lie Gandalf.
polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 16
th, 2016 at 12:14pm:
FD what "blatant lies" have I resorted to?
Would you call insisting you provided information, including links, about the two resolutions on your home page article a lie? Or would you like to go on the record that it was an honest mistake on your part? Either way the information you insisted was there is not.
I just thought its prudent to mention this while you are throwing the accusation of lying at me.
Here you are quoting that information from the home page Gandalf:
polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 18
th, 2016 at 7:09pm:
The two major parties have broken promises they made twice to the Australian public in order to secure these seats. These promises took the form of Senate resolutions on 22 June 2010 and 29 June 1998. Both resolutions passed with bipartisan support and stated that the Senate will use the new, fairer method to determine which senators get full (6 year) terms in the event of a double dissolution election.
And here you are, again, yesterday and today, telling the same lie, despite my repeated efforts to point out the obvious to you.
polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 19
th, 2016 at 1:58pm:
freediver wrote on Sep 17
th, 2016 at 12:12pm:
Contrary to Gandalf's repeated assertions, I provided information about the two resolutions on the home page of this website.
And I'll assert it again. There is no information.
polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 20
th, 2016 at 12:28pm:
Indeed I am. Confused as to why you would so stubbornly persist with the lie that you provided any links or information about the two resolutions in the OP article on the home page:
Gandalf, is there any possible way to interpret this other than you telling the same lie, over and over again, despite me repeatedly pointing out that it was a lie, and you even providing the relevant quote from the site home page to show that it is a lie?
Are you going to explain the difference for us between a brief description and whatever other excuse you offered recently?