Replies

Paraphrasing and revising testimony, then presenting it as "quoting testimony" is more than misleading. It is dishonest.

In hte previous post's thread, I specifically said I was NOT quoting testimony, so your charge is false. And I have shown that the exact testimony was precisely what I said it was, the doctor said the injury was life-threatening.

In THIS post's thread, the "testimony" is about Davila limping, and I did provide EXACT QUOTES FROM THE TRANSCRIPTS. Your claim I did not is false.

I could have noted you failed to understand the thread without sounding so condescending. But it is frustrating that those supporting C/R have such little regard for the truth that they will misstate things that are right in the thread.

In hte previous post's thread, I specifically said I was NOT quoting testimony, so your charge is false.

So I should just ignore when you subsequently presented that same post as direct testimony and quotes?

"It's a shame that quoting testimony is considered misleading..."

And I have shown that the exact testimony was precisely what I said it was, the doctor said the injury was life-threatening.

See above post. The doctor did not say the injury was life-threatening.

In THIS post's thread, the "testimony" is about Davila limping, and I did provide EXACT QUOTES FROM THE TRANSCRIPTS. Your claim I did not is false.

With respect to limping, that is not what I said. I did say that your selective presentation misrepresented the timing of the events.

I could have noted you failed to understand the thread without sounding so condescending.

I didn't fail to understand anything. But yes, you did sound condescending--and have since called me a liar, implied I am an idiot, and attacked my honor. Ever consider Dale Carnegie?

But it is frustrating that those supporting C/R have such little regard for the truth that they will misstate things that are right in the thread.

You are questioning my regard for truth? Give me a break!