Here are some examples:
I will insist that you misrepresent the facts
People ain’t buying the twisted version of the story you are selling.
Paraphrasing and revising testimony, then presenting it as "quoting testimony" is more than misleading. It is dishonest.
Still presenting your paraphrased version as "direct testimony," huh?
So in this thread, you called me dishonest, misleading, twisted, and misrepresenting. All synonyms for lying. You have directly charged me with lying about the facts I am presenting. Further, you have done so falsely, as in each cited case I was correct and accurate about the facts.
So when you claim you didn't accuse me of lying, you are in fact making a semantic argument that you didn't use the word, when it is clear that you did accuse me of lying, simply by using other words. Now you are claiming not to have done so, which does seem to be misleading as your intent is to convince others that you have NOT in fact impugned my integrity on this discussion.
I will further note that your attacks on my character started PRIOR to any of my counter-charges against you. When you call someone a liar, you have to expect some blowback, especially when your accusation is false.
Sorry, there is really no "civil" was to debate with someone who accuses the opponent of lying, especially falsely. The very accusation is meant to cut off debate, to prevent a discussion of the issues, and is generally used by those who realise they cannot win on the merits.
I don't know whether that was your purpose, or if you simply wanted to call me a liar.
Also, if we are parsing words, I did not say you called the doctor a liar, I asked if you were saying the doctor was lying. In other words, I gave you the opportunity to explain why you were disagreeing with the direct testimony of the doctor. Once you explained, I did not repeat the question, or accuse you of the deed, as your explanation showed that you in fact agreed with the doctor.
That is how one can have a civilized discourse, by questioning statements that seem off in hopes that the opposition can clarify.
You simply want to ignore what I've said and accuse me of things I haven't said in order to impugn my integrity so you don't have to answer the substantive arguments.
As to your backhand claim that I am ignoring what is posted, I challenge you to provide an instance from this thread where I responded in a way that ignored the argument made against my position. If you find one, I'll address it.
No, I did not call you that. And NO, I did not charge you with "lying about the facts." I pointed out that you were twisting facts, misrepresenting facts, and posting misleading (selective) information. I gave specific examples of each item. As to the "dishonest" comment--yes... the statement you posted, that you were "quoting testimony" relative to Dr. Miller, was indeed a dishonest statement.
Sorry, there is really no "civil" was to debate with someone who accuses the opponent of lying, especially falsely.
So, it is not possible for you to be civil with someone who challenges your posts as being inaccurate and misrepresenting facts?
Yet when you call me a "liar," it's okay? Whew! There is some logic!