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!
Here are the synonyms for lie from an online thesaurus. I've highlighted the words and phrases which represent the false claims you made against me:
aspersion, backbiting, calumniation, calumny, complete distortion of the facts, corker, deceit, deception, defamation, detraction, dishonesty, disinformation, distortion, evasion, fable, fabrication, falsehood, falseness, falsification, falsity, fib, fiction, fish story, forgery, fraudulence, guile, hyperbole, inaccuracy, invention, libel, mendacity, misrepresentation, misstatement, myth, obloquy, perjury, prevarication, revilement, reviling, slander, subterfuge, tale, tall story*, terminological inexactitude, vilification, white lie*, whopper
Some are not exact, but it is clear that your statements are synonyms for accusing me of not telling the truth, for trying to mislead people into believing falsehood rather than the truth. And your "examples" have been refuted.
As to the "dishonest" comment--yes... the statement you posted, that you were "quoting testimony" relative to Dr. Miller, was indeed a dishonest statement.
I have shown this statement of yours to be false, and yet you repeat it. The definition of repeating a statement that is shown to be false is "lie". That means you are lying. Sorry, the truth is the truth.
In the statement you referenced, I did NOT say I was "quoting testimony" relative to Dr. Miller, I said I was "quoting testimony" related to "limping". I then showed the original post which included a quoted testimony about limping, to prove I was telling the truth.
And yet you still insist I claimed to be "quoting" Dr. Miller, when I did not and I have shown you I did not. So you are either lying deliberately, or have completely ignored the clear evidence placed before you in order to score cheap points with your buddies who apparently you have little regard for as regards the truth.
The only thing you got right was your correction of my "3 million" statement (it was 1 million), and that Ramos did not stipulate to shooting Davila, but rather that his bullet ended up in Davila (a distinction without a difference).
But my response to those two instances shows that your claim I ignore things is also false, that in fact if you provided ANY evidence for your other claims I'd be happy to consider it.
As to your last point, it is illogical. I didn't say that my accusing you of lying was civil, I specifically said that your accusing me of lying made it impossible to respond civilly. Accusing you of lying was the result of not being able to respond civilly to your false accusations.
But no, I could be civil with someone who questions whether I am being accurate in my reports, if once I proved myself accurate they wouldn't continue to falsely accuse me of lying. It's not your questioning my posts that's the problem, it's your false attribution of motives and your refusal to admit when you are shown to be wrong.
But why belabor the point. Apparently I'd be OK with you so long as I just accused you of being dishonest, misrepresenting the facts, twisting the facts, and misleading the readers. So in the future I guess THAT's what I'll say, and you won't have reason to complain.