Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Just scroll back a bit and see the screenshots TH has posted. Proof's all there.
How to tell if you're a Marxist
- Thread starter Gary K
- Start date
Just scroll back a bit and see the screenshots TH has posted. Proof's all there.
That's how I took it.
I'll use an existing pm of correspondence with someone because I don't want to start a whole new pm for a different question I have.
What was asked and answered before was different than what was asked and answered this time, even though it was a continuation of the same pm.
So when asked "Who brought it up first?", it would be the one that asked the particular question in question.
What was the question again????
hehe!
This thing is going to go CSI pretty quick here.
We need a Photoshop expert.
Who can look at the pixels.
Okay, I've figured this out.
GM wrote to me at the end of March (the 26th) and I responded. Very late correspondence. Several days later I apparently responded to the same PM again. No reason for him not to note the RE or the fact that I'm literally quoting/responding to him within the PM, but I did make an inadvertent contribution to the confusion by forgetting that a week earlier, at nearly 3 in the am, I'd already answered the PM. :chuckle:
And now you know the rest of the story.
GM wrote to me at the end of March (the 26th) and I responded. Very late correspondence. Several days later I apparently responded to the same PM again. No reason for him not to note the RE or the fact that I'm literally quoting/responding to him within the PM, but I did make an inadvertent contribution to the confusion by forgetting that a week earlier, at nearly 3 in the am, I'd already answered the PM. :chuckle:
And now you know the rest of the story.
All it shows is when pms were sent back and forth.
Those screenshots do not show who asked a particular question (or made a particular statement) first.
They actually do, given that GM sent the first PM and everything from me was responsive. As it turns out, it was doubly responsive (see: my last) but there's no confusion on the point of it as response and not initiation. The time and date stamps are clear enough.
The PMs in question is from May 2, 2018 AD. That was the date TH wrote me a PM and I wrote him back. They're saying that I wrote him first, which isn't the truth.
That's true. I now know how Trump feels. :think:
musterion
Well-known member
Never been to Waffle House, have you.
Questions weren't involved. Comments and statements only.
Sherman will handle this. I have full confidence in her.
I posted what TH had said to me in that initial PM he made, either on this thread or one of the other ones where he and I were posting on together. It's on one of those threads.
Has TH agreed to the deal I suggested? Will he leave TOL if he's found to be the 'Culprit' that lied?
One of us is lying and it will be up to Sherman to find out who?
I'm fully confident that I have spoken the truth and expect to be exonerated soon.
Should Sherman not wish to be included in this investigation, TH and I will have to come to some appropriate conclusion to this, most intriguing dilemma?
The timestamps tell only when pms were sent and received.
That means nothing to me, as I have already said that it is common for me to continue the same started pm, but with a different set of questions or statements.
It does not show if the May 2nd pm you responded to was just a recapitulation of your earlier response or if it was a entirely new response to a new statements.
Post all the pms sent and received between you and GM (what was it, 4 of them all together?)
It shouldn't be a problem since GM has already revealed one of them.
Post them all and let us all see what it was that started all this BIG DEAL.
My guess is that it is so petty that everyone will be embarrassed they even joined in the witch hunt.
But I could be wrong, hard to tell without knowing the whole story.
So quit squirreling around and post all the pms so we can see what all this hubbub is really all about.
musterion
Well-known member
That's what Eichmann said. I'm just saying.
I would be fully prepared to swear in a court of law that I have spoken the truth and nothing but the truth.