quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

well for starters, I admit when I am wrong. 
No you do not.  You hedge and you waffle and do everything you can to justify your behavior.  The New York Times list the author of the article as a columnist.  The New York Times says that he writes opinion pieces and does  not report news.

I do not continue to push false information after being corrected. 
Just because you disagree with someone does not make you right and the other person a liar.

That is when it becomes a lie.  When you know it is false.  Go look up the California Hydrogen Highway if you are interested.
I have and that is how I know that you were mistaken.  Just because someone is mistaken does not them a liar make.  You might want to try and remember that in the future when you are tempted to so liberally shower the word liar in your posts.

Shell wanted to put hydrogen stations in, but they won't let them,
Who the fuck is "they" and why is that germain to this discussion.


they have them operating in Iceland and other nations.  I did confuse projections with facts on the ground, and it is happening slower than originally proposed.  Yum yum crow!!! 
It is not about eating crow it is about being abusive to those on CM whom you disagree with.

But I think I was generally right,
No you were not generally right...you were wrong but instead of calling you a liar we on CM simply figured you were mistaken and did not start calling you names.

and it is nothing like pretending that data is unsourced, when it clearly is. 
This discussion is about how you repeatedly call everyone you disagree with a liar.  Do you think the only place the newspaper puts opinion is on the editorial page....If you were to read the New York Times on a regular basis you will find opinion columns in many places including the sports page.

Shell is a major sponsor of the Ca Fuel cell partnership, which is working with the CHG.  Here is a map of what they have planned for 2010  http://www.carlist.com/autonews/2004/autonews_21.html

You stated the data was unsourced, you stated it was on the editorial page, you know those are false, yet cling to them (what can you call that but a lie?  Honestly please answer.),
If you would but read what I say you would understand.  You choose not to see anything that does not agree with your position. 
The writer of the opinion piece stated things that are suppose to be fact but relies on a second party as validation for facts unpresented.  If you were to look deeper you will find that the second party is in business with the lady from the University who does research to justify the position that blacks are genetically inferior.  When you find that  sort of shoddy scholarship it must lead one to question the source.


in some silly effort to defend the honor of Senator Kerry? 
Why on earth would you think I would defend Kerry?  He is no different than Bush.  My only argument is that the opinion you sited is just that opinion and while it may or may not be true it is still opinion and convoluted opinion at that.


WT?!?  Kery had his people comment on the findings in the article, basically they said,"who the hell cares about tests when we were 22 years old?", and did not dispute the validity of them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

OK, one last time....." It is from the editroial page (NO its not) of the New York times where one author cites another author who cites an unpresented source(NO the source of the DATA is represented.)
You misspelled editorial in what is suppose to be a quote from me.
 
"The New York Times list the author of the article as a columnist.  The New York Times says that he writes opinion pieces and does  not report news." 
 
This is infact a  lie. 
Just because you continue to repeat this does not make it true.
 
 There is no other way of putting it.  This is what the NYTimes actually says about his job at that time,  "From 2002 until 2005, except for a stint in 2003 in the Baghdad bureau, he was a correspondent in the Washington bureau, and wrote the weekly "Political Points" column during the 2004 presidential campaign. "  http://www.nytimes.com/ref/opinion/tierney-bio.html 
You seem able to find the source and read it but still not comprehend what it means.  You have just posted a statement from the New York Times that substantiates what I have been saying.  He is a columnist in the political points column which is opinion.
 
 
 The article in question was from 2004 and part of the Poltical Points collumn, when his job was Washington Correspondent.  He has been an editorialist at times...he was not then...
You say he was not but your post says he was.  You really do seem to have a comprehension problem.
 
He is the Science News guy now over there.

Now put up or be exposed as a liar...Show me where the NYtimes says he does not report news...you made the claim
You have just done it for me.  You have posted the New York Times statement that he writes the "political points" column.
You do seem to have a strong desire to call people, with whom you disagree, names.
This is suppose to be a discussion forum and not a place where you may come to be abusive and insulting.
No one has lied to you.  Many have disagreed with you only to be confronted with your vituperate verbiage.
When confronted with your own mistakes and misunderstandings you do not admit you were actually wrong but instead, like some child caught with their hand in the cookie jar, obfuscate and posture....everything except take responsibility for your actions.
You quote out of context and selectively quote.
When cornered you will take one sentence of a post and try to deflect the discussion while ignoring the substance of the post.
Is there some reason you feel compelled to call people names and assassinate their character?  No one in the history of CM has used the word liar 1/100th as many times as you have.  Does it somehow make you feel better than your peers to call them names and castigate them with your insults?

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

Thompson, I directly quoted, misspelling at all.
Yes you most certainly did.

Yet another example of your dishonesty.  You even lie to deny your own posts. 
Here again is a classic example of your problem....you do not comprehend what you read.

That you are also a poor speller is of no intrest to me.  That you lie about it is.
It is clear that I misspelled the word and so did you...what is your point?  It appears that your point is that  you just love to call people liars whether it is true or not.

http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=1166927    luckydog:
I can see why it only took you thirty seconds to find this.  It is from the editroial page of the New York times where one author cites another author who cites an unpresented source. Which in turn is commented on by yet a third source saying that the conclusions may (or may not be valid)
TYFSASAKM

Not all collumns are editorials,  you  know that. 
The point is that columns are opinions. 

I never denied that he wrote news collumns.
Now you have injected a phrase that has not previously been used.  News is news columns are opinion.


I never said he never penned an editorial, but the article in question is a news story.
That is your opinion, which you are entitled to no matter how fatuous it may be.  "Dear Abby" is a column not news.

At the time it was written he was the Washington Corresspondent, not editorial staff.
At the time it was written he was writing in an opinion column called "political points"

You don't want to get called a liar, quit lying
Your opinion of my,or any other post does not equate to that post being a lie.  You call people liars because you simply disagree with them.  That does not make them liars it simply shows you to be incapable of recognizing the difference.

You claim the NYTimes says he does not write news...that is a lie.  It's not a mistake.  It is not an insult to point that out.
The New York Times statement you posted says otherwise.  It would appear that you suffer from an inability to comprehend what you read.

Perhaps you are not lying and are just stupid, but I do not think you are stupid.  Should I admit to being wrong about you lying?
You will do what you choose to do.  You seek to take by invective what you cannot win with intellect.
You post false things, and even pretend you didn't make posts that you made (and this isn't the first time). 
You keep saying that but every time I challenge you to tell us just what it is that I said or did not say that has you so charged up you fail to do so.
So come on tell us, just what has your knickers in a bunch.

quote:

All Collumns are editorials? Are you saying Dear Abby is an editorial? because it is a collumn?

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

All Collumns are editorials? 
Once again you miss the mark and fail to comprehend what you read.  All editorials are opinion...not all opinion is editorial.  It appears that you are trying to set up a straw man.


Are you saying Dear Abby is an editorial?  because it is a collumn? 
It would appear that you are being intentionally perverse.  Or could it be the case that you can read and not comprehend what you read?

That's not a lie, its just stupid....Not you, just your words. 
So you are saying that what I say is stupid but not me...sounds a little convoluted to me.

You apperantly have no more of a grasp on what a collumn is, than you did on what a movie producer does.
Your cite about what a movie producer does supported my position and not yours.  Once again showing you can read but not comprehend what you read.

I don't change quotes when I post them, so why would I correct your spelling?  IMHO you do look foolish attacking others spelling while not making the grade your self, but hey keep it up.  Me, I care about ideas and facts, not spelling. 
It is quite clear that you care about neither. 

"OK, one last time....." It is from the editroial page (NO its not) of the New York times where one author cites another author who cites an unpresented source(NO the source of the DATA is represented.)
You misspelled editorial in what is suppose to be a quote from me. "  

It is not "suppose" to be a quote from you, it is a quote from you. Why were you pretending it's not?
Yet again you seem able to read without comprehension...I stated in my last post that that was my post and you misspelled the same word I did.

And for the 100th time, what I qouted from you is a lie.  As, it is in the US news Political section, and the source was given.  You could have simply admitted your mistake, but instead try to go on for pages with personal attackson me, and some wierd attempt to defend Kerry's honor.
I have made no personal attacks on you.  You are the one who constantly refers to people on this board as liars.  I also clearly stated that I had no intention of defending Kerry or his honor.
in some silly effort to defend the honor of Senator Kerry? 

From post#62
in some silly effort to defend the honor of Senator Kerry? 
Why on earth would you think I would defend Kerry?  He is no different than Bush.  My only argument is that the opinion you sited is just that opinion and while it may or may not be true it is still opinion and convoluted opinion at that. 




All you have to do is show me where the NYTimes says what you claim it does, that he does not write news, and poof... I am defeated and slink away with a mouthfull of Crow.
You do not have to slink away nor eat anything but it would be refreshing if you were to quit calling anyone who disagrees with you a liar.
from post#63
"From 2002 until 2005, except for a stint in 2003 in the Baghdad bureau, he was a correspondent in the Washington bureau, and wrote the weekly "Political Points" column during the 2004 presidential campaign. "  http://www.nytimes.com/ref/opinion/tierney-bio.html
Please note that it says "and wrote the Political Points column" and is important here because it points out that in addition to his other duties he also wrote an opinion column.
Please note in the link you provided the word "opinion" preceding Mr. Tierney's name

But you can't do that.  Because your claim was a lie.  Many of your claims in this thread have been.
So you see my claims are not lies.  What we have is simply you choosing to call anyone who disagrees with you a liar.

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

Actually it does Farg, thanks.  A collumn is just a dedicated area for a writter to do a piece.  There are News Collumns,
This is your opinion as differentiated from fact.

Advice Collumns, Opinion Collumns, Editorial collumns, ect.  So what is the opinion pushed by the collumn in question? 
It is opinion based on evidence not presented but alluded to by a second party and substantiated by yet a third party who is in business with the second party...all of whom have rather questionable credibility.


None, it is a list of sourced facts,
It is a list of alleged facts.

with responses by the principal people.  That is a news story (or column).
No it is an opinion in a column.

If the piece had gone on to say that Intelligence is paramount in the president so we must elect Bush because he has a 2 point lead in IQ over kerry it would be an editorial.  Or if it said Eggheads are terrible leaders so we must vote for Kerry as he has a lower IQ, it would be an editorial. 
Opinion is what the New York Times calls it.

quote:

It would appear that you suffer from an inability to comprehend what you read.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

It would appear that you suffer from an inability to comprehend what you read.

Welcome to the club, luckydog.  Just wanted you to know that I consider myself in good company.

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

thompson, lets just cut through all your BS here....I have had disagreements with just about every regular poster in the politcal threads, including those I agree with on most issues.  Only 2 have earned the priveledge of being called a liar.
I find it most instructive that you feel it is a privilege to be called a liar.


That you keep pretending I call anyone who disagrees with me a liar, says a lot about you.   It ain't true, not even close.   Technically you claiming that anyone I disagree with I call a liar, is a lie.  You have told close to a dozen lies in this thread, and I am calling you on them....
You keep saying that but you also keep failing to do so.


Your first post to me on this thread contained 3 false statements.  That you continue to hold to them after being shown the truth makes you a liar.
I only hold to the truth it is you who fail to comprehend what you read. 


There is only one other poster on here that I have dealt with who lies so ridiculously.  Why are you telling lies to defend Kerry ?
From post#62
in some silly effort to defend the honor of Senator Kerry? 
Why on earth would you think I would defend Kerry?  He is no different than Bush.  My only argument is that the opinion you sited is just that opinion and while it may or may not be true it is still opinion and convoluted opinion at that. 

It looks like you are still having trouble comprehending what you read.