There’s no way you can say that the inquiry was about tomatoes as much as it was about addiction. Not without being incredibly stupid or incredibly dishonest.
You are now intentionally leaving out multiple paragraphs of content that would prove the opposite, which adds to your deception.
Demonstrate a grain of honesty by fixing your lies and maybe you’ll have a right to talk.
Yours was essentially “it doesn’t matter if he said addiction or not, he was dodging the question. All the evidence points towards him claiming that much usage is not an addiction.”
I told you what your point was. Over and over. And I told you how you were misleading (and now, just intentionally dishonest). Quite a few people seem to understand exactly what I told you.
So if you think there’s a communication issue, it’s on your side to fix.
You got it wrong and aren’t willing to recognize that. The fact that you can’t even paraphrase my point (no matter how wrong you think I am) shows just how out of your depth that you are.
The stupid/malicious dichotomy just keeps coming up with you, huh. How did you miss the explanations? Ditto for your original wrong comment.
Even if you think you are right, o arbiter of truth, apparently dozens of people disagree with your take when shown context. That’s on you bro. Go fix it.
You support lying. Good to know.
If you don’t understand the tomato comment, no wonder you’re having so much trouble with the interpretation and lying topics!
There’s no way you can say that the inquiry was about tomatoes as much as it was about addiction. Not without being incredibly stupid or incredibly dishonest.
You are now intentionally leaving out multiple paragraphs of content that would prove the opposite, which adds to your deception.
Demonstrate a grain of honesty by fixing your lies and maybe you’ll have a right to talk.
You really don’t understand and are just driving the point home the more you post. I feel kinda sorry for you.
Please defend your use of your lying false equivalency. Demonstrate your wisdom, Truth Seeker.
What do you think my original point was?
Yours was essentially “it doesn’t matter if he said addiction or not, he was dodging the question. All the evidence points towards him claiming that much usage is not an addiction.”
I told you what your point was. Over and over. And I told you how you were misleading (and now, just intentionally dishonest). Quite a few people seem to understand exactly what I told you.
So if you think there’s a communication issue, it’s on your side to fix.
You got it wrong and aren’t willing to recognize that. The fact that you can’t even paraphrase my point (no matter how wrong you think I am) shows just how out of your depth that you are.
The stupid/malicious dichotomy just keeps coming up with you, huh. How did you miss the explanations? Ditto for your original wrong comment.
Even if you think you are right, o arbiter of truth, apparently dozens of people disagree with your take when shown context. That’s on you bro. Go fix it.
How can you be arguing with someone and not even know what their position is? No, none of your prior posts come close.
Naw, screw “know” - you’re fucking clueless. You have no idea and are screaming into the wind.