Sandman
In article <ldms99p6t06r6o5baabtv1eqrmica3l0sp@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens wrote:

I still don't know what you're getting at here. I think you don't know much about databases, yes. What does this have to do with your claim that you can't expalin what you programmed on the PC because it's too complicated?

Eric Stevens
Because before I even started to explain you called me a liar and tried to throw me out of the discussion. What sort of motivation do you think that provides?

Sandman
I'm not trying to motivate you, Eric. I'm asking you to support your claims. You know full well that you rarely, if ever, support the multitude of claims you make. How many threads haven't there been where I am continously asking you to substantiate a claim, and having to conclude that you can't and you know you can't, but since you refuse to retract the claim, is thus a liar?

Eric Stevens
You have a strange definition of 'liar'.

Sandman
Yes, you seem to think that dictionary definitions are "strange".

lie an intentionally false statement

So, when you made this claim:

Eric Stevens 11/28/2013 <s14d99tpigvh1jt1g2idvq17u7j8h16t9q@4ax.com>

"The problem in this case is that neither of you properly understand the meaning of 'protocol'."

It could have been a mistake on your part, and you have two choices here:

1. Support your claim 2. Apologize, or at least admit to having made a mistake

Since 1 is not an actual option since you can't support it, since your claim is false, the only other viable option is number 2, which you also refuse to do.

That means that you are fully aware of the fact that the statement is false and your refusal to admit it means that it is intentional.

Thus, it's a lie.