Sandman
In article <rb01a9dhhfba7sbgfupv40a1clbtta0i3c@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com>wrote:

I have worked six years as the Art Director of a magazine.

Of course not. Everything I said is 100% true - except perhaps how long I worked as an Art Director, it may have been five or even four years. I may have exaggaretaed that part.

Tony Cooper
To Jonas, anything that anyone else posts that Jonas doesn't feel is "substantiated" is a "lie".

Sandman
Incorrect. It is a lie when the person make a claim and refuse to support and AND refuse to admit it was incorrect. Those are his two options. You either substantiate your claim or admit it was misguided or incorrect. If you fail to do either, you are also fully aware that you are incapable of supporting your claim while at the same time not retracting it - that makes it a lie.

At first it can be a mistake, or it can actually be correct.

When Eric says this:

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

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

He has made a claim about my knowledge about a word. In my followup I stated that his claim was incorrect and his two choices were these:

1. Ok, so maybe I don't know whether or not you properly understand it, but it was my assumption you did not based on this:

2. You don't, here is a quote from your where you are using the word incorrectly:

If he had done 1, then I could have corrected him and told him where he got it wrong.

If he had done 2, and was correct, I would have admitted to my mistake without blinking an eye.

He choose to do neither. HIs following posts were:

1. Talk about a "black box" analogy that may, to a laymen, describe the usage of the word "protocol" in some instances, but in no way supported his initial claim that I hadn't properly understood the meaning of the word. Merely offering up your own simplistic understanding of a word doesn't servce as proof that someone else doesn't understand it

2. Said that I had claimed that "protocol meaning software", which I hadn't. This was a pure fabrication on his part, and all the posts he could find were ME telling YOU that "protocol" has very little to do with software - the complete opposite of his claim.

So, his failure to support his claim and his refusal to retract his claim makes him a liar.

Tony Cooper
When Jonas twists the truth, it may be an exaggeration.

Sandman
I never "twisted" the truth, in retrospect, I may habve misremembered at the time and have been just mistaken. Anyone can be mistaken - Eric and you are mistaken *alot*, and I freely admit to my mistakes (as you just saw) without even being prompted!

Tony Cooper
How much else is an exaggeration?

Sandman
I'm quite sure I've exaggerated many times in my life, but never with the intention to mislead. You are free to ask me at any time if you feel that something may be "embellished" by me, and I will either explain more or clarify what I meant and correct anything that was incorrectly claimed by me.

As I've shown many many times, I have exactly *NO* problem admitting to mistakes I make, ...

... and I always welcome corrections, even when it comes to my spelling and grammar for that matter!

This is quite different from you trolls - who would rather die holding your breath than admit to even the tiniest error, since you have a lot of pride invested into your online persona, plus you dislike me for correcting and challanging your incorrect claims, so to you I'm the "enemy" and you would never expose any weeknesses to me (or nospam) and you will disregard any claims from us on account of them being from people you dislike, not because we lack credibility in the subject under discusssion.

NOw, go ignore this entire thread so you can keep your pride intact. It's what you do. Run along.