Sandman
In article <tiu3b99smhoseb6l9riokba9kvu95i7m9j@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens wrote:

Eric Stevens
It was not my intention to unneccessarily irritate you.

Sandman
You can't irritate me, Eric.

Eric Stevens
My point was (and is) an inability to substantiate claims to your satisfaction does not make me a liar (in this or any other case).

Sandman
I've never claimed that an "inability to substantiate claims to my satisfaction" makes you a liar. Lying makes you a liar, and an inability to substantiate your lies further showcases your lies. I've explained this many times.

You see - most of your claims are incorrect. And making incorrect claims are just fine, no problem with that at all. You are free to make as many incorrect claims as your heart desires, that doesn't make you a liar at all!

BUT - if you make incorrect claims, and someone challenges them, you have only two options:

1. Substantiate the claim 2. Admit the mistake

Failure to do either means you have made a claim you won't admit is incorrect and which you refuse to substantiate, meaning that you are willfully standing by an incorrect statement - i.e. lying.

Eric Stevens
Nevertheless, in the particular cited case, there are logical inconsistencies which arise if you accept that I am telling the truth about something for which I cannot find the evidence.

Sandman
Of course not. There are thousands of things you can say that you can't find evidence of. But then again, you shouldn't state them as proven facts - and in this case you didn't. You just said that you remember something to be true, but can't currently find it.

Eric Stevens
I thought that at the very least that was worth at least a wry grin.

Sandman
I thought it was you needlessly dragging up old arguments in an effort to spite me - i.e. troll.