DC> DC> DC> JB> said "If you produce it".  Thus I am
not asking for it
DC>to be  
DC> DC> DC>Do you really think that your attempt at such an evasion
DC> DC> DC>fools anyone other  than stupid fundys like you?  
DC> 
DC> DC> JB> Your other co-moderator needs to get you under control.  You
DC> DC> JB> can't read  you twist words, you lie continuously and then
DC> DC> JB> you flaunt your
DC> 
DC> DC>Twist words?  You don't even know what you fucking wrote.  

DC> JB> I know exactly what I wrote.  

DC>Like hell you do.  You know you can't produce the evidence.  That's
DC>why  you made than lame attempt to pawn you role off on me.  It's not
DC>working. Your "logic" isn't.

I never claimed I was going to provide you evidence.  I simply do not 
believe you.  I am not sure why you are having such a difficult time 
understanding this.  


DC> DC> JB> I have asked for no evidence.  I need none.  I don't care if
DC> DC>you have
DC> 
DC> DC>Yes you did, you ignorant son of a bitch.  You stated it right
DC> DC>above there when you wrote. "If you produce it". 
That's asking
DC> DC>for me to provide the  evidence for you, you moron.  

DC> JB> No, it is not asking you to produce anything.  Are you that
DC> JB> incapable of grasping basic words in the English language ?  I
DC> JB> believe so.  I

DC>Then, Jeff, as you did not prove I don't have the document, pay up.  

I am not paying you a dime. 


DC> JB> made a  conditional statement.  I made no mention of my
DC> JB> preference for the  outcome of the condition.  A big time
DC> JB> scientists such as yourself should understand this basic logical
DC> JB> construct.  

DC>LOL!  You still don't have a fucking clue, Jeff.  

DC> JB> Let me make this extremely simple for you.  I don't care whether
DC> JB> you  produce the note or not.
DC> 
DC> DC>You were asked to prove a negative and you can't do it, can you.
DC> DC>You  need me to do your work for.  

DC> JB> I didn't indicate I was going to try and prove one for you.
DC> JB> That  historically has proven a waste of my time, so I am not
DC> JB> stupid enough to attempt to going forward.  

DC>LOL!  Of course it's a waste of your time.  You didn't accomplish it 
DC>then.  You haven't accomplished it now.  

I know the level of intellect I am dealing with and thus will not waste 
my time on things which are beyond your comprehension.

 
DC> DC>Now, pay up on the promissory note with a cashier's check and
DC> DC>I'll  restore your faith when I have the check in hand.  Or, you
DC> DC>can take  the other route and simply admit that you can't prove a
DC> DC>negative.   

DC> DC>Which one for you?  

DC> JB> Since you appear both illiterate and have an extremely short
DC> JB> memory, I will state my response yet again.  I believe this is
DC> JB> the fourth time.  If you produce the note we can talk about the
DC> JB> next steps.  

DC>There you go again, making a fool of yourself. 

No, I am being very consistent and you keep attempting to twist my words 
into yours.  


DC> JB> When you are dealing with absolutes, then it only takes one
DC> JB> instance for the tautology to be proven false.

DC>Provide the evidence I don't have the document, Jeff.  That's all you
DC>gotta do.  

I don't care whether you have the document or not.  I still have my 
money and that is what matters. 


DC>Now, be the coward you are and run away again.  

You sound like Sauer on the playground.



Jeff

CMPQwk 1.42-21 9999 
Democrats --  The party of economic slavery ....


--- PCBoard (R) v15.3/M 10