On Sat, 04 Jul 2020 10:37:00 -0700, Dan Clough wrote:
 
> Wrong again.  At the time she posted that hateful stuff, the only thing
> I had said was my original post.  Nothing personal or hateful in my
> original post.  So how do you justify your claim right there above that
> she "replied in kind"?

She called you a liar because you lied. Her reply was not warm and fuzzy 
but it was not hateful.

> That's right, you can't.

In your alternate reality.

>  DC> Again, I'll ask:  What specifically in that is a lie?  I mean it
>  DC> isn't that complicated.  Let's break it down:

You're right. It's simple. You are trying to twist your lie into a truth 
but that is not possible.

>  DC> 2. Did Democrats (I'm sure there were some Republicans there too,
>  DC> but MOSTLY Democrats because they are the ones who support DC>
>  BLM/Antifa/anti-police) burn/loot/pillage all over the country?
>  DC> Yup.  Check.

Bzzt, Bzzt, wrong again. Here, let me explain for you in more detail.

The Democrats did not burn/loot/pillage as you said. That is a lie. It's 
not true. BLM/Antifa/anti-police is not a Democrat thing. People from all 
walks of life may, or may not support any of that.

> See?  You failed to comprehend or answer the question that was asked. 
> What *SPECIFICALLY* there is a lie???  Is it #1?  Is it #2?  You say
> "that" is a lie, while referring to multiple objects.

It was all a lie. A big fat lie.

--- MBSE BBS v1.0.7.17 (GNU/Linux-x86_64)