# *"one and only one"

[ HOURGLASS2 OUTPOST ] [ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by AF [AF] on November 09, 1999 at 22:11:02 {4Hfg918T5g1EwaxRomAMdaOt1gg/Zk}:

In Reply to: "one and only one" posted by AP on November 09, 1999 at 20:10:30:

: I have something that I will post a bit later that should put matters regarding AF's actions in perspective,

Why not just cut out the inflated verbiage and do it when you have what you claim?

: and focus in (closely!) on that to which he cannot and will not, apparently, accept: his spreading of lies and misinformation about me, and his rather amazing appeal to the biblical principle of two witnesses, to support his appeal to two unknown witnesses who have yet to offer a word in his defense. Still, he has somehow convinced himself that there is nothing wrong with this picture. Well, as I said, more on that later.

I've covered all that in several posts. If you want to ignore it and continue your subterfuge, so be it.

: I thought we might all take a moment or two and reflect on a small part of AF's response to my apology. On the issue of his misleading others about my TWO Travis posts, he replied, in part:

:: AF:
:: My, my. Your ability to fit so many errors of fact and logic into a single paragraph is impressive. For one thing, I never said that I didn’t read your 2nd Travis post; I did say rather clearly that I do not remember reading it.

: Aside from the meaningless puffery in the first sentence, which he so often substitutes for genuine argumentation,

Oh, I assure you, as a factual statement about the content of your statements it was quite meaningful.

: AF would actually have us believe that only a couple of days after the Travis posts, he did not remember the second one!

Indeed I did not remember such a piece of triviality. I attempted to explain why I did not in this post. The fact that you've entirely ignored everything I said except the parts you think make me look bad speaks volumes about your interest in the truth. My memory for what I consider trivial details is notoriously bad. My wife Julie and my daughter Julie regularly remind me of my lapses. Why don't you call one of them (you have our phone number) and ask them about my memory for such things? Oh, I know. You're afraid to talk to women and little girls, aren't you!

And as I said, you have yet to explain why my not remembering and reposting your 2nd post was of any consequence. Can you do that? Of course not. Your continuing diatribe falls because of it.

: Indeed, he is now saying that “I never said that I didn’t read your 2nd Travis post; I did say rather clearly that I do not remember reading it.” Is this what AF really said?

Indeed it is, as we will see.

: My friends, can someone explain how the above is consistent with what we next read:

::: AC
::: What is your justification for not giving a complete picture by posting both posts?

:: AF
:: Are you entirely braindead? As far as I'm aware, Greg made one and only one post under the name ‘TravisJ45’. If you're aware of another, be sure to point to it.

I think that it's fairly obvious to any normally mentally endowed English speaker that the phrase "as far as I'm aware" means that the speaker is unaware of other possibilities. It does not mean that the speaker discounts other possibilities. Now, if a person is unaware of other possibilities, it can only be for two reasons: he never knew of them, or he knew of them and forgot.

The fact that I allowed for other possibilities is proved by my statement, "if you're aware of another, be sure to point to it." In fact, my statement was a clear invitation and challenge to correct any wrong impressions I might have had. I admit it was sarcastic, but I was only having a bit of fun at Adam's expense. But you know how that is, don't you?

In fact neither you nor Adam ever pointed to another, nor did you, Greg, ever manage even to post the gist of your 2nd Travis post. Why not? It came out only when the H2O "bot" fortuitously and against the wishes of H2O administration unexpectedly restored all the deleted posts, much to your embarrassment.

: No, I don’t mean to draw your attention to AF’s typical, response-beginning insult,

Come on, Greg. You like the tete-a-tete and so do I. Posturing like a rooster is rather fun, no?

: but look at what he says in response to AC’s question about BOTH Travis posts: “As far as I'm aware, Greg made one and only one post under the name ‘TravisJ45’. If you're aware of another, be sure to point to it.”

Well, you certainly seem to comprehend English sentences.

: So, back on 11-06 AF is not aware of any second post. Indeed, as far as he is “aware” “Greg made one and only one post under the name ‘TravisJ45’.” Now, on 11-09, he says, “I never said that I didn’t read your 2nd Travis post; I did say rather clearly that I do not remember reading it.”

Aha! I knew you understood English!

: Again, according to AF:

: 11-06: “As far as I'm aware, Greg made one and only one post under the name ‘TravisJ45’. If you're aware of another, be sure to point to it.”

: 11-09: “I never said that I didn’t read your 2nd Travis post; I did say rather clearly that I do not remember reading it.”

I think that most readers can see that both statements are consistent with the fact that I didn't remember reading your 2nd post. And as I explained, since I didn't save the 2nd post on 11/3, nothing could have let me repost it the next day, could it?

You have yet to explain the great significance of my supposed attempt at deceit. Until you do, all this is just a great blowing of wind.

I find it ironic that you, having deliberately attempted to deceive the entire board by actively posting as if you were someone else, cannot conceive that an old guy like me, a doddering old man of 48, cannot have lapses of memory, especially having burned the candle at both ends for weeks. That night I also saw a very strenuous movie, um, what was it now? Something about a woman who supposedly murdered her husband but really didn't. Damn! Can't remember the name! Wife's in bed now and I can't ask her!

: AF, my dishonest friend, I realize you have some secret dictionary that allows you to attach new meanings to words like “rather clearly,” but for those of us in the real world, can you explain yourself?

Well, Greggie, as I explained above, the phrase "as far as I'm aware" rather clearly allows for the possibility that I did not remember reading your 2nd post.

How did I do?

: Are you suggesting that on 11-06 you were not aware of the post, but that you had read it?

You read my earlier post. What did I say there?

: When one says, with emphasis (AF bolded “one and only one” in his post), that you are aware of “one and only one” Travis post, does that not mean YOU DID NOT READ A SECOND ONE, otherwise you would have been “aware” of it, also?

No, it does not. It means precisely what the words said: I was aware of only one post. If Adam had pointed out a 2nd post, or you had posted the gist of the 2nd Travis post, the matter would have been put to rest.

I'll ask you once again, Greg: Why did you and your supporters fail to repost both Travis posts?

I'll also ask you once again: Why do you refuse to answer my list of direct and very specific questions about your supposed relationship with Bethel heavies? Can you not find a way to answer in a way that allows you to hide the truth while appearing to deny my original statements?

: Apok

Ah! Back to good ol' Apok. You remember that we locked horns on AOL several years ago. I provided you some good fodder for Chapter 9 of your book, eh? What ever happened to good old Carabine? Did you ever forward him my last big post on the Society's deceptions about Josephus? What did he say about it? I hope his circumstances got better.

AF

Follow Ups:

- ** AP 06:41:45 11/10/99 (3)
  - *** Julie 17:20:17 11/10/99 (0)
  - *** Cygnus 11:26:07 11/10/99 (0)
  - *** AF 07:09:06 11/10/99 (0)

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject: **"one and only one"

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ HOURGLASS2 OUTPOST ] [ FAQ ]