Reply #164: Very disingenous [View All]

[sangh0]

and so, very unsurprising.

I suspected that there was a conection with Jackson Stephens. It's mentioned on his website

So, you didn't "suspect" there was a connection; You KNEW there was because you read it ("it's mentioned on his website"). I suspect that you suspected that there was something fishy about that connection, but didn't have any details.

Tinoire was not the first to comfirm any connection to Stephens. One of the earliest posts in this thread was from someone who used to work for Stephens. For some unknown reasons, which your explanation fails to explain, that person went unthanked.

Why is it you think posting this information constitutes "bashing"? That's a little odd, isn't it?

It would be odd IF I HAD SAID THAT. I didn't. Leave it to you to transform what I said ("info that seems demaging") into an accusation of bashing.

And I haven't bashed Clark on this thread at all

And again, you repeat the disingenous implication that I accused you of bashing. I said you intended to bash (at some time in the future), not that you were bashing in this thread.

Even if I wanted to criticize him, there's no need to -- the facts speak for themselves.

And here's where you reveal your intent to bash. According to you, someone who supposedly doesn't know the facts --which would explain your need to ask questions-- already does know the facts well enough to know that "they speak for themselves"

So which is it? Do you know the facts, or do you NOT know the facts?