Author Topic: Open Challenge to Whooter  (Read 3427 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline RobertBruce

  • Posts: 4290
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Open Challenge to Whooter
« on: November 12, 2010, 08:56:33 PM »
I wanted to save this little nugget before Whooter's time in the corner is over and he's had a chance to edit it and lie about having said it:

Quote
Ha,Ha,Ha Thats funny! This is what I mean about the attention stuff. If someone is going to start spreading lies about me then I will retaliate, yes.


http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=31647&p=386177&hilit=lies#p386177

Here Whooter finally admits that he lies about other posters. The kicker is that he's claiming he only does so as a form of retaliation against lies told about him, the problem being that to my knowledge no lies have ever been told about Whooter .

So here's my challenge to you Whooter: Present the lies you claim have been told about you. If I had any direct involvement either through making the claim myself, or perpetuating it, I will do one of two things; either present evidence to back up the claim, or admit it was a lie. For every claim  you present you must answer for one of your own.

The first person who must admit to having lied or cannot provide corroborating evidence to support his assertion for three seperate claims is declared the loser. The loser must at that point create a thread with the title, "My apology for spreading lies" and must then in said thread not only confess the individual lies told, but apologize to the offended party, and explain the reasoning behind why he lied. In addition he must donate $100.00 to the charity of the winners choice. If he agrees we can use Psy as a proxy.

Now assuming you accept the challenge let's lay down a couple of ground rules:

1. An issue that has already been addressed and admitted to as a mistake does not constitute a lie. Supporting evidence for the apology must be made upon request.

2. There are going to be some comments that are assumed to be a parody, and should be treated as such. That being said you cannot use that as a back door to get out of every lie you have told. If the claim has been made repeatedly over a long period of time, and has supporting comments like: We all know it's a fact that ________. Or the offended party has asked for supporting evidence prior to this conversation then it does not count as parody, and remains a lie until proven otherwise.

3. If you at some point pull your "I'm taking my ball and going home" tactic, the game is ruled a no contest and I am declared the winner. Essentially if you refuse to accept an answer or provide one yourself, refuse to move forward, attempt to attribute comments I had nothing to do with to me, deny obvious evidence, or refuse to take respondsibility for comments you have made, then you lose. If you suddenly back out after two admitted lies then you lose. Psy (again assuming he agrees) will be the final judge.

4. Evidence must meet certain criteria. The following things will not be considered evidence:

a. "Someone told me this was true" Someone must have a username and a link to the comments must be provided.

b. "You said this and then deleted your comment." If you cannot provide a link to the original comment or show where it was quoted by someone other than you at the time in question, chances are it never existed and does not count as evidence.

c "My feeling at the time was that this was true." Feelings are not evidence.

d. "The time stamps are wrong/Deborah must have altered my post" is not an acceptable back door. No one has altered your posts.

e. Editting old posts to cover up lies is not permitted. Any old posts with a recent edit stamp will be viewed as proof of the lie and will count towards the three.

Again Psy will be the final judge in all disputes.

So then whenever you get back from your exile I'll be eager to ehar your thoughts. Of course any rules you'd like to add on your own you are more than welcome to do so. Once everything is agreed upon we can begin. I hope you'll take me up on the offer.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline shaggys

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 346
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Open Challenge to Whooter
« Reply #1 on: November 13, 2010, 05:10:18 PM »
Sorry if I am intruding on this post but I couldn't help getting a cheering section going. This is a very reasonable offer put forth by RB and I hope Whooter will accept it as soon as he is back from the time out room.
 :deal:
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline RobertBruce

  • Posts: 4290
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Open Challenge to Whooter
« Reply #2 on: November 14, 2010, 01:15:17 PM »
Not at all, Whooter and I are both huge fans of accountability and transparency.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Whooter

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5513
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Open Challenge to Whooter
« Reply #3 on: November 19, 2010, 01:22:14 PM »
Quote from: "RobertBruce"
I wanted to save this little nugget before Whooter's time in the corner is over and he's had a chance to edit it and lie about having said it:

First of all Bruce, your challenge is not sincere, this is designed to be insulting.  Why do you assume I would go back and edit my posts and lie about saying something? You and Lenny are the ones who have a long documented history of editing your posts.

Quote
Here Whooter finally admits that he lies about other posters. The kicker is that he's claiming he only does so as a form of retaliation against lies told about him, the problem being that to my knowledge no lies have ever been told about Whooter .
You are not even talking to me, Bruce, you are just insulting me again. So far it is clear that you have no interest in having any type of challenge on a level field without prejudice.
   
Quote
An issue that has already been addressed and admitted to as a mistake does not constitute a lie. Supporting evidence for the apology must be made upon request.
So any issue that has been addressed in the past is off limits.  The fiduciary link, the link to where I said I had a son etc. we have covered that, I explained it.  There is no apology necessary.  Is this what you mean?

   
Quote
a. "Someone told me this was true" Someone must have a username and a link to the comments must be provided.

No go, Squiggy, You could pull Lenny into backing up anything you like whether it is true or not.  

Quote
"You said this and then deleted your comment." If you cannot provide a link to the original comment or show where it was quoted by someone other than you at the time in question, chances are it never existed and does not count as evidence.

How about this Link where you admitted pretending to be me and then went back and changed it later to something insulting?
Would you consider this as evidence?  Parody?  who decides?

Quote
"The time stamps are wrong/Deborah must have altered my post" is not an acceptable back door. No one has altered your posts.
There was a time period where my posts were being altered by an admin,  why disregard this?  I fought to have this action stopped.

We would need to add,then, that you cannot claim that you are a survivor of anything except maybe the 20 minutes you were lodged in your motherís birth canal without oxygen.  You lasted 21 days at HLA which misses the cut-off, so you would have to refrain from stating that you had any real experience.

Quote
Editting old posts to cover up lies is not permitted. Any old posts with a recent edit stamp will be viewed as proof of the lie and will count towards the three.
This applies to you.  I have no edit control after about a year back.


I have attempted numerous times to have a civil conversation with you, Bruce.   Each and every time when the conversation got difficult for you you would start writing insulting posts and spending months trolling me and trying to derail any thread I was posting in.  I am not saying you are a bad person but I believe you just have some mental health issues which would prevent this challenge from going into any direction which would be productive or informative for either of us and would just result in being a circus for the readers and I am just not interested in that.




...
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline RobertBruce

  • Posts: 4290
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Open Challenge to Whooter
« Reply #4 on: November 20, 2010, 01:05:15 AM »
Quote
First of all Bruce, your challenge is not sincere, this is designed to be insulting. Why do you assume I would go back and edit my posts and lie about saying something? You and Lenny are the ones who have a long documented history of editing your posts

Here is where the problem lies Whooter. You seem incapable of being honest. I have no idea of who Lenny is but it is a firmly established fact that you routinely edit your previous post in an effort to cover up your own comments. A simple side by side comparrison will easily prove who between the two of us has edited more posts. The answer is obviously you. My comments are not meant to be insulting, it is simply that the truth seems to hurt you.

Quote
You are not even talking to me, Bruce, you are just insulting me again. So far it is clear that you have no interest in having any type of challenge on a level field without prejudice.

The fact that I've issued you the challenge with unbiased rules proves you wrong.

Quote
So any issue that has been addressed in the past is off limits. The fiduciary link, the link to where I said I had a son etc. we have covered that, I explained it. There is no apology necessary. Is this what you mean?

Not at all. I was referring more towards comments where either one of simply made a mistake and later (not now) acknowledged that mistake, i.e. admitted he was wrong. It's something I know you're loathe to do, but I thought I'd at least extend you the opportunity.


Quote
No go, Squiggy, You could pull Lenny into backing up anything you like whether it is true or not.


Who is Lenny? Whoever he is employing such a tactic is your MO not mine. One random person saying so isn't corrobarating evidence.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline RobertBruce

  • Posts: 4290
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Open Challenge to Whooter
« Reply #5 on: November 20, 2010, 01:17:54 AM »
Quote
How about this Link where you admitted pretending to be me and then went back and changed it later to something insulting?
Would you consider this as evidence? Parody? who decides?

I'm not sure. We could lump this in with the times you edited your own comments to make them appear as if I made them. Or maybe even from that same link a few posts up where you accused us of being the same person. Was that parody? Psy decides.

Quote
There was a time period where my posts were being altered by an admin, why disregard this? I fought to have this action stopped.

Nope. Never happened.

Quote
We would need to add,then, that you cannot claim that you are a survivor of anything except maybe the 20 minutes you were lodged in your motherís birth canal without oxygen. You lasted 21 days at HLA which misses the cut-off, so you would have to refrain from stating that you had any real experience.



It sounds like you're looking for a back door out of one of your lies already. No loop holes Whooter. Be a man for once and stand behind your comments.

Quote
This applies to you. I have no edit control after about a year back.


I'm sure that upsets you. Even still though you will not be permitted to edit your posts from the previous year as part of the challenge.


Quote
Quote
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline RobertBruce

  • Posts: 4290
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Open Challenge to Whooter
« Reply #6 on: November 20, 2010, 01:23:53 AM »
Quote
I have attempted numerous times to have a civil conversation with you, Bruce. Each and every time when the conversation got difficult for you you would start writing insulting posts and spending months trolling me and trying to derail any thread I was posting in. I am not saying you are a bad person but I believe you just have some mental health issues which would prevent this challenge from going into any direction which would be productive or informative for either of us and would just result in being a circus for the readers and I am just not interested in that.

The conversation has never gotten difficult for me Whooter. You seem to forget the fact that you've never won a single argument on here, with me or with anyone else. You routinely lie, evade, fabricate, derail, troll, spam, or otherwise do anything and everything to avoid the truth about yourself, and this abusive industry.

I get that you have trouble with normal human interaction due to the fact that you are an admitted sociopath, but I'm not sure where you hatred of the truth comes from.

Each and every time I attempt a civil conversation with you, you get upset at the tough questions and either begin attempting to make personal attacks, or start your "I'm taking my ball and going home" routine. Try a different record for once.

The challenge stands, and the offer for a civil conversation stands, but it requires both civility and honesty on your part. I'm a patient guy Whooter, all you have to do is try.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Whooter

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5513
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Open Challenge to Whooter
« Reply #7 on: November 20, 2010, 07:56:29 AM »
Quote from: "RobertBruce"
Here is where the problem lies Whooter. You seem incapable of being honest. I have no idea of who Lenny is but it is a firmly established fact that you routinely edit your previous post in an effort to cover up your own comments. A simple side by side comparrison will easily prove who between the two of us has edited more posts. The answer is obviously you. My comments are not meant to be insulting, it is simply that the truth seems to hurt you.

So you admit that you go back and edit your posts often like the examples I presented to you.  What if it is an old edited post like the ones where you claimed to have only attended HLA for 3 weeks and then changed the posts to reflect a longer stay?  You have done this several times.

Quote
I'm not sure. We could lump this in with the times you edited your own comments to make them appear as if I made them. Or maybe even from that same link a few posts up where you accused us of being the same person. Was that parody? Psy decides.

Psy may not understand yours or my humor or he may not understand that you thought it was funny to post pretending to be me.  You may have thought it was funny but the rest of us may not and vice versa.

Quote
The challenge stands, and the offer for a civil conversation stands, but it requires both civility and honesty on your part. I'm a patient guy Whooter, all you have to do is try.

Tell you what, Bruce, lets see if you can go one month without insulting people or attacking them.  If you can maintain a civil back and forth with me and others for an extended period of time then I will consider your offer.  I am patient so if you screw up we will just reset the clock and wait as long as it takes for you to get through it.



...
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline RobertBruce

  • Posts: 4290
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Open Challenge to Whooter
« Reply #8 on: November 20, 2010, 09:09:27 AM »
Quote
So you admit that you go back and edit your posts often like the examples I presented to you. What if it is an old edited post like the ones where you claimed to have only attended HLA for 3 weeks and then changed the posts to reflect a longer stay? You have done this several times.



Have I ever edited a post? Of course. I've been posting here for close to six years now Whooter. I would say most people in that amount of time have edited a post or two. That having been said however, I've never edited posts with nearly the frequency or for the same motivations as you, i.e you attempting to cover up your tracks due to your unwillingness to back up your own comments. The rule will be no editing of old posts say anything more than 7 days old. You cannot point to any random edited posts and claim it once said something different, without a quoted posts and outside claim verifying what you claim was the original content.  As far as any three weeks at HLA comments go, those comments you won't find from me claiming that was true, edited or not. Of course you already know that, hence why you've never provided any actual evidence to back up your lie.  :seg:

Quote
Psy may not understand yours or my humor or he may not understand that you thought it was funny to post pretending to be me. You may have thought it was funny but the rest of us may not ane held you d vice versa.

Whether he thought it was funny or not isn't the question. I don't think either one of us is going to bring that particular instance up as a potential lie. I mean afterall it was you who started the initial parody to begin with remember?

Quote
TheWho wrote:
I think they are all thewho^^ believe it or not. I also think RobertBruce is thewho^^ isnt it odd how this bruce guy all of a sudden shows up right after thewho^^ does?



http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=16007&start=3540

I was merely playing along. That of course does nothing for your numerous alteregos in which you posted under names similar to mine, or the times you were banned for flooding the board with your own posts which you edited in an attempt to attribute your own sick postings to me.

Quote
Tell you what, Bruce, lets see if you can go one month without insulting people or attacking them. If you can maintain a civil back and forth with me and others for an extended period of time then I will consider your offer. I am patient so if you screw up we will just reset the clock and wait as long as it takes for you to get through it.


Well now let's first clarify what "attacking" actually means. To you it seems to fall under all the numerous times I've held you accountable or proven you wrong. So why don't you lay out exactly what "attacking" means and we can discuss it from there. To add to the deal let's place some conditions on you. You are not permitted to lie about anyone or anything on here for the time period in question, nor are you permitted to attack people (under the standard you lay out of course). If you ned some clarification on what constitutes lying, I'll be happy to clarify it for you. Basically any of the numerous comments or postings you make that you cannot ever back up. Also let's make it one week. I don't think you could last a month, and I'd really to get this challenge going. Whoever slips up first loses. Deal?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Whooter

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5513
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Open Challenge to Whooter
« Reply #9 on: November 20, 2010, 09:39:40 AM »
So you have admitted that you routinely edit (edited) your posts to cover your tracks and that you pretended to be me in the past.  That is a good start but lets slow down a bit.

We both know that you only attended HLA for a few weeks (verified by an outside source) and again in at least one post that I read which you later went back to edit , but you will never admit to this here on fornits which we all understand.

All your other terms are rejected out of hand.  If you want to engage in the challenge you need to refrain from attacking and/or any insults for a month.  You will avoid all remonstrance against these terms during this period of time.   You average 2 or 3 posts per day so you cannot just cut and run and log off for a month per your usual MO when faced with being held accountable.



...
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline RobertBruce

  • Posts: 4290
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Open Challenge to Whooter
« Reply #10 on: November 20, 2010, 10:27:09 AM »
Quote
So you have admitted that you routinely edit (edited) your posts to cover your tracks and that you pretended to be me in the past. That is a good start but lets slow down a bit.


Slowing down sounds like a good idea, I don't want you to get too upset. It sounds like you're wondering who between us has edited more posts. Let's do a quick side by side comparrison. Are you game?

Quote
We both know that you only attended HLA for a few weeks (verified by an outside source) and again in at least one post that I read which you later went back to edit , but you will never admit to this here on fornits which we all understand.


Well in truth I and everyone I was incarcerated with or under knows I was locked up at HLA for about a year. Further, since you have zero credibility on here, no one with at least half a brain believes your lie.  :seg: Third, given that you cannot expand upn who your anonymous source is (for obvious legal reasons) and he cannot post the lie himself, his testimony is entirely invalid. Given the fact that all your other claims regarding me from this staff member have fallen flat, it would appear that this person discovered they in fact were wrong about who they believe me to be all along.  Add that to the fact that you have remained unable to provide this edited post, a quote taken from it, or even someone other than yourself referencing it, it is obvious it never existed. When considering all of these facts the only thing we both know is that you lied and now you're just digging in your heels out of shame.  :seg:

Quote
All your other terms are rejected out of hand. If you want to engage in the challenge you need to refrain from attacking and/or any insults for a month. You will avoid all remonstrance against these terms during this period of time. You average 2 or 3 posts per day so you cannot just cut and run and log off for a month per your usual MO when faced with being held accountable.


It's starting to look as if you're too afraid to meet this challenge Whooter. That's unfortunate, as I was really looking forward to have a civil conversation with you with some real honesty from you.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Whooter

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5513
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Open Challenge to Whooter
« Reply #11 on: November 20, 2010, 10:31:23 AM »
Quote from: "RobertBruce"
Slowing down sounds like a good idea,...

Okay 30 days starting today.  Good luck.



...
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline RobertBruce

  • Posts: 4290
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Open Challenge to Whooter
« Reply #12 on: November 20, 2010, 10:47:09 AM »
So you're up for the side by side editing comparrison then? Great. Let's get started! I honestly thought you might back down. While I'm working on that I'm still going to need you lay out exactly what "attacking" means to you. I don't want there to be any confusion or grey areas over the next seven days.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Whooter

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5513
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Open Challenge to Whooter
« Reply #13 on: November 20, 2010, 11:11:30 AM »
Quote from: "RobertBruce"
So you're up for the side by side editing comparrison then? Great. Let's get started! I honestly thought you might back down. While I'm working on that I'm still going to need you lay out exactly what "attacking" means to you. I don't want there to be any confusion or grey areas over the next seven days.

I will count this as your first post.  It did not contain any attacks or insults, so you are off to a good start.

We are looking for an average of 2 posts a day for 30 days.



...
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline RobertBruce

  • Posts: 4290
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Open Challenge to Whooter
« Reply #14 on: November 20, 2010, 11:40:33 AM »
Seven days shouldn't be a problem at all. Do you think you can go that long without lying? You do still need to clarify what you mean by attack though. I don't want you to be confused or claim you were treated unfairly later on. I guess if I don't hear back from you I'll take that as a sign that you aren't up for the challenge and are backing out?

In that instance I won't hold you to the apology but I think the least you can do is pay up on the charity part. St. Jude's is my personal favorite. I can get you their donation information if you need it.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »