this is a flat-out lie.your statement was deceptive
okay. think that if you want bud.
But I dont agree. Lying and deception involves intent.
There wasnt any here.
Is this a real Hotmail hack?
by montag 57 Replies latest jw friends
-
refiners fire
-
Matty
I can’t help thinking this is a bit of a metaphor for the JW religion. We are told to go to something that promises something exciting for ourselves, but woeful for others. Some of us selfishly ignore the warnings, but some come to realise that it was all just a big joke.
We love ya prisca!
-
LB
No one owes me an apology. I thought it was the real deal to be honest. Guess the obvious escapes me again
Never Squat With Yer Spurs On -
refiners fire
And I didnt mean it when I implied you were stupid for looking LB.
It just came out wrong.
Youre OK in my book. -
Reborn2002
Hey Refiners-
If that picture in your profile is indeed you, you are acting quite childish for your age. Considering you posted a flurry of questions immediately after my post predicting you would have something to say, I will address you.
And finally...what up your bum??
Real mature assessment there buddy.Secondly, I assumed nothing. The quote you used was:
LB trusted you because of what you said about that site.
Dino said that, not me.I said:
may have indeed convinced LB or someone else to try it.. thinking it worked.
I suggested it was a possibility, not an absolute.To confront your inquiries:
Where does Prisca recommend anyone to use the hack?
1. Yes, inadvertently. What part of my previous post did you not understand? Prisca said:It's soooo cool! I just got the password for an old boyfriend's hotmail account. Looks like he's been pretty busy since we broke up.
Are you denying that in her intended joke a lie was included? Saying "it was cool" and that she "got a password" implied she used it.My previous response still stands.
Tongue-in-cheek humor or not, this is a flat-out lie.
Having trouble grasping that concept are we?While it may not have been intended, your statement was deceptive and may have indeed convinced LB or someone else to try it.. thinking it worked.
Now if your still with me, on to #2.
Did Pris even enter the hack herself?
Her statement was:Anyone who is stupid enough BLAH BLAH BLAH
Obviously not. Funny again this "anyone stupid enough" argument resurfaces. My initial comment on this still stands.This may be true. Someone may be naive, but does that it make it acceptable for you to contribute to them being deceived?
Do you feel differently? If so, your opinion, and I respect that.No.
On to #3.
Did LB enter the hack site on Priscas recommendation?
LB said:All I get is the error page when I try it.
It would appear so, but again I assumed nothing. To one with an infantile grasp of English when you "try" something and "Get an error page" you have attempted it.So no, I assumed nothing. Also, as I predicted, you would enter again and start torching people with this "whats up your bum" nonsense.
You failed to address the main point of my post, and instead responded with questions and insults of your own.If you had difficulty reading, Ill try again.
Someone may be naive, but does that it make it acceptable for you to contribute to them being deceived?
I feel I have sufficiently answered your questions and clarified the matter.No.
Going to resort to more childish pranks?
It is not religious persecution for an informed person to expose publicly a certain religion as being false, thus allowing persons to see the difference between false religion and true religion.
WT 11/15/1963 page 688 paragraph 3 -
refiners fire
Where does Prisca recommend anyone to use the hack?
Did Pris even enter the hack herself?
Did the guy who posted this thread know it was a scam?
Did LB enter the hack site on Priscas recommendation?
And finally...what up your bum??
-
refiners fire
MR REBORN.
this is a flat-out lie.
your statement was deceptive
Said about Prisca.
I suggested it was a possibility, not an absolute
Well if you only suggested it as a possibility, why are you using absolute terms like "flat out lie" ? -
Reborn2002
WOW, you are slower than I originally thought.
Why dont you stop for a moment and take the context of where and when I make these statements.
I will try ONE last time to break it down in simple terms for you.
Prisca said:
I stated:It's soooo cool! I just got the password for an old boyfriend's hotmail account. Looks like he's been pretty busy since we broke up.
Tongue-in-cheek humor or not, this is a flat-out lie.
So, therefore, while it may have been an attempt as tongue-in-cheek humor, it WAS indeed a lie. For she did not "get" any password, and her statement MAY have deceived someone.While it may not have been intended, your statement was deceptive and may have indeed convinced LB or someone else to try it.. thinking it worked.
You are twisting words I say.
I suggested it was a possibility LB was deceived, for I said:
may have indeed convinced LB or someone else to try it.. thinking it worked.
I stated it was a possibility, not an absolute that LB was deceived. I still stand that what Prisca said was a lie.You are taking two entirely different statements and melding them together to fit whatever foolish purpose you have with this.
I said it was a possibility, not an absolute that LB was deceived.
I said what Prisca said was a flat out lie.
Those are two entirely different things. Having difficulty realizing that?
I said before:
I have my opinion, you have yours.
Not content to drop the matter yet?It is not religious persecution for an informed person to expose publicly a certain religion as being false, thus allowing persons to see the difference between false religion and true religion.
WT 11/15/1963 page 688 paragraph 3 -
refiners fire
Reborn said.
Dino said that, not me
I know that. You are the one making assumptions. Not me.Where in my post with the four questions does it say I am addressing you with regard to any of them?
It doesnt.
You merely assume it. -
Reborn2002
HA.
You have been content to continue this unnecessary argument now haven't you?
I said before:
I have my opinion, you have yours.
Were you content to let it go at that? No.You made no mention of not addressing me in the last few posts on this page now have you?
No, you only make that statement after you have been made to look like a fool.
I said before, what Prisca said was a lie.
Even if unintended, she was deceptive in her choice of words.
She DID lie. It may not have been intended.. but, my bottom line was:
Someone may be naive, but does that it make it acceptable for you to contribute to them being deceived?
End of discussion. I grow tired of debating frivolously with an obviously bitter old man who gets his quotes distorted.No.
It is not religious persecution for an informed person to expose publicly a certain religion as being false, thus allowing persons to see the difference between false religion and true religion.
WT 11/15/1963 page 688 paragraph 3