musclebrains
New member
Unfucking believable. Chesty the Patriot opens a thread that is a mean-spirited attack on someone, then produces a completely unfounded argument that she is a traitor because of her language. When his argument, based on a phantom case, is shown to be bogus, he closes the thread so that nobody can comment further. While so doing, he reiterates a complete LIE:
"I still stand by the premise of the short story.
That one should be bannished for their treasonous statements whether made rashly or with much thought is a correct course of action. "
Hale's short story makes no such argument. The figure in the story is court-maritaled for seditious ACTS, not for "statements." Are you capable of honesty, Chesty?
As for your contention that the story's veracity is being debated: That's only true among people like you who want to believe it. Hale himself admitted, as I told you, that he made up the story and that he had absentmindedly given the name of an Indian trader about whom he'd written other stories to Phillip Nolan. If you are going to argue that the story is "true," then you are going to have to explain how the real-life character of Phillip Nolan was a shady horse trader AND a naval officer. There's NO debate.
What an absurd way to behave. What it boils down to is: "It's true because I choose to believe it's true." What is the point of discourse when the truth is so irrelevant to your adversary?
(Thread in question: Chesty Deigns to "Adjurn" his kangaroo court
"I still stand by the premise of the short story.
That one should be bannished for their treasonous statements whether made rashly or with much thought is a correct course of action. "
Hale's short story makes no such argument. The figure in the story is court-maritaled for seditious ACTS, not for "statements." Are you capable of honesty, Chesty?
As for your contention that the story's veracity is being debated: That's only true among people like you who want to believe it. Hale himself admitted, as I told you, that he made up the story and that he had absentmindedly given the name of an Indian trader about whom he'd written other stories to Phillip Nolan. If you are going to argue that the story is "true," then you are going to have to explain how the real-life character of Phillip Nolan was a shady horse trader AND a naval officer. There's NO debate.
What an absurd way to behave. What it boils down to is: "It's true because I choose to believe it's true." What is the point of discourse when the truth is so irrelevant to your adversary?
(Thread in question: Chesty Deigns to "Adjurn" his kangaroo court
Last edited:

Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 










