Thanks Jack for your comments.
The point about an honest mistake, is they generally occur when one is unsure of something. The trouble here is that Dave was challenging my account of an incident and presenting a story with certain "facts" he claimed I omitted and which proved me of deliberately twisting the truth. I then proved his story a verifiable lie.
In the general context of lies which Dave has told, this is a fairly petty one, but as it is a current example of what he has been doing for years and is worth examining as a general illustration of how Dave weasels around issues, projects his errors on to others and refuses to admit anything other than that which is irrefutable. He admits to being wrong in his claim of using email five years before the community signed up for that service, only because he had to, but the waffle about whether he was in Sydney hearing about something via phone or mail that occurred to a mythical team in Victoria, or recalling a fuzzy memory involving traffic lights and a jog around "our" house when he agrees we were definitely all living in Geelong, and whether the plug was pulled to stop a boy using a wheelchair to attack someone, or to stop him from being run over at a traffic light, is all unclear because Dave is the one struggling to decipher facts from fabrications.
For some strange reason Dave is still trying to prove me guilty of twisting facts to Jesse who waded in on the issue, and even though Dave has already lost any legs to stand on (someone get the man a wheelchair!) I thought I would counter his commitment to stand his ground in the face of reason, if for no other reason than to prove he can't out bluff the truth.
I apologise if this is getting boring for most readers. Imagine what it is like to have to endure Dave's assertions INSIDE his community, and how hard it would be to hold your ground on ANYTHING when Dave decides to oppose you.Dave writes:
"Well, Jesse, it didn't take him long to start twisting what you said as well. It's not hard to go through the stuff Craig says, line by line and find in just about every line that he has done a slight "spin". If Jesse says, for example, "I wonder if Criag is delusional," Craig bumps it up to Jesse "labelling" him delusional. And not to be outdone, Craig then talks about Jesse blocking out the light and returning to his collective delusion!"
And yet Dave provides us with a clear example of twisting what Jesse said in manufacturing the hypothetical. "I wonder if Craig is delusional."
Jesse actually wrote: "I wonder how much of it he believes himself and if that's made him somewhat delusional."
I read Jesse's comment as wondering if I believe what I write and if this is what has made me "somewhat delusional"
, which stacks a blinkered query on top of an assumed condition, which I think I am entitled to view as unsubstantiated "labelling", particularly when such speculation is happening in an arena where Dave has ensured I cannot respond.
"I admitted to a factual mistake, but notice how it always comes out as lies in Craig's thinking and a claim that I admitted that I was "the one" factually mistaken "in my efforts to prove him to be the one manipulating facts". There you have it, right in front of your face... Craig manipulating, while I have only admitted to a factual mistake. Huge difference, and if one or the other is closer to being a deliberate lie, guess which one it would be!"
So lets get this clear. Dave admitted to a "factual mistake" in a post that presented "facts" that he claimed I left out of my story, and now says I am "manipulating" when I said he had admitted to being "factually mistaken" in his efforts to prove me the one manipulating facts. I can't see ANY difference. But Dave clearly thinks he can be wrong in the facts and still correct in saying I was wrong for omitting those same factual mistakes. I feel like I am conversing with the Goblin King (Labyrinth) or a character from Alice in Wonderland here! If Dave insists one side needs to be acknowledged as closer to being a deliberate lie, I think the evidence has already proven that point.
"The saddest thing is that it happens with practically everything that comes out of Craig's mouth/computer."
The funniest thing is that Dave keeps doing what he falsely accuse me of doing.