From: Greegor on

G > Still posting the fake OWI record
G > you edited my name into, Kent?

KBW > You admitted it is real.

G > Kent Wills Stock deception G 1

> How long have you seen the TRUTH as a form of deception, Greg?
> Serious question.

G. Res Judicata
1. Already conceded to Kent's argument

KBW > You claimed it was to have been expunged.

G > Got a LINK to where I said that?   I think not.

> I do.  And as soon as you post the picture of David dressed as a
> Nazi and the picture of me on a pony, or admit you've been LYING about
> the existence of both, I'll gladly post it.

H 4. Proof held hostage awaiting opponents proof on something else

>    This requirement has been in place for a very long time, so your
> asking for a link only servers to further PROVE you're psychologically
> UNABLE to be honest, except by accident, force, or if you believe you
> can promote a lie.

G. Res Judicata 1. Already conceded to Kent's argument

Claim that asking for a LINK PROVES insult XYZ
Added to the list.

KBW > The only way it could be expunged is if it existed.

G > I have never had an OWI or DWI in any state, anywhere.

KBW > Then why did you present that it was to have been expunged?

Flat out lie, perhaps also a bit of Kent Wills stock deception G 1.

> Why did you connect it to your court ordered rehab when NO ONE
> else suggested the two should be connected?

Fiction, perhaps also G 1 on my list of Kent Wills stock deceptions.

G > You made up text to look like an OWI record.

KBW > I made up nothing.

You claimed you went to the "records office"
and obtained this OWI record, after you
claimed it was expunged. Said ""records office""
doesn't have that name and is not for public
walk-in perusal of records. The Department of
Criminal Investigation office at the phone number
you titled "Criminal Records" would have sold
you copies of the records COMPLETE with
CASE NUMBERS don't you think?

KBW > You are stupid.

Comments: CT 1 OWI 1ST
Comments: CT 2 SPEED
Disposition Status

G > If you cut and pasted the record as you pretend,
G > how did you miss the CASE NUMBER?

KBW > When did I claim it was a C&P?

G > You didn't need to CLAIM it was C & P.
G > You posted it in text form in usenet.

KBW >      You present that I did.

Kent, You posted it with leading spaces!

KBW > Another of your MANY pathological LIES
KBW > has been exposed.  If only
KBW > you were able to put a little effort into them.

G > You posted it in text form in usenet.
KBW > Do you propose there is another means to post to Usenet?

Leading spaces, from text you say you wrote down?

KBW > I mentioned, a few times, that while
KBW > at the records office, I WROTE DOWN
KBW > the information.

G > Got a LINK to where you mentioned this a few times?
G > I don't think so.

KBW > Yes.  See above.

G 2 and H 3 on Kent Wills stock deception list.

G >You repeatedly paint yourself into corners with your lies.

KBW > Yet you must LIE in order to present that I've lied.

G > There is no such thing as a "state records office", is there,

KBW > Criminal Records
KBW > 215 E 7th St Des Moines, IA 50319
KBW > p (515) 725-6066 f (515) 725-6073

You claimed "records office" and then "Criminal Records"
but the phone number is for Division of Criminal Investigation.

They do criminal background checks for media and employers,
but they only do this by way of US Mail or fax.
It's not a walk in walk out service.
You'd have to pay $13-15 and you obtain documents.
You claimed you walked in there and copied it down.

KBW > Are you really so STUPID that you suppose
KBW > they maintain an empty building, Greg?

Complete non sequitur Kent attempts to blame on his opponent.
What a spaz.

> If you would just be honest, you wouldn't get caught LYING so
> often, Greg.  Sadly, you are psychologically UNABLE to be honest with
> any intent, unless you think intentional honesty will promote a lie
> you're presenting.

You repeat that a lot. It's starting to look
like you are describing yourself in a projection.

> I also find it of interest that you claim my consistently
> exposing your LIE about who I am means that I must be that person,
> since only that person would devote so much time to disproving the
> claim.

It's not much trouble at all!
I don't even post the entire dossier.
There is no need because you are so thoroughly ID'd.

KBW > You exert a great deal of time and energy
KBW > trying to distance yourself from a conviction
KBW > for OWI you are now claiming isn't yours.

You are nailed down with official and public records with LINKS.

You tried a phony OWI which anybody
with a text editor could have made.

KBW > Going so far as to use a
KBW > deceptive innuendo in the form of a question.

Lacking quote, link or specifics. Vague.

Kent's stock deceptions/logical fallacies

F. Ad Hominem calling opponents
1. Drunks or drunk drivers
2. Druggies or on drugs
3. Mentally Ill often as result of drug use
G. Res Judicata
1. Already conceded to Kent's argument
2. Question already asked and answered.
H. Fallacy of Suppressed Evidence
1a. Missing Middle, False Dilemma, False Dichotomy, bifurcation
1b. Fallacy of Complex Question - loaded question with presupposition
2. Withholding proof saying it's already on the table
3. ""Check is in the mail"" as proof of something.
4. Proof held hostage awaiting opponents proof on something else
J. Lie claimed to be based on opponents standards - a type of strawman

Claim that a lack of proof disproves something.
Claim that a lack of proof proves something.
Flat out outright lies.

It's as if Kent is an automation that is WAY too simple.