"In 2005, a Washington Post-ABC News poll found 64 percent of Democrats preferring to “keep” the filibuster rule for judicial appointments, while only 20 percent wanted to “eliminate” it. Republicans took the opposite view – wanting to end the filibuster – by a similar margin. The survey question described the main arguments of political leaders at the time: Republicans want to eliminate the filibuster saying it’s unfair for a minority to block a full Senate vote while Democrats want to retain it so the minority can block judges it strongly opposes."
What a difference a few years (and a different sheriff in town makes)
"Of course, things have changed since then: A Democrat now sits in the White House and Democrats also have majority control of the Senate. Since the power switch, polling on filibuster tactics shows partisans have changed their minds. A 2010 Quinnipiac poll found 60 percent of Democrats saying it is “not justified” for senators to use a filibuster to prevent Supreme Court nominations from coming to a vote; 66 percent of Republicans said it was “justified.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/07/16/democrats-once-loved-the-filibuster/
Mike, I'd like to hope that was a tongue in cheek comment, I'm guessing you're likely serious. It is pretty funny though, right up with the comment, sure, I'll respect you in the morning and I'm from the government and I'm here to help you. "No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the congress is in session." --Mark Twain
Greg keeps asking me to re-post his comments. Not sure why he has to have his comments re-posted simply to tell us why his comments are not criminal, but here goes. No out this time Greg.
Greg's statements on ignoring, breaking the law:
Greg Camp November 4, 2013 at 2:39 AM
When the law is unjust, it is no law at all. Home invasions are a violation of privacy, and yes, I call these actions invasions, "legal" or not.
So you decide which laws you will follow, or not? Sounds like breaking the law to me. ________________________________________________________
Greg Camp October 5, 2013 at 5:56 PM
Mine gets carried concealed. And yes, if I ever have occasion to go to Starbucks, it will be with me.
This was after Starbucks asked their customers to leave their guns at home. Seems another example that Greg will defy anyone's rules and regulations. _________________________________________________________
Greg Camp October 8, 2013 at 6:31 AM
I think the United States should invade California and impose regime change on that failed state.
I'd say that's a promotion for breaking the law. _________________________________________________________
Greg Camp October 5, 2013 at 5:54 PM
Stupid rules require increasing cleverness to circumvent.
Seems he's actively looking for ways to break the rule of law. ________________________________________________________
Anonymous September 8, 2013 at 3:52 PM
Some people would call assaulting a drug dealer civic minded.
Greg Camp September 8, 2013 at 5:17 PM
Agreed.
I would call it a thug assaulting another person. Call the cops. _________________________________________________________
Greg Camp September 9, 2013 at 4:45 PM
In an ideal world, beating up someone is the wrong action, but we don't live in an ideal world, and I have more feeling for the friend struggling with addiction than I do for the dealer.
It would be one thing if this happened in front of you, but you said you would go looking for him. Doesn't sound like a law abiding citizen to me. _________________________________________________________
Greg Camp August 30, 2013 at 8:07 AM
I've said it before: He should be given a lethal injection of boiling lard.
That's not what the law prescribes. Greg has his own ideas. ________________________________________________________
Greg Camp August 27, 2013 at 8:27 AM
Revenge is justice. This man is a traitor and a terrorist. He deserves a far more gruesome death than our law allows.
Going outside the law to get his bloody revenge. Revenge is not justice. _________________________________________________________
Greg Camp August 20, 2013 at 5:53 PM
When the law makes no sense by banning or restricting something that should not be covered by law, good people don't expect such foolishness or resist the violation. The responsibility lies with the criminal legislators and executives who push these laws in the first place.
Blame the people. They elected these criminals into office. You change law in a civil society, not ignore, or break it. ________________________________________________________
These kind of statements can only be read as the author having disregard for the law, promoting illegal acts, and clearly stating he would participate in such illegal behavior.
I made my comments about each one of your comments and concluded what I wrote above. Now tell me Greg, why am I wrong about my conclusion that your comments promote criminality?
Steve, you failed again. I said we'll deal with one at a time, since we don't need to monopolize Mikeb's pages, and you must provide links to give the context.
Greg, asking for links, supposedly in order to have the context, is bullshit. You do recognize all those quotes, don't you. I even remember most of them and your memory is so much better than mine.
Steve, Greg is right about one thing. This comment should be a post of its own rather than a sort-of off topic diversion. I see you put a lot of work into it which I appreciate. My e-mail address is on the sidebar. Please send me stuff like this so I can post it. Or, if you prefer, send my your e-mail and I'll make you a co-blogger.
Mikeb, you have low standards. I'll be happy to address comments in their context, if Steve will give links, one at a time. But I'm not going to discuss things pulled out of a discussion. When I want to argue with something you've said in the past, I show you its source. That's what I'm requiring here.
I posted this earlier because Greg said he was going to sue me, because I called his statements, promoting criminality. I posted it again because Greg demanded that I do. About seven times now, Greg has refused to reply. Always giving some lame excuse, like he would only reply, if I posted one statement at a time. I answered his context question before. The statements include dates and times, that's enough to link for context. I'm done with him. He is an outright liar and coward. I have nothing to prove. Greg cannot explain why his statements are not criminal, because they clearly are,and context won't make a difference. Thanks Greg for proving me correct. You do promote criminality and state that you would brake the law. Proven and done.
Greg refuses to answer, so I ask TS to characterize Greg's comments. TS often replies for Greg, and I would be interested in TS's opinion of Greg's comments as I listed them. Go ahead TS, check the context. The dates and times will give you the link needed to read the post.
Mikeb, this is why I'm not going to answer "Steve." When asked to be reasonable, he flies into a snit. I do sincerely hope that he will stop bugging me. This site does tend to collect trolls who can't stay on topic, but facts and logic aren't the friends of gun control freaks.
Thanks for thinking of me, Steve. I've reviewed Greg's comments, and I do not see anything that isn't protected under the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights.
"In an ideal world, beating up someone is the wrong action, but we don't live in an ideal world"
Thanks for clearing that up TS. I now know you agree with beating people up, that revenge is justice, and of course my favorite - chasing someone down with your gun, instead of calling the police, and intending to do bodily harm - your own tyrannical rule out of the rule of law.
Greg, I'm afraid Steve has really bested you in this one. Your pathetic attempt to paint him a troll and claiming that HE goes into a snit is really funny.
TS, I don't think anyone said Greg had violated the 1st Amendment.
Steve: "Greg cannot explain why his statements are not criminal, because they clearly are,and context won't make a difference."
Here he says that Greg is a criminal for stating these things, and I wholeheartedly disagree citing the First Amendment. On citing the First Amendment, I then get accused of agreeing with chasing someone down with a gun. Give it a rest, Steve.
Mikeb, when he provides links to the comments--not dates, but links--I'll discuss them one at a time. But since he refuses to be reasonable about this, I'm not playing his game.
As always, you base your opinions on who is on your side, not on the facts and logic of the argument. As long as someone says, "Blah, blah, blah, support gun control, blah, blah, blah," you agree with the person.
By the way, "violating the first amendment" is what government does when it suppresses or punishes a citizen's protected speech. Saying something not protected (like libel), isn't called violating the first amendment- it's just not protected because it does harm to another person. And yes, you can say that person's rights were violated, but it wasn't their first amendment rights.
Funny, Greg thinks his "links" argument gets him off the hook. What a lying coward. Sorry TS, Greg uses more than words, he says he would commit illegal acts, and free speech does not include promoting illegal acts. If you say you are going to kill the president, free speech right will not save you from being arrested, even if you don't actually kill the president. Threatening is a criminal violation, no actual physical act is necessary to be in violation of the law. Inciting others to violent acts, is also against the law. This all started because Greg said he was going to sue me. I'm still waiting for a letter from his attorney, which will never come, because I have proven Greg has promoted criminal acts and stated he would commit those criminal acts. On going, Greg is a lying, coward, criminal and I will judge his comments accordingly. As you have agreed with his comments, that puts you in his "criminal" group also. Your naming me Steve (know that I know who Steve is) is proof of your game playing. Obviously not serious, just to create as much negativity as possible. A thoroughly disgusting character in one posing to seriously debate life and death issues.
"I then get accused of agreeing with chasing someone down with a gun. Give it a rest, Steve." Oh, I forgot, that's what Greg said he would do, and you said you agreed with that. Try again?
Steve, you should call the police and report Greg's crimes to them. If you believe his words to be a tangible threat, you morally can't sit idle as a witness to these crimes. Maybe the police will do a better job of explaining what constitutes threatening speech than I- or rather you'd be more likely to be convinced by them.
Mike, things like libel and threats are unprotected. That is different than saying it "violates" the first amendment, because the first amendment wasn't put in place to restrict what people are allowed to say.
As soon as I get Greg's attorney's letter suing me for libel, I'll introduce his statements here as my defense (there are more). Greg will lose the case and I will ask the State to investigate his words for any criminal charges.
I agree that there is speech that is not protected by the 1st Amendment (namely speech that harms another person). That is different than “violate”. To not understand the difference is to not understand the fundamental purpose of the Bill of Rights.
Come to think of it, Steve, you say you have evidence of Greg committing crimes, but you are withholding this evidence from the State for your personal gain, by threatening to release it if you get sued. Um, that’s pretty much called “blackmail”. Considering your tirades against Greg for not following the rule of law and “taking the law into your own hands”, that’s quite rich.
All I did was support the 1st Amendment. You call that "promoting criminality". What is that anyway? Is that a crime, or is that part of free speech? If you think it's a crime, call the cops on me. I'm not threatening to sue you for libel, so there is no need to blackmail me. If I'm breaking the law- call the cops.
You stated that you agreed with Greg's statements. Greg's statements promoted breaking the law and stated he would break the law. His words not my lies. Speaking of lies, when did I blackmail Greg? Speaking of lies, you stated there was no reason to name me Steve; it is quite clear that was a lie. Threatening to assult someone is a crime, that's exactly what Greg said he would do and agreed that would be the proper thing for anyone to do. Now, on with your lies.
1) What I said was that Greg's statements are protected speech. That doesn't mean that I agree or disagree with what he said. If you want to ask me about whether I agree with a specific statement, I will answer you honestly.
2) saying you would break a law does not equal breaking the law.
3) you said you have evidence of Greg committing crimes, and you are withholding it from the police for personal gain. You said you would bring this to police IF he sued you for libel. If you actually had evidence of a crime- this would be considered blackmail (at the very least working outside the law, which are allegations you make at Greg).
4) I never said I have no reason for naming you "Steve". Again, you answered this under your Google account instead of as anonymous Steve, so you keep making me look like I was right.
5) who was the victim of Greg's assault threat? It was a hypothetical, which is different than threatening to kick the ass of say John Smith of 4326 White Oak lane.
Steve is not me, that is your lie. Figures you are dumb enough to fall for Steve's games. Yes you did say you agreed with what Greg said, that was my question, not whether, or not he had a Constitutional right to say it. And yes, merely threatening harm to someone is a crime, but I wouldn't expect a criminal to understand that. Keep lying criminal. As I said before, I'm OK with Steve piggy backing on my comments. It's you who named me Steve (playing your games again) who has to keep it straight.
Google account Steve, isn’t making me look bad- he’s making you look bad by making me look right. If he is someone else, and he is answering posts for you (in your same tone) then he is screwing with you. Since you don’t seem to see it that way, it strongly points to you being the same person who accidently posts under his google account because he forgot that he was logged in after checking his gmail.
Of course I don't see it that way, because it is not that way. He is aiming his comments at you and Greg, not me. And you named me Steve, to produce that situation, which makes you the game playing liar. Next lie.
"In 2005, a Washington Post-ABC News poll found 64 percent of Democrats preferring to “keep” the filibuster rule for judicial appointments, while only 20 percent wanted to “eliminate” it. Republicans took the opposite view – wanting to end the filibuster – by a similar margin. The survey question described the main arguments of political leaders at the time: Republicans want to eliminate the filibuster saying it’s unfair for a minority to block a full Senate vote while Democrats want to retain it so the minority can block judges it strongly opposes."
ReplyDeleteWhat a difference a few years (and a different sheriff in town makes)
"Of course, things have changed since then: A Democrat now sits in the White House and Democrats also have majority control of the Senate. Since the power switch, polling on filibuster tactics shows partisans have changed their minds. A 2010 Quinnipiac poll found 60 percent of Democrats saying it is “not justified” for senators to use a filibuster to prevent Supreme Court nominations from coming to a vote; 66 percent of Republicans said it was “justified.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/07/16/democrats-once-loved-the-filibuster/
What does she say about Feinstein putting a hold on reasonable gun legislation?
ReplyDeleteThe discussion was about Republican behavior. It has nothing to do with Feinstein, except in your fevered obsession.
DeleteIn other words, in your view, it's fine when Democrats use parliamentary rules to block votes, but not when Republicans do it?
DeleteDidn't you listen to what Warren said? The Republicans ABUSE the system. The Democrats USE it.
DeleteMike, I'd like to hope that was a tongue in cheek comment, I'm guessing you're likely serious. It is pretty funny though, right up with the comment, sure, I'll respect you in the morning and I'm from the government and I'm here to help you.
Delete"No man's life, liberty, or property are safe
while the congress is in session." --Mark Twain
As I said, which word you use depends on which side you're on.
DeleteNo one over-uses the filibuster system like the Republicans. That's the point of her speech.
DeleteGreg keeps asking me to re-post his comments. Not sure why he has to have his comments re-posted simply to tell us why his comments are not criminal, but here goes. No out this time Greg.
ReplyDeleteGreg's statements on ignoring, breaking the law:
Greg Camp November 4, 2013 at 2:39 AM
When the law is unjust, it is no law at all. Home invasions are a violation of privacy, and yes, I call these actions invasions, "legal" or not.
So you decide which laws you will follow, or not? Sounds like breaking the law to me.
________________________________________________________
Greg Camp October 5, 2013 at 5:56 PM
Mine gets carried concealed. And yes, if I ever have occasion to go to Starbucks, it will be with me.
This was after Starbucks asked their customers to leave their guns at home. Seems another example that Greg will defy anyone's rules and regulations.
_________________________________________________________
Greg Camp October 8, 2013 at 6:31 AM
I think the United States should invade California and impose regime change on that failed state.
I'd say that's a promotion for breaking the law.
_________________________________________________________
Greg Camp October 5, 2013 at 5:54 PM
Stupid rules require increasing cleverness to circumvent.
Seems he's actively looking for ways to break the rule of law.
________________________________________________________
Anonymous September 8, 2013 at 3:52 PM
Some people would call assaulting a drug dealer civic minded.
Greg Camp September 8, 2013 at 5:17 PM
Agreed.
I would call it a thug assaulting another person. Call the cops.
_________________________________________________________
Greg Camp September 9, 2013 at 4:45 PM
In an ideal world, beating up someone is the wrong action, but we don't live in an ideal world, and I have more feeling for the friend struggling with addiction than I do for the dealer.
It would be one thing if this happened in front of you, but you said you would go looking for him. Doesn't sound like a law abiding citizen to me.
_________________________________________________________
Greg Camp August 30, 2013 at 8:07 AM
I've said it before: He should be given a lethal injection of boiling lard.
That's not what the law prescribes. Greg has his own ideas.
________________________________________________________
Greg Camp August 27, 2013 at 8:27 AM
Revenge is justice. This man is a traitor and a terrorist. He deserves a far more gruesome death than our law allows.
Going outside the law to get his bloody revenge. Revenge is not justice.
_________________________________________________________
Greg Camp August 20, 2013 at 5:53 PM
When the law makes no sense by banning or restricting something that should not be covered by law, good people don't expect such foolishness or resist the violation. The responsibility lies with the criminal legislators and executives who push these laws in the first place.
Blame the people. They elected these criminals into office. You change law in a civil society, not ignore, or break it.
________________________________________________________
These kind of statements can only be read as the author having disregard for the law, promoting illegal acts, and clearly stating he would participate in such illegal behavior.
I made my comments about each one of your comments and concluded what I wrote above.
Now tell me Greg, why am I wrong about my conclusion that your comments promote criminality?
Steve, you failed again. I said we'll deal with one at a time, since we don't need to monopolize Mikeb's pages, and you must provide links to give the context.
DeleteGreg, asking for links, supposedly in order to have the context, is bullshit. You do recognize all those quotes, don't you. I even remember most of them and your memory is so much better than mine.
DeleteSteve, Greg is right about one thing. This comment should be a post of its own rather than a sort-of off topic diversion. I see you put a lot of work into it which I appreciate. My e-mail address is on the sidebar. Please send me stuff like this so I can post it. Or, if you prefer, send my your e-mail and I'll make you a co-blogger.
Mikeb, you have low standards. I'll be happy to address comments in their context, if Steve will give links, one at a time. But I'm not going to discuss things pulled out of a discussion. When I want to argue with something you've said in the past, I show you its source. That's what I'm requiring here.
DeleteI posted this earlier because Greg said he was going to sue me, because I called his statements, promoting criminality.
DeleteI posted it again because Greg demanded that I do.
About seven times now, Greg has refused to reply. Always giving some lame excuse, like he would only reply, if I posted one statement at a time. I answered his context question before. The statements include dates and times, that's enough to link for context. I'm done with him. He is an outright liar and coward. I have nothing to prove. Greg cannot explain why his statements are not criminal, because they clearly are,and context won't make a difference.
Thanks Greg for proving me correct. You do promote criminality and state that you would brake the law. Proven and done.
Greg refuses to answer, so I ask TS to characterize Greg's comments. TS often replies for Greg, and I would be interested in TS's opinion of Greg's comments as I listed them. Go ahead TS, check the context. The dates and times will give you the link needed to read the post.
DeleteMikeb, this is why I'm not going to answer "Steve." When asked to be reasonable, he flies into a snit. I do sincerely hope that he will stop bugging me. This site does tend to collect trolls who can't stay on topic, but facts and logic aren't the friends of gun control freaks.
DeleteThanks for thinking of me, Steve. I've reviewed Greg's comments, and I do not see anything that isn't protected under the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights.
Delete"When asked to be reasonable, he flies into a snit."
DeleteYou are a disgusting liar, especially when all my comments are there for others to read, and what you say is not true. Again, You are a lying coward.
Thanks TS just wanted to make sure you agree with these statements:
DeleteGreg said,
"Revenge is justice"
____________________________________________________
Anonymous September 8, 2013 at 3:52 PM
Some people would call assaulting a drug dealer civic minded.
Greg Camp September 8, 2013 at 5:17 PM
Agreed.
________________________________________________________
Greg said,
"In an ideal world, beating up someone is the wrong action, but we don't live in an ideal world"
Thanks for clearing that up TS. I now know you agree with beating people up, that revenge is justice, and of course my favorite - chasing someone down with your gun, instead of calling the police, and intending to do bodily harm - your own tyrannical rule out of the rule of law.
Greg, I'm afraid Steve has really bested you in this one. Your pathetic attempt to paint him a troll and claiming that HE goes into a snit is really funny.
DeleteTS, I don't think anyone said Greg had violated the 1st Amendment.
Steve: "Greg cannot explain why his statements are not criminal, because they clearly are,and context won't make a difference."
DeleteHere he says that Greg is a criminal for stating these things, and I wholeheartedly disagree citing the First Amendment. On citing the First Amendment, I then get accused of agreeing with chasing someone down with a gun. Give it a rest, Steve.
Mikeb, when he provides links to the comments--not dates, but links--I'll discuss them one at a time. But since he refuses to be reasonable about this, I'm not playing his game.
DeleteAs always, you base your opinions on who is on your side, not on the facts and logic of the argument. As long as someone says, "Blah, blah, blah, support gun control, blah, blah, blah," you agree with the person.
By the way, "violating the first amendment" is what government does when it suppresses or punishes a citizen's protected speech. Saying something not protected (like libel), isn't called violating the first amendment- it's just not protected because it does harm to another person. And yes, you can say that person's rights were violated, but it wasn't their first amendment rights.
DeleteFunny, Greg thinks his "links" argument gets him off the hook. What a lying coward.
DeleteSorry TS, Greg uses more than words, he says he would commit illegal acts, and free speech does not include promoting illegal acts. If you say you are going to kill the president, free speech right will not save you from being arrested, even if you don't actually kill the president. Threatening is a criminal violation, no actual physical act is necessary to be in violation of the law. Inciting others to violent acts, is also against the law.
This all started because Greg said he was going to sue me. I'm still waiting for a letter from his attorney, which will never come, because I have proven Greg has promoted criminal acts and stated he would commit those criminal acts.
On going, Greg is a lying, coward, criminal and I will judge his comments accordingly. As you have agreed with his comments, that puts you in his "criminal" group also. Your naming me Steve (know that I know who Steve is) is proof of your game playing. Obviously not serious, just to create as much negativity as possible. A thoroughly disgusting character in one posing to seriously debate life and death issues.
"I then get accused of agreeing with chasing someone down with a gun. Give it a rest, Steve."
DeleteOh, I forgot, that's what Greg said he would do, and you said you agreed with that. Try again?
Spoken or written offenses can be illegal without bringing the 1st Amendment into it. Wouldn't you say, TS?
DeleteSteve, you should call the police and report Greg's crimes to them. If you believe his words to be a tangible threat, you morally can't sit idle as a witness to these crimes. Maybe the police will do a better job of explaining what constitutes threatening speech than I- or rather you'd be more likely to be convinced by them.
DeleteMike, things like libel and threats are unprotected. That is different than saying it "violates" the first amendment, because the first amendment wasn't put in place to restrict what people are allowed to say.
Delete"Steve," I said that you committed libel. But as always, you twist words into what you want them to say.
DeleteWhat Steve said was, "Greg's statements on ignoring, breaking the law:"
DeleteDid he also bring up the 1A, or was that you, TS?
I brought up the First Amendement because all Greg did was make statements. Statements protected by the First Amendment, and certainly not criminal.
DeleteAs soon as I get Greg's attorney's letter suing me for libel, I'll introduce his statements here as my defense (there are more). Greg will lose the case and I will ask the State to investigate his words for any criminal charges.
DeleteYes, TS, you brought up the 1A. But you agree that there are speech and written crimes that do not violate it, right?
DeleteI agree that there is speech that is not protected by the 1st Amendment (namely speech that harms another person). That is different than “violate”. To not understand the difference is to not understand the fundamental purpose of the Bill of Rights.
DeleteSo, Steve, these “crimes” of Greg’s aren’t worth reporting unless you are sued? That’s a little selfish.
DeleteCome to think of it, Steve, you say you have evidence of Greg committing crimes, but you are withholding this evidence from the State for your personal gain, by threatening to release it if you get sued. Um, that’s pretty much called “blackmail”. Considering your tirades against Greg for not following the rule of law and “taking the law into your own hands”, that’s quite rich.
DeleteThis is a game you started and you lost. Now it is clear you are promoting criminality also, figures.
ReplyDeleteAll I did was support the 1st Amendment. You call that "promoting criminality". What is that anyway? Is that a crime, or is that part of free speech? If you think it's a crime, call the cops on me. I'm not threatening to sue you for libel, so there is no need to blackmail me. If I'm breaking the law- call the cops.
DeleteYou stated that you agreed with Greg's statements. Greg's statements promoted breaking the law and stated he would break the law. His words not my lies. Speaking of lies, when did I blackmail Greg? Speaking of lies, you stated there was no reason to name me Steve; it is quite clear that was a lie. Threatening to assult someone is a crime, that's exactly what Greg said he would do and agreed that would be the proper thing for anyone to do.
DeleteNow, on with your lies.
1) What I said was that Greg's statements are protected speech. That doesn't mean that I agree or disagree with what he said. If you want to ask me about whether I agree with a specific statement, I will answer you honestly.
ReplyDelete2) saying you would break a law does not equal breaking the law.
3) you said you have evidence of Greg committing crimes, and you are withholding it from the police for personal gain. You said you would bring this to police IF he sued you for libel. If you actually had evidence of a crime- this would be considered blackmail (at the very least working outside the law, which are allegations you make at Greg).
4) I never said I have no reason for naming you "Steve". Again, you answered this under your Google account instead of as anonymous Steve, so you keep making me look like I was right.
5) who was the victim of Greg's assault threat? It was a hypothetical, which is different than threatening to kick the ass of say John Smith of 4326 White Oak lane.
Steve is not me, that is your lie. Figures you are dumb enough to fall for Steve's games. Yes you did say you agreed with what Greg said, that was my question, not whether, or not he had a Constitutional right to say it. And yes, merely threatening harm to someone is a crime, but I wouldn't expect a criminal to understand that. Keep lying criminal. As I said before, I'm OK with Steve piggy backing on my comments. It's you who named me Steve (playing your games again) who has to keep it straight.
DeleteGoogle account Steve, isn’t making me look bad- he’s making you look bad by making me look right. If he is someone else, and he is answering posts for you (in your same tone) then he is screwing with you. Since you don’t seem to see it that way, it strongly points to you being the same person who accidently posts under his google account because he forgot that he was logged in after checking his gmail.
DeleteOf course I don't see it that way, because it is not that way. He is aiming his comments at you and Greg, not me. And you named me Steve, to produce that situation, which makes you the game playing liar. Next lie.
Delete