"liberal supporter" from the Clowncar Brigade has been remarkably quiet lately. If anyone suspected that this meant that he had decided to get out of the blog-trolling game with what is left of his meagre dignity intact, it turns out they were wrong.
Here liberal supporter haunts a comment thread at Hatrock's Cave.
Here your not-so-humble scribe reminds liberal supporter that he had once claimed that a date rape victim was not date raped because her assailant wasn't convicted.
liberal supporter insists that statement is a lie.
The problem for liberal supporter is that it's not a lie:
The first is that liberal supporter very clearly doesn't know what a verdict of "not guilty" means.
"Not guilty" doesn't mean that there was no victim, and that nothing occurred, but rather that the court doesn't find sufficient evidence to convict.
A verdict of "innocent" wouldn't even suggest that there was no victim, and that nothing wrong occurred -- not implicitly. Rather, a verdict of "innocent" simply means that the court rules that the accused didn't commit the act.
Beyond that, one has to consider the argument that liberal supporter used on this occasion.
By the same logic, Nicole Simpson wasn't murdered. OJ Simpson was found to be "not guilty". The plaintiff (the state) lost its case. Therefore, there is no murdered woman.
Your not-so-humble scribe would love to, at this point, declare the book on liberal supporter to be closed.
The problem is that this moron doesn't have the sense to let it end. Every time your so-very-far-from-humble-because-he-can-afford-not-to-be scribe encounters liberal supporter in a blog thread, liberal supporter seems to lack the ability to remember humiliating himself, and so declines to do what marginally wiser individuals who can't win arguments do: run away.
All anyone can do is remind him of this very simple concept that he just refuses to comprehend:
No means no.
So if anyone reading this post was wondering to themselves: is liberal supporter really the kind of dimwit who would stand behind this kind of ignorance and stupidity?
Sadly, it seems the answer is yes:
Your not-so-humble scribe points out that liberal supporter claimed that because a "not guilty" verdict was rendered in a date rape case, it means that there was no date rape.
liberal supporter calls your not-so-humble-scribe a "pathological liar".
Your not-so-humble-scribe provides evidence of said comment. liberal supporter stands by said ignorance and stupidity. And despite the fact that the comment that elicited the "pathological liar" accusation bore out to be true, liberal supporter insists that your not-so-humble scribe is still a "pathological liar".
Some people, it seems, are simply incapable of honest dialogue. liberal supporter is a clear and ever-present example of just such an individual.
Debating with liberal supporter is actually rather Orwellian. Lies are insisted to be the truth. Truth is insisted to be lies.
It's on that note that one realizes that when liberal supporter calls someone a pathological liar, it actually means that individual pathologically tells the truth.
Quite the insult. Quite the insult.
No means no.