Believers, Non-Believers & Morality

Originally posted by @dj2becker
If I had denied being Fetch, just like I am denying that I am Romans, how would you prove that I was lying?

"Prove" to whom?

I - and others - had enough evidence that you were both Fetchmyjunk and dj2becker.

And you knew that you were both Fetchmyjunk and dj2becker.

To whom does anything with regard to this have to be "proved"?

Originally posted by @fmf
"Prove" to whom?

I - and others - had enough evidence that you were both Fetchmyjunk and dj2becker.

And you knew that you were both Fetchmyjunk and dj2becker.

To whom does anything with regard to this have to be "proved"?

Just like you had enough evidence that I was Romans? Sounds legit. 🙄

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Just like you had enough evidence that I was Romans? Sounds legit. 🙄

You don't seem to be responding to what I am saying. You're just blanking out the responses you are getting. "Prove" to whom? We knew you were Fetchmyjunk, and you knew you were Fetchmyjunk. What does you now asking "How would you prove that I was lying?" have to do with it?

Originally posted by @fmf
You don't seem to be responding to what I am saying. You're just blanking out the responses you are getting. "Prove" to whom? We knew you were Fetchmyjunk, and you knew you were Fetchmyjunk. What does you now asking "How would you prove that I was lying?" have to do with it?

You did not know I was Fetch, you may have suspected it just like some of you suspected I was Romans.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
You did not know I was Fetch, you may have suspected it just like some of you suspected I was Romans.

It was obvious that it was you. I had enough proof. And you didn't need proof that you were you. So to whom did I have to "prove" it? It has nothing to do with who Romans1009. A second question: what point about morality do you think you are making with all this?

Originally posted by @fmf
It was obvious that it was you. I had enough proof. And you didn't need proof that you were you. So to whom did I have to "prove" it? It has nothing to do with who Romans1009. A second question: what point about morality do you think you are making with all this?

You don't seem to know the difference between evidence and proof. It seems 'obvious' to Dive that I am Romans. Can you prove that I am not Romans? I think the points I am making are self explanatory.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
You don't seem to know the difference between evidence and proof. Can you prove that I am not Romans?

I have never tried to and I have no interest in doing so.

"Proof" is in the eye of the beholder. I had enough. And you already knew I was right.

Who else needed any? "Prove" to whom?

Also:

What point about morality do you think you are making with all this?

Originally posted by @fmf
I have never tried to and I have no interest in doing so.

"Proof" is in the eye of the beholder. I had enough. And you already knew I was right.

Who else needed any? "Prove" to whom?

Also:

What point about morality do you think you are making with all this?

Does Dive have enough proof that I am Romans?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
I think the points I am making are self explanatory.

What "self-explanatory" point about morality do you think you are making with all this? All I am getting from you is that you are apparently completely amoral in interpersonal terms, and you are displaying that you have a form of online disinhibition syndrome. Have I got it wrong?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Does Dive have enough proof that I am Romans?

Ask him.

Can you read what I am saying and respond to it? Stop pretending to be having a conversation. It's as if you're not reading the posts you are replying to.

Originally posted by @fmf
I have never tried to and I have no interest in doing so.

"Proof" is in the eye of the beholder. I had enough. And you already knew I was right.

Who else needed any? "Prove" to whom?

Also:

What point about morality do you think you are making with all this?

Evidence is in the eye of the beholder. Proof is not subjective.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Evidence is in the eye of the beholder. Proof is not subjective.

With regard to you reviving dj2becker to troll people who'd stopped talking to Fetchmyjunk - and not telling those people - even though it simply could not have been more obvious - "prove" to whom?

Originally posted by @fmf
With regard to you reviving dj2becker to troll people who'd stopped talking to Fetchmyjunk, "prove" to whom?

Here is one for you to try on your noggin FMF: How do you prove that dj was not lying when he claimed to be fetch? How do you know that dj was telling the truth? Is it maybe because you believe he is honest? If you are claiming that dj is a liar why do you believe him when he says he is fetch?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Here is one for you to try on your noggin FMF: How do you prove that dj was not lying when he claimed to be fetch? How do you know that dj was telling the truth? Is it maybe because you believe he is honest?

What are you on about?

You used two accounts and you were exposed.

What moral lesson are you trying to teach non-believers here?

Originally posted by @fmf
What are you on about?

You used two accounts and you were exposed.

What moral lesson are you trying to teach non-believers here?

Do you believe dj is a liar or an honest person?