I've provided plenty.
No, you haven't. You've provided evidence for a maximum of 6
lines of credit, and not even all of those appear to actually be active.
"Dozens" means at least 24
Reasonable supposition could add 4 to that (1 credit card per spouse, 1 car payment per spouse). So I'll even be generous and, despite lack of evidence
, give you 10
We're still 14 short, at least. In common usage "dozens" would likely mean 36 or more.
You are claiming that saying someone is lying is not calling them a liar?
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. One can do something and not be labeled with it.
Lying is an action.
Liar is a person.
When you call someone a "liar" you are putting a label on them; making an accusation that lying is an integral part of their person such that they wear it as a label. Saying someone is lying is simply pointing out an action and doesn't stipulate it as a regular action; it could be the first and last time someone ever does it.
If a child steals a piece of candy from a store, and never steals anything again, is he still a "thief" at 40?
Is it a personal attack to tell him to "stop stealing" when he is 8 and you catch him?
Even if he posted that the earth was flat, you can't call him a name, EVEN IF IT WOULD FIT.
I didn't call him a name. That's the whole point.
You can argue that I implied it, but that's all it is; your
re: "Stop lying" & "Start reading":
Why haven't you inferred
a personal attack against me as you inferred
a personal attack against trumpet?
If I am implying that he is a liar, is he not implying that I do not read?
Breathing isn't pejorative; lying is.
Sure, but what does that matter? People should be allowed to lie without being called on it because having it called out is not nice? Shouldn't the impetus actually be on the one telling the lie, not on the one wanting to call it out for what it is? That's some fucked-up backwards values.
By claiming he is "lying", you propose to know whether he is intentionally misrepresenting facts.
He provided a source of information and then made a claim that directly contradicted that source of evidence. One can't claim ignorance when one holds the actual source of evidence.
If I make a claim that a document says something and I know that the document doesn't say that... what is it if not a lie? What am I doing if not lying?
And if pointing out someone's actions is a personal attack, why the hell can I be told to "start reading"?
The double standard is glaring.