As they say, Meatbrain, you’ll never ever get ahead with your lies. Yet you were unable to demonstrate anything you complained about was untrue, let alone a lie.

So pathetic.

As I said previously,

Support your facts with evidence, Meatbrain. But you can’t because you are lying.

Sorry, Meatbrain, you are just digging yourself deeper trying ever more desperately to distract from your lies and abusive personality. And for that I pity you.

False. Please continue to lie.

“You said you were anti-social.”

False. Please continue to lie.

You haven’t asked straightforward questions.

It turns out you have asked, in effect, merely rhetorical questions for the sake of filling-in your own answers.

The subject, according to your post, is “poor reasoning skills and blatant dishonesty”.

It is plausible that you mistakenly conflated “neutering the definition of marriage” with “weakening a particular relationship”.

Instead of seeking clarification, however, you went into accusation overdrive based on your perception of what was said and what was left unsaid. It was like watching you attempt to spring a trap on someone else but you ensared yourself.

You said you were abusive. You said you were anti-social. Your hositility was on display—beyond disagreement on a substantive subject—and that has raised alarms with Renee and with On Lawn and with Op-ed.

I don’t see why you would not immediately address that concern, reset the tone of the discussion, and seek clarification of what appears to be a bonafide disagreement.

Your comments and your posts make it obvious you find this disagreement to be of considerable importance to you. Apparently, you want to bring this to the attention of others who might empathize or sympathize with you.

Given your investment, and given your passion about this subject, it might serve you better to pursue the disagreement much more constructively.

Chairm, the folks on Opine Editorials could just answer the straightforward questions I’ve already asked. That, apparently, hasn’t occurred to you.

“Disagreement with you is not a signal for you to call someone a liar.”

I agree. The signal for me to call someone a liar is when they lie — as Renee did when she claimed that I threatened her, and as On Lawn did when he claimed that I stalked Renee.

Lecture the folks on Opine about intellectual honesty. Once you’ve done that, then you can come over here and we’ll discuss the subject.

Here is an example of how you might have sought clarification through a line of follow-up questions.

1. What do you meant by neutered marriage?

2. Would that have a bad effect, i.e. weaken the state’s recogniton of the social insitution?

3. Would it effect existing relationships of husbands and wives?

4. If yes, could you give an example of the effect on a particular marital relationship?

5. Would it weaken a particular marital relationship? How?

6. Would it effect future relationships of husbands and wives? How? Example(s)?

... and so forth.

If your goal is really to slur and abuse, you’ve done enough of that without bothering to make the effort of an intellectually honest exchange questions and answers.

Declaring that you don’t care about society and admitting that you are abusive is not the way to encourage anyone to listen to you, let alone to accept that you sincerely wish to find answers to your questions.

Clear the deck. Ask for clarification rather than get yourself all worked up in making false accusations and then trying to defend your admittedly abusive and uncaring approach to the issue of marriage in this society.

Disagreement with you is not a signal for you to call someone a liar. If you don’t know what is meant by something, ask and read more carefully. Jumping to conclusions based on a reflexive hostility just make you look very foolish.

You can do better if you make the effort to act contrary to your admission of being abusive and anti-social. You don’t have to make the effort. None of your usual readers might even expect you to raise the bar. But the choice is yours anyway no matter what I or others might suggest for improvement.

This from the meathead who pulled this gaff.

On Lawn’s original position was that I was “changing the question midstream”, and he in fact ridiculed the idea that it could be a follow-up question:

”...to call that a follow up question instead of the post-hoc mess that it really is just tells me how gullible you think your readership is.”

On Lawn is lying again.

“Renee showed verifiable evidence [that no one in Massachusetts has an immediate family]”

Here is Renee’s reply to that challenge:

“There is no immediate family in Massachusetts, tax payers and citizens have no right or influence in what is taught in the school systems. Parents can not opt out of anything that goes against their decision at what time to bring up certian subjects. Cases have been dismissed, because the state can have any reason to teach what it wants. Funny that southern states can now use the same case law to teach the Bible.”

This is merely a series of assertions. No verifiable facts are given. On Lawn is lying again.

“Are you really denying that you said you were abusive? Are you really denying you said you don’t care about society? Are you really saying I didn’t delete that comment because of profanity? Be specific, answer the question, liar.”

The specific statement in question was Renee’s assertion that I said that I “just don’t care because marriage has nothing to do about familes like my own or the other contributors on this blog”. On Lawn now pretends that we were discussing some other statement entirely. His dishonesty continues unabated.

“False, I can reproduce the email where he pursues her on this same subject and same demands based on his proven lies that he posted on Opine, here, and on Opine again, then in email.”

On Lawn’s specific claim was that I “continue[d] to stalk [Renee] with emails” (emphasis mine). Now the story changes: he claims to have only one email, and somehow this becomes “stalking”. On Lawn has discovered that lying creates a problem: he has to keep an awful lot of inconsistent stories straight.

On Lawn also fails to produce the slightest evidence that I have in any way “harass[ed] and threaten[ed]” Renee.

Ed Brayton is correct. On Lawn’s rhetoric is quite simply ridiculous.

This from the meathead who pulled this gaff.

Previously, I challenged

Prove I’m pretending to not understand the concept of a follow-up question, Meatbrain.

He couldn’t because he was lying (as usual). Later he said…

On Lawn now agrees that my follow-up question was in fact a follow-up

If Meatbrain’s statement didn’t include the word “now”, implying that it is a change in my position, it would be correct. I never disagreed that it was a follow-up, or pretended not to know what a follow-up is.

Which is the part of the quote Meatbrain chooses to ignore:

There is nothing about it being a follow-up that 1) I ever denied and 2) excuses your post-hoc chicanery.

If I’m lying then prove I ever denied it was a follow up, or pretended not to understand what a follow-up is.

Support your facts with evidence, Meatbrain. But you can’t because you are lying.

Sorry, Meatbrain, you are just digging yourself deeper trying ever more desperately to distract from your lies and abusive personality. And for that I pity you.

Renee failed to provide empirical evidence that no one in Massachusetts has an immediate family.

Already proven false, admit it liar. Pay attention and keep your facts straight, liar.

Renee showed verifiable evidence and you even reference it in the same paragraph.

But then knowing he is lying has never stopped Meatbrain from repeating a lie.

Renee’s vague implication that some unnamed court case

Meatbrain, the liar, pretends to not know what Renee was talking about. And without asking which case she meant, jumps to the conclusion she didn’t provide evidence. How typical, Meatbrain admits he doesn’t know what Renee is referring to, but that doesn’t stop him from making the same conclusions over and over again.

On Lawn’s repeated insistence that Renee provided this evidence is a lie.

False, liar. I gave the link to the very quote she provided the “unnamed court case”. You yourself said she provided it—then say I lied that she provided this evidence. You can’t keep your facts straight within the same paragraph, liar

All she did was quote a few statistics regarding population

False, liar. She showed people are moving out of Massachusetts, and a extremely high foreclosure rate. Get it right, liar.

In fact, as already shown, the economy of the state of Massachusetts has grown steadily for several years. On Lawn ignores this completely, as it clearly shows that Renee was incorrect.

You can’t disagree with something she didn’t submit. Obviously she did supply evidence (empirical evidence) when you previously claimed she didn’t. Get your facts straight, liar Admit it, you are putting one set of numbers against hers, because she did provide them, liar.

You can’t have it both ways, liar.

He also lies when he claims that he deleted the comment in which I made the statement that Renee attributed to me.

Are you really denying that you said you were abusive? Are you really denying you said you don’t care about society? Are you really saying I didn’t delete that comment because of profanity? Be specific, answer the question, liar.

Its too easy folks. At this point its just fun to watch Meatbrain squeal like a stuck pig, flailing about with anything he can (no matter how petty and false).

Go ahead stuck pig, keep squealing and showing everyone what a liar you are.

On Lawn also lied when he claimed that I was “stalking” Renee in email.

False, I can reproduce the email where he pursues her on this same subject and same demands based on his proven lies that he posted on Opine, here, and on Opine again, then in email.

How is that not stalking and harrassment, Meatbrain—the repeatedly well documented and proven liar.

On Lawn has yet to address Renee’s lie that I had somehow “harass[ed] and threaten[ed]” her.

Except that I did, and even you admitted you are abusive. Which shows you don’t lie all the time, at least

I hope you don’t mind, I’m going pile on with the quote Reverend was referencing when he/she explained the use of scare quotes around the word neutered…

“I asked a question, and when Renee answered it, I asked another question. My second question is what is called a ‘follow-up.’” [—Meabrain]

Which is exactly how I took it. MB asked for an example of a “neutered marriage,” Renee gave him one, and he asked for an explanation as to how the marriage was “neutered.” This is only “changing the question” if you have no skills or experience in human conversation or interaction.

Poor Meabrain.

“False, liar.”

Yet he states in this comment that my question was in fact a follow-up. On Lawn is now reduced to lying about his own past statements.

Renee failed to provide empirical evidence that no one in Massachusetts has an immediate family. Renee’s vague implication that some unnamed court case suddenly eliminated all mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, and so on isn’t evidence. On Lawn’s repeated insistence that Renee provided this evidence is a lie.

Renee provided no data that supports her specific assertion that the economy of the state of Massachusetts is “collapsing”. All she did was quote a few statistics regarding population, and implied that these were proof of the “collapse”. In fact, as already shown, the economy of the state of Massachusetts has grown steadily for several years. On Lawn ignores this completely, as it clearly shows that Renee was incorrect.

On Lawn’s assertion that he would show us that Renee provided evidence for her claim (that I supposedly said that I “just don’t care because marriage has nothing to do about familes like my own or the other contributors on this blog”) was a lie. He also lies when he claims that he deleted the comment in which I made the statement that Renee attributed to me. No such comment was ever posted.

On Lawn has yet to address Renee’s lie that I had somehow “harass[ed] and threaten[ed]” her. On Lawn also lied when he claimed that I was “stalking” Renee in email. It is clear that lies are On Lawn’s chief — and perhaps only — tactic.

False, liar. There is nothing about it being a follow-up that 1) I ever denied and 2) excuses your post-hoc chicanery.

Renee repeated her claim (“There is no immediate family in Massachusetts”),

You are ignoring is what she said next, once again misrepresenting what she said. Liar.

Renee’s vague implication that some unnamed court case suddenly eliminated all mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, and so on isn’t…

...what Meatbrain wanted to hear. But instead of disagreeing he keeps pretending that it wasn’t answered instead. When all Meatbrain has is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. I’ve seen smarter hammers, though.

Renee provided no data that indicates that families are moving out of Massachusetts specifically because of the cost of living.

False, lair. She quoted foreclosure rates rising, as well as the people moving out.

Massachusetts now has among the highest house prices in the country, which lenders and housing experts say put pressure on buyers to finance their homes with adjustable rate mortgages rather than the traditional 30-year, fixed-rate mortgage.

On Lawn first states:

“He says he gave three additional things for Renee to give evidence of, and claimed she didn’t give evidence for them. I’m going to show you where she did…”

...yet later admits, with regard to Renee’s claim about this alleged statement of mine, that:

“She can’t.”

What Meatbrain is ignoring is that I did show how much he didn’t care:

Lets run those quotes again, shall we? The full quote…

She can’t. That one I did delete for profanity. But such greatest hits of Meatbrain are still preserved in my response to those posts. Such as, I do not give the least little ant fart about ‘society’, and one of my favorites: And yes, I am abusive. (and he wonders why Renee felt threatened).

So, if she can’t, I can and did

Perhaps I should restore his comments where he admits to being abusive, and his general lack of concern for society. We can quote it even more fully, showing Meatbrain as the desperate, vulgar, incompetant liar—but at this point that would just be redundant. And since Meatbrain doesn’t deny he said that, end of story.

Meatbrain is just a documented liar, over and over again.

The more I point that out the more desperate he tries to claim other’s lie. He’s obviously more desperate than ever. Watching his lies exposed, in front of his whole readership, and his inability to prove any lie that was told to him…

Poor Meatbrain. But I have no problem exposing lies of self-admitted pathological and abusive personalities like him.

Earlier meatbrain: Yikes… sounds like things are bad in Renee’s marriage.

SNAP! Where are your backslapping groupies to bail you out now, meatbrain? How terribly stupid of you.

Jen: I only put “neutered” in quotation marks to distinguish your definition of the word (what MB was saying by “weakened”)

Speaking of backslapping groupies, looks like Jen, trying to rescue you from the post-hoc charge, already closed the “didn’t claim” door for you. Hey, meatbrain, making yourself look stupid through contradiction is one thing, but do you really have to do that to your groupies, too? C’mon. Haven’t they suffered enough already?

Stick a fork in him, he’s done.

mel: ...like trying to eat jello with a toothpick.

Oh, sorry about that, mel. Hey, until they let you have utensils again have someone explain the whole “fork” thing to you.

And On Lawn now agrees that my follow-up question was in fact a follow-up. Yet earlier he claimed that I had “chang[ed] the question midstream”. It seems that On Lawn actually employs the tactic that he accuses other of using: “playing… games with your goalposts”. This kind of projection is common among liars of his sort.

“Meatbrain lied, she did answer the question!”

False. Renee repeated her claim (“There is no immediate family in Massachusetts”), but failed to provide empirical evidence that no one in Massachusetts has an immediate family. Renee’s vague implication that some unnamed court case suddenly eliminated all mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, and so on isn’t evidence.

“She provided statistics on the families moving out of Massachusetts because the cost of living is too great there.”

False. Renee provided no data that indicates that families are moving out of Massachusetts specifically because of the cost of living.

Renee also provided no statistics about the Massachusetts economy itself — no figures on the state GDP, no figures on business closings, nothing. She alleged that the figures she did give must mean that the economy of Massachusetts was collapsing — but an allegation is not evidence.

In fact, the economy of Massachusetts has been growing steadily for many years. US Department of Commerce figures released late last year indicate that the Gross Domestic Product of Massachusetts grew an average of 3.7% annually for the period 1997 through 2004, the 13th highest growth rate in the country.

Regarding Renee’s claim that I supposedly said that I “just don’t care because marriage has nothing to do about familes like my own or the other contributors on this blog”, On Lawn first states:

“He says he gave three additional things for Renee to give evidence of, and claimed she didn’t give evidence for them. I’m going to show you where she did…”

...yet later admits, with regard to Renee’s claim about this alleged statement of mine, that:

“She can’t.”

Clearly, On Lawn’s assertion that he would show us that Renee provided evidence for this claim was a lie. He also lies when he claims that he deleted the comment in which I made the statement that Renee attributed to me. No such comment was ever posted.

On Lawn has yet to address Renee’s lie that I had somehow “harass[ed] and threaten[ed]” her. On Lawn also lied when he claimed that I was “stalking” Renee in email. It is clear that lies are On Lawn’s chief — and perhaps only — tactic.