WhereWasI scratches his head,

"Did I claim I was going to sue you? Did I claim it was a crime and not an action in this case? Why would you use a court-room definition over the word for word definition? It's still slander. Slander isn't just a court-room definition and it was made a term for people who make ridiculous false accusations... which you're doing if you don't back the statements when asked to. You're making nothing but unbacked unproven statements because.... you can't make backed ones."

There was that one time you took to the streets to try to stomp down an insignificant lighthearted comment that bore no real consequence against your livelihood, public image, or well being. You then continued to bludgeon that expired clydesdale far beyond the point of reason until you ultimately found yourself throwing around accusations under a legal statute that you don't fully understand.

"I come out because I have integrity, I fully understand what you were trying to do and I don't care, it breaks one of my ideals that I will be the only man to represent myself or my thoughts. If you have a problem with me having a problem because I have integrity and believe in that, then get over it. I'm allowed to be upset when people improperly use my name. It isn't a lack of social skills unless I fail to recognize it... and I haven't. I've chosen not to see it the same way you do for a reason previously stated."

It was never my intention to come out here and make you look bad. Really, it wasn't. This is the first time I can remember that anyone has ever backed me into a corner where I had no choice but to say worse things about them than I had ever intended.

"And another unproven, subjective statement. The only people who would believe you've made me look bad are those who believe your every word and don't wonder why you seem to be hanging onto the need to insult while I'm not doing the same. Has that not crossed your mind once, that I choose not to use insults? My bloodline is actually rather notorious for calling quite a few different Godfathers a cunt at some point in time so why hold back now? You don't present a challenge because you fail to understand my simple right to have an issue with the misuse of my name so I can calmly take my time responding with a general indifference. You say worse things because you can't do anything else otherwise you would have, it is the act of an animal in unfamiliar territory to just attack without reason. You're just gonna have to get used to it though, because I'll keep asking you questions if you use my name or make a statement without putting thought into it."

Actually, the burden of proof is on you to prove that Kilgore's arguments are indeed slanderous, since you are the one accusing him of doing so, and not his to prove that his words are not. Innocent until proven guilty, right? He even showed you an example of how he could use his words to slander your reputation. Just because you feel that his example of a slanderous comment would be less believable, it doesn't make it any more or less slanderous. It's not his problem that you choose to use the word "slander" in a casual fashion (which it shouldn't - slander is a serious accusation and personally I believe it shouldn't be used in street debates unless the fallout from such would be great). And since you are asking him to "prove" something, his using the word slander in the manner that he did is appropriate.

I'm allowed to be upset when people improperly use my name.

When you deliberately put yourself out in the public's eye, you put yourself in the spotlight. You cannot control what happens, just like we cannot control when you randomly come out and ask a bunch of questions in an interrogating fashion that makes some of us think that we are in a police station. How so? The way you ask several questions in a row, and the way you turn adjectives, adverbs, and sometimes even verbs into a question.

Here's a good example of both:

 
"Did I claim I was going to sue you? Did I claim it was a crime and not an action in this case? Why would you use a court-room definition over the word for word definition?

So now I have a question for you - I'll even use your method of questioning to make you feel more at home.

 If you have a problem with me having a problem because I have integrity and believe in that, then get over it.

How do you have integrity, and of what? How does it apply to this situation, and is it relevant? Because people who use flawed logic such as circular arguments, either/or arguments, and straw man arguments to prove their point doesn't seem to have much integrity to me. People who are straight shooters and get to the point without being overly verbose are my preference when it comes to discussing matters.

Also,

 I told the world to leave me be for a week or two so I could pull myself out of a defensive stance, so if you want me to lighten up or stop speaking for a while please just let me clear my mind and have a short spell of peace."

Which is easier - telling everyone to change their actions, or taking responsibility for yourself and change your own actions? It's not anyone's fault that you seem to be a glutton for punishment; you know you are not 100% well, yet you continue to rebuttal Kilgore's remarks. Why should he, or anyone else be responsible for something that you choose to do all on your own? It doesn't matter to us whether you answer or not - if you don't we'll just move on to the next street corner. But your need to defend what you feel is a slight to your name (i.e. the "slanderous comments") is what is keeping you here.

It's all in your head....

"And another unproven, subjective statement. The only people who would believe you've made me look bad are those who believe your every word and don't wonder why you seem to be hanging onto the need to insult while I'm not doing the same.

When do opinions need to be objective? ALL opinions are subjective, even when they are based on factual events. And I thought you said that you did not care about public opinion, so why do you bring the public into this. Kilgore did not say he was going to make you look bad in front of everyone - you just jumped to that conclusion yourself. You can look bad to him, and it would still be just as valid.

Has that not crossed your mind once, that I choose not to use insults? My bloodline is actually rather notorious for calling quite a few different Godfathers a cunt at some point in time so why hold back now? You don't present a challenge because you fail to understand my simple right to have an issue with the misuse of my name so I can calmly take my time responding with a general indifference. You say worse things because you can't do anything else otherwise you would have, it is the act of an animal in unfamiliar territory to just attack without reason.

What an egoistical, condescending, insult. And hypocritical to boot.

"Oh good, Blaise is back and she started with claiming I need to prove that someone who doesn't show proof doesn't have proof. That makes total sense and is within the realm of reason."

When you deliberately put yourself out in the public's eye, you put yourself in the spotlight. You cannot control what happens, just like we cannot control when you randomly come out and ask a bunch of questions in an interrogating fashion that makes some of us think that we are in a police station. How so? The way you ask several questions in a row, and the way you turn adjectives, adverbs, and sometimes even verbs into a question.

"I didn't realize being in the spotlight meant I forfeited my right to determine how I think and react. I never claimed I could control what happens, I've merely claimed there will always be a response."

"As for the police station bit... I'm sorry you struggle with simple questions? If each successive question is based off the assumed logic of the first... it turns out all you have to prove is the assumption in the first question wrong. Is it really that hard for you all to figure that out? These are just questions... not bullets. You shouldn't be scared of questions."

How do you have integrity, and of what? How does it apply to this situation, and is it relevant? Because people who use flawed logic such as circular arguments, either/or arguments, and straw man arguments to prove their point doesn't seem to have much integrity to me. People who are straight shooters and get to the point without being overly verbose are my preference when it comes to discussing matters.

"Integrity is one's ability to stick to one's beliefs. The previously mentioned belief you would've noticed if you didn't rush this comment together is my belief that I don't let others represent myself or my ideas because no man but me can represent my own mind properly. He questioned my need to comment at the mention of my name, thus bringing it into relevancy."

"Arguments aren't always circular because of the one repeating themselves, sometimes it's the inability of another to move on or accept a point/difference of opinion. It's also funny that you insult my arguments and yet I've never once skipped answering one of your questions when I responded, but you often skipped responding to mine. I wonder why you felt the need to dodge questions? You did have a well thought out idea backing your words... didn't you?"

"I'm a straight shooter when I'm dealing with men and women of thought. Sorry if that happens so rarely on the streets, but maybe that's why I needed to come out and question those who can't answer questions. To show people like you that you aren't making any sense when you actually sit down and apply logic and reasoning."

Which is easier - telling everyone to change their actions, or taking responsibility for yourself and change your own actions? It's not anyone's fault that you seem to be a glutton for punishment; you know you are not 100% well, yet you continue to rebuttal Kilgore's remarks. Why should he, or anyone else be responsible for something that you choose to do all on your own? It doesn't matter to us whether you answer or not - if you don't we'll just move on to the next street corner. But your need to defend what you feel is a slight to your name (i.e. the "slanderous comments") is what is keeping you here.

"I stand by every statement and the fact you would even hint at that means you don't understand what taking a break means. When have I not taken responsibility for my actions? Oh wait, that's a question asking proof, isn't that what you call bullying or something? Should I continue down this path... I'm not sure because logically I'm inclined to wonder if you'll drag the Gods into this because I asked you a question."

"What acts do I perform that make me a glutton for punishment? The fact that I respond despite being no where near top form? That's because I don't need to be for either of you. I never said he's responsible, in fact I told him it's his right to abuse my stance and keep me out here forever and ever. It matters to me if I answer because I actually put thought into my words and pride into my acts and name. You should try it some time."

When do opinions need to be objective? ALL opinions are subjective, even when they are based on factual events. And I thought you said that you did not care about public opinion, so why do you bring the public into this. Kilgore did not say he was going to make you look bad in front of everyone - you just jumped to that conclusion yourself. You can look bad to him, and it would still be just as valid.

"I didn't realize directly disrespecting someone was an opinion. I thought that was an action that could possibly be proven true or false. That takes it out of the realm of opinion."

"I mention it to demonstrate my choice for being defensive because I've dealt with accusations from multiple directions without much defense. It's a legitimate reason to be on the defensive... like right now... because multiple people come in to attack my person or my logic with very little lines of reason or evidence provided."

It was never my intention to come out here and make you look bad. Really, it wasn't. This is the first time I can remember that anyone has ever backed me into a corner where I had no choice but to say worse things about them than I had ever intended.

"This statement shows that at one point he claimed to have made me look bad. It is nothing but subjective tripe if he cannot prove or disprove it... and you can't prove or disprove an opinion. It is no longer factual when it can or can't be proven, but this could've been."

"I never claimed it was his intent, I just commented on the actions and words in front of me."

What an egoistical, condescending, insult. And hypocritical to boot.

"I am an egotist. It's actually a good thing because I'm not a park bench trying to impress others, I only do things if I want to because I want to. It's supposed to be a condescending insult, the one I saved to show him how sad his argument had been thus far against one who chose insults weren't necessary. The best part though, is that I attack his logical inability to deal with my ideal... so it's actually not hypocritical. Mine was an insult to the inability to understand a simple concept while his were often directed at my person. If that's not enough, call me a hypocrite because I don't care. Neither of you use logic in your responses so you'll have to excuse me as I never stop laughing at you of all people trying to call me out on anything after you dodged questions, accused me of bullying you because I asked you questions, and took part in a thread to insult 'the big-mouthed frog that everyone's ignoring' without having the spine to say it to my face. You're a coward and an idiot, please do the world a favor, and put a gun to your head and pull until the headache from being asked to think goes away. I don't need insults for you, you just piss me off with your pride in dodging questions and logic in such a spineless fashion that I enjoy throwing them back at you."

"I didn't realize being in the spotlight meant I forfeited my right to determine how I think and react. I never claimed I could control what happens, I've merely claimed there will always be a response."

I showed you what my reference point was, and you still seem to not understand it. You cannot control whether people bring your name up or not, especially when you continue to make street appearances to keep your name and what you say relevant. Or a favorite saying of mine - "You can't have your cake and eat it too."

I'm sorry you struggle with simple questions?

You shouldn't be scared of questions.

Show me anywhere where I said anything of the sort. If I was "scared", or "struggled" with questions, then I wouldn't be here, facing the one who doesn't seem to realize that word choice and the way things are phrased have an effect on the impact of the message.

"It's also funny that you insult my arguments and yet I've never once skipped answering one of your questions when I responded, but you often skipped responding to mine. I wonder why you felt the need to dodge questions? You did have a well thought out idea backing your words... didn't you?""

Well, the time that I wrote you correspondence because of your inability to see what I was trying to say resulted in you skipping most of the message, and went straight for the nice summary that I provided. Another time when you insisted on me showing proof of for whatever the reason, I gave you a detailed response showing you how I came to my conclusions, and it was ignored. And you do that to others too.

Why do I CHOOSE not to answer all of your questions? Some are redundant, others take away from the main topic, and some are just downright baiting and so to respond would be contributing to the chaos. And that last question in that quoted response of yours? Baiting :D

"I stand by every statement and the fact you would even hint at that means you don't understand what taking a break means. When have I not taken responsibility for my actions? Oh wait, that's a question asking proof, isn't that what you call bullying or something? Should I continue down this path... I'm not sure because logically I'm inclined to wonder if you'll drag the Gods into this because I asked you a question."

And in this response, you don't answer my question, but try to turn it into some twisting remarks based on what I have said in the past, and end it in a saracstic remark about bringing the Gods in this. Why would I ask the Gods to intervene in a matter that I am handling quite well myself? I don't understand what taking a break means? It means ceasing the activity that caused me to want to take a break in the first place, or significant decrease in said activity. So what if people talk about you? Again, you don't care about public opinion, right? So if you want to rest and yet the streets are still calling your name, the fact that you cannot resist it is very telling.

"I mention it to demonstrate my choice for being defensive because I've dealt with accusations from multiple directions without much defense. It's a legitimate reason to be on the defensive... like right now... because multiple people come in to attack my person or my logic with very little lines of reason or evidence provided."

It's not our fault that when we do take the time to show you line by line your faulty logic, that you say you don't care, or you didn't review it. if you don't really care, then why should we?

If that's not enough, call me a hypocrite because I don't care.

See what I mean?

 

"This statement shows that at one point he claimed to have made me look bad.

How?

Neither of you use logic in your responses so you'll have to excuse me as I never stop laughing at you of all people trying to call me out on anything after you dodged questions, accused me of bullying you because I asked you questions, and took part in a thread to insult 'the big-mouthed frog that everyone's ignoring' without having the spine to say it to my face. You're a coward and an idiot, please do the world a favor, and put a gun to your head and pull until the headache from being asked to think goes away. I don't need insults for you, you just piss me off with your pride in dodging questions and logic in such a spineless fashion that I enjoy throwing them back at you."

Aww...but I thought you said you don't care about public opinion? And how Kilgore didn't pose a threat to you so you didn't feel the need to insult him, yet you don't see how what you said was insulting?

I am glad you care so much about me, my thoughts and opinions that you wish for me to put a gun to my head. You're just pissed off that unlike yourself, I DO have self-control. I DON'T have to answer questions proposed by a circus clown who thrives off attention if I choose not to, no matter how many insults he throws my way to try to get a reaction from me. Also,  I DON'T need to be told about not using logical arguments by a person who needs to resort to blatant insults like the one above because it means that they have nothing better to say, and that the conversation is indeed over.

So go ahead...laugh because you have nothing else to say here.

As AlexMoran made one of his usual drunken shuffles through the Streets, whispers rather loud ones at that start going around 'zomg, he iz nut wearing tutu!' seems to be the major one repeated..but come on,people...it's snowing ffs. ​He decides to add to this marvelous discussion before he passes out.

Such Debait.

Very Blockquoting.

Much walls of text.

Wow.

I showed you what my reference point was, and you still seem to not understand it. You cannot control whether people bring your name up or not, especially when you continue to make street appearances to keep your name and what you say relevant. Or a favorite saying of mine - "You can't have your cake and eat it too."

"I never claimed I could control it. Show me where I said that. I've stated that it should be known I will comment when are where it is no matter what. That's not stopping others from saying it, it's letting them know my reaction to their action before they take it. You seriously need to learn how to prove an argument. Bring up the line where I said I could stop others or stop making the claim you moron. All I've ever claimed is that I would react to the use of it."

Show me anywhere where I said anything of the sort. If I was "scared", or "struggled" with questions, then I wouldn't be here, facing the one who doesn't seem to realize that word choice and the way things are phrased have an effect on the impact of the message.

like we cannot control when you randomly come out and ask a bunch of questions in an interrogating fashion that makes some of us think that we are in a police station.

"You make questions sound like they're all interrogations. Interrogation techniques are designed to scare or force someone into admitting something. I fully understand word choice and phrasing, I'm also not an idiot. If someone bases their word choice off of an assumption you can beat the wording/question/statement by disproving the assumption. So just disprove it."

Well, the time that I wrote you correspondence because of your inability to see what I was trying to say resulted in you skipping most of the message, and went straight for the nice summary that I provided. Another time when you insisted on me showing proof of for whatever the reason, I gave you a detailed response showing you how I came to my conclusions, and it was ignored. And you do that to others too.

Why do I CHOOSE not to answer all of your questions? Some are redundant, others take away from the main topic, and some are just downright baiting and so to respond would be contributing to the chaos. And that last question in that quoted response of yours? Baiting :D

"Your correspondence insinuated that people need to prove that others don't have proof. That fights every natural line of thought, because then I would have to prove that you don't have proof the world is coming to an end every time you claimed it, or that I didn't kill someone because I didn't know if you had proof of me doing it or not. You can be forced to discredit proof, or prove your own logic. It is absurd to ask someone to prove another doesn't have proof and the fact you stand by that is a sign of your utter incompetence."

"If you're speaking of the only response of yours I've ever ignored, I never even read it because I've had so much on my plate and I just can't force myself to waste more of my time looking it up. If you want it responded to then you can bring it here."

"You choose to not answer my questions because you can't, or you don't like the answer. Choosing not to answer a question based on an assumption hints at admitting to the assumption if there is any logical proof behind it. It is baiting... I want you to realize you don't think before you speak and come out and try to disprove it by answering the questions I've asked. Good for you, you can read my obvious baiting left to provoke you into doing something anyone with competence would've been doing all along."

And in this response, you don't answer my question, but try to turn it into some twisting remarks based on what I have said in the past, and end it in a saracstic remark about bringing the Gods in this. Why would I ask the Gods to intervene in a matter that I am handling quite well myself? I don't understand what taking a break means? It means ceasing the activity that caused me to want to take a break in the first place, or significant decrease in said activity. So what if people talk about you? Again, you don't care about public opinion, right? So if you want to rest and yet the streets are still calling your name, the fact that you cannot resist it is very telling.

"You claimed I don't stand by my words and my break is so I can go into hiding. I call bullshit. Where have I not stood by my words... ever? I have been challenging you to find a single fucking thing for me to not stand by for a while now, you and others, and no one has found a single line. My best words are the ones I want removed because you're not worthy of the having access to the thoughts behind them."

"The comment about you involving the Gods is a fair one considering you were the coward who tried to play with people's emotions by labeling me a bully in an attempt to gain undo credit to your argument. I only appear to be a bully when I ask questions because you have such an inferior mind that you can't even answer a simple question. Taking a break is avoiding the streets unless my name is spoken or to finish some things I said I'd produce quickly, as stated elsewhere. If people speak of me I can't keep my own ideal and take a break, so I have to pick which is more valuable and I choose having integrity and sticking by one of my ideals. I don't care about public opinion, I care about my ideas being misrepresented to a single thinking mind by an idiot such as yourself. I choose not to resist because of my fear of what would happen if people thought a fool like you had anything worth listening to. There will always be leaders in the streets, I'm just going to make sure those who attempt to assume the rule will be forced to think while I'm active."

It's not our fault that when we do take the time to show you line by line your faulty logic, that you say you don't care, or you didn't review it. if you don't really care, then why should we?

"You're yet to actually do so. You say it's faulty without proving it and just repeating it. Try actually showing the flaws. You of all people really shouldn't care because you never seem to have a well thought out opinion. Why do you care if another puts enough thought into theirs that they can answer questions about it? Just ignore the stabs at yours, you didn't put much thought into it anyways otherwise you'd be able to prove anything you say rather than just say you did, or just say that I'm wrong."

How?

"I state that the wording 'It was never my intention to come out here and make you look bad. Really, it wasn't. This is the first time I can remember that anyone has ever backed me into a corner where I had no choice but to say worse things about them than I had ever intended.' is designed to claim he made me look bad because he hints at not having the intent but having done it. You ask how does it mean that, I've already explained why I think it and you're just asking it again forcing a circular conversation. How doesn't it mean that?"

Aww...but I thought you said you don't care about public opinion? And how Kilgore didn't pose a threat to you so you didn't feel the need to insult him, yet you don't see how what you said was insulting?

"I don't care what the public thinks of me. I care what thoughts drive individual opinions, and you never actually back yours. The issue with the speech you supported is with the fact a statement was made and then none of you had the spine to answer questions on it. You're putting more thoughtless puke stains on the streets and that's the type of tripe that made the streets a desolate place. I want them alive for my own reasons so I'm forced to call you out on it to keep people from thinking it's acceptable and the streets are pointlessly stupid."

"Kilgore went down the route of insults, at its current end I did end it with something insulting but that insult was based on the honest belief that he posed no threat. I hate to break it to you, but if someone thinking you're not a risk is insulting then you care too much about their opinion or you don't have very much to offer and you see it too."

I am glad you care so much about me, my thoughts and opinions that you wish for me to put a gun to my head. You're just pissed off that unlike yourself, I DO have self-control. I DON'T have to answer questions proposed by a circus clown who thrives off attention if I choose not to, no matter how many insults he throws my way to try to get a reaction from me. Also,  I DON'T need to be told about not using logical arguments by a person who needs to resort to blatant insults like the one above because it means that they have nothing better to say, and that the conversation is indeed over.

"I came out here to kill the street presences of the likes of you, those who don't think. That's the point of my crusade, to revive the streets by removing those who kill the streets. You'd be one of the poster children if I took the time to make posters of the enemies of the streets. You have 'self-control' but you support insults, dodge questions and avoid logic backed responses whilst claiming to have them. If that means you have self-control, then I want to be considered the wildest man alive. I don't thrive on attention, I thrive on logic, that's how I can keep going. Try using logic and see where it gets you rather than avoiding answering questions and backing your statements. You can and will be told to use logical arguments whether you need it or not. You're an idiot, get off my streets until you learn how to think and develop a real opinion backed by thought or I'll continue to tell you to answer questions and use logic which you appear to be completely incapable of doing. I'm actually pumped that you came back by the way, your presence and obvious stupidity has already gotten me some private conversations that probably wouldn't have happened had I gone back and forth with any other because the others never claim to use logical arguments while dodging questions like an insolent child, so thank you for rallying a little behind the scenes support for me, it's touching for you to help me right now."

So go ahead...laugh because you have nothing else to say here.

"It admittedly isn't anything new, but I'm more than happy to throw the same old thing you've never been capable of beating in your face every time."

So, let's review:

Kilgore: "...if no one really seems to care that you're a walking PR blunder and no one pays attention to you."

WWI: "Alright, what makes me a walking PR blunder? Can you prove that or is it just pointless slander?"

Kilgore: "It's also not slander. It's commentary....Telling everyone that you're the illegitimate child of a hermaphroditic goat, with all the higher-brain functions of a three day old bagel would be slander....Pointing out your social ineptitude is commentary."

WWI: "What am I doing that proves any of that? Point it out if it's not slander, the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation. You can prove that you're not lying by simply showing how I'm doing any of that."

Kilgore: "Nope. Still not slander. In fact, I could call you mean names all day long and none of that, no matter how mocking a voice I used, would ever cross the line into slander. Ever. Because the first amendment to the Constitution allows for a thing called fair commentary. Sound familiar?"

WWI: "Slander isn't just a court-room definition and it was made a term for people who make ridiculous false accusations... which you're doing if you don't back the statements when asked to."

Blaise: "Actually, the burden of proof is on you to prove that Kilgore's arguments are indeed slanderous, since you are the one accusing him of doing so, and not his to prove that his words are not."

WWI: "I need to prove that someone who doesn't show proof doesn't have proof."

See, I keep hearing you say that you don't care about public opinion, and then you question whether you are a public figure. If you don't care, and you need someone to tell you why you are a public figure (i.e. someone of importance that would have a reputation to lose), why would you care about damage to your reputation? Would someone who doesn't care about public opinion and questions whether he is a public figure even have a reputation to damage? And notice how the definition of slander changes from "false spoke statement that damages reputation" to just "false accusations". Gee, I  thought false statements was just a lie, not slander, which is why I said it was up to you to prove that it was.

I've stated that it should be known I will comment when are where it is no matter what.

Also, you said for people to leave you be while you got yourself together. Those two statements alone (and probably a couple of others) allowed me to make the statement that you cannot control whether people bring up your name or not. You don't have to state it explicitly if it's implied implicitly.

I said that you ask questions in an interrogating fashion. I can understand if you wanted to say I said that all you do is interrogate people with your questions, because that's your right to make that assumption. But for you to say that statement means that I believe all questions sound like interrogations is incorrect. I find it funny that you are still smarting over the bully comment by overgeneralizing it to make it seem that I called you a bully only because you had the audacity to ask a question. That would make everyone who has ever asked a question a bully, including myself.

"You claimed I don't stand by my words and my break is so I can go into hiding. I call bullshit.

Nope...it means if you say you need to rest, then go rest and not try to pin it on others by implying that it's on them if you still are around just because they mentioned your name. You could always address it with the person privately , or if the topic was still relevant, comment on such when you came back. But I guess that's asking too much from the attention-seeker. But have fun working yourself up over something I didn't say.

And about Kilgore's statement, I asked how because once again you are interpreting things to make them worse than what they actually are so you can have something relevant to say, just like you did when you said about me wanting you to go into hiding.

The streets belong to no one person, but it's nice for you to think that you own them. Knowing you, if you truly did have all the support that your deluded mind thinks that you have, you would had been made that poster. But I understand that you don't want that poster to go the same way that your other street speech did. Not quite the result that you wanted?

The issue with the speech you supported is with the fact a statement was made and then none of you had the spine to answer questions on it.

I went to listen to someone's story, went ice-skating with the same person, and then told a story of my own amongst a table of friends later that evening. If you truly had any issues, you would had gone to the person who told the story in private. To lash out at me because you were not able to get a response of your liking from said person is not productive at all.

Since you choose to use an either/or argument as an attempt to lead one to believe that what Kilgore said was slanderous, and you don't seem to have anything significant to say to me because you are too blinded by your obvious prejudice, I will take my leave from this street corner now.

"Firs things first you skipped my questions again, Miss Blaise. Don't keep doing that, the public is watching and what will they think of you dodging questions after I claimed you're incapable of answering questions because you don't think?"

"Next, I love your review. Thank you so much for gathering it all together for me. Slander is a term that means false information has been used, or no information. He is yet to provide said information on any of the accusations (there were more than just accusations of me directly, publicly disrespecting leaders which is a crime punishable by death around here), so tell me Blaise... how does one go about disproving something that doesn't exist? The fact is proof of me being any of those things he originally called me have not been given, so how does one go about disproving that? Wouldn't it just be grand if the argument we're having is over the use of an incorrect definition? I mean maybe that's why I took the time do define slander, but I am still waiting to hear whether you both agree with that definition that I got from a dictionary."

See, I keep hearing you say that you don't care about public opinion, and then you question whether you are a public figure. If you don't care, and you need someone to tell you why you are a public figure (i.e. someone of importance that would have a reputation to lose), why would you care about damage to your reputation? Would someone who doesn't care about public opinion and questions whether he is a public figure even have a reputation to damage? And notice how the definition of slander changes from "false spoke statement that damages reputation" to just "false accusations". Gee, I  thought false statements was just a lie, not slander, which is why I said it was up to you to prove that it was.

"I question what makes me a public figure, he never defined what makes me one in his eyes, there are many ways to prove that I am but seeing as I don't care for public opinion I'm not a good consult on the subject. This is one instance where I need the eyes and ears of a mirror to tell me what they believe the public believes makes me a public figure. I won't make assumptions on other minds who haven't expressed their views. I care about damage to my reputation in the eyes and ears of those who think, my intended audience, not the general public. I don't want them misled when one speaks of my opinions, and holding to my principle I will speak whenever one mentions my name. One who doesn't care of public opinion would ask if they are a public figure, because it is a fact. Two plus two equals four in a log base 10 system, that is also a fact but it's one that I care about because it has a purpose I can use in the near future."

"False spoken statement that damages a reputation is a false accusation in this case as it is in most cases. Let me break it down for you, one involves a piece that hurts another while being false, and the other involves a piece that hurts another while being false and accusatory. The accusatory part fits because I am being accused of disrespecting a leader without evidence. Finally, your bit about a false statement is a lie is hysterical. Are you really so stupid that you believe others won't notice you dropped the words 'damaging to another person's reputation'? The definition of slander can't exist without accusatory because if there wasn't anything being improperly stated in a way that attempts (I'm speaking of the words, not the writer's intent when I speak of an attempt) to mislabel them, therefor accusing them of being something they aren't. It is all just word play at this point, and it's pointless. I've chosen the word slander because he has no backing for his statements, it is his turn to provide proper evidence."

Also, you said for people to leave you be while you got yourself together. Those two statements alone (and probably a couple of others) allowed me to make the statement that you cannot control whether people bring up your name or not. You don't have to state it explicitly if it's implied implicitly.

"You claimed I believed I could make them stop, so I clarified I never said or believed anything of the sort. That's a fault of yours that you failed to hear and understand what I mean and assumed your own meaning, not mine, unless you can bring forward a line of my wording that hints at that."

I said that you ask questions in an interrogating fashion. I can understand if you wanted to say I said that all you do is interrogate people with your questions, because that's your right to make that assumption. But for you to say that statement means that I believe all questions sound like interrogations is incorrect. I find it funny that you are still smarting over the bully comment by overgeneralizing it to make it seem that I called you a bully only because you had the audacity to ask a question. That would make everyone who has ever asked a question a bully, including myself.

"Do I ask them in an interrogating fashion? My choice of interrogation is finding something you love and killing it in front of you while I ask questions... so it's news to me that any of that was an interrogation. Ask Mr. iocaste, I burned bacon in front of him while interrogating him because that's the only way I interrogate."

"You claim I'm interrogating without evidence of which lines are, I'm left to assume you mean all questions. Care to delight us with the presence of backing one of your statements for once? Would you mind showing which questions are interrogating so I can defend myself? You probably won't, but I had to try."

"Have you truly forgotten your bit in Too Many Indians, Not Enough Chiefs, I think that was the discussion, where you labeled me a bully and then refused to explain why I was one other than stating I ask questions in an interrogating way... without saying which questions were interrogating when asked? You failed to back your definition of bully, therefor your interpretation has no meaning, it's an accusation that can't be proved or disproved."

Nope...it means if you say you need to rest, then go rest and not try to pin it on others by implying that it's on them if you still are around just because they mentioned your name. You could always address it with the person privately , or if the topic was still relevant, comment on such when you came back. But I guess that's asking too much from the attention-seeker. But have fun working yourself up over something I didn't say.

"It is on you just as much as it is on me now that the information is public. If you so choose to keep me around here then keep replying. I will never take a public discussion to the private world for someone I don't know implicitly and you're far from having earned the right to that. Leaving it open to the public leaves an impression I refuse to leave. I also won't let a topic grow stale so that some might assume thoughts are true when they're not, so no I won't leave it e for a while. You claim I'm out here seeking attention, for what purpose would I be doing so? Or do you just assume attention seekers simply seek attention and it's too mystical for you to understand. I've stated my purpose for being a street presence in such force as of late, you're just choosing to forget it and I won't remind you because it's part of why I won't let things overcome me."

(OOC: I also didn't miss a single workout, did lower versions of chest workouts and cardio, but I don't let an illness keep me down unless I get stricken so bad I don't have the fight to move which is yet to happen to me in my existence. I don't use an illness as an excuse to be held down, I just wanted it to be known why I might under perform or slightly delay a response by a few minutes or hours)

"Oh and you keep thinking I'm getting worked up, that's cute. I can use insults while level headed because I'm capable of understanding the purpose and timing of an insult as most of us are, but I wouldn't want you to have to think to try to understand that."

And about Kilgore's statement, I asked how because once again you are interpreting things to make them worse than what they actually are so you can have something relevant to say, just like you did when you said about me wanting you to go into hiding.

"Is it no longer subjective as to how one responds to things? Am I supposed to take things as the speaker intended? I've warned the world I respond when spoken of or to, it's not my problem if he thought he was above that. I also never said you want me to go into hiding, I stated 'if you do' to not just you, but everyone. I hold no grudge to those who hold this over my head as you seem to have chosen because I opened myself to someone trying to abuse that ideal of mine by exposing it."

The streets belong to no one person, but it's nice for you to think that you own them. Knowing you, if you truly did have all the support that your deluded mind thinks that you have, you would had been made that poster. But I understand that you don't want that poster to go the same way that your other street speech did. Not quite the result that you wanted?

"They said Oil didn't belong to any one person either, but it took quite the effort by the US government to keep Rockefeller from owning it. So until a massive force I can't stop comes... I'll try my best to force it to follow my will."

"As for not quite the result that I wanted, what are you speaking of? That the Staten Island fiasco happened? Oh right, great win. You sure showed me. You toss about comments as if you've disproved any of my logic... you're yet to prove your own even once. You're incompetent."

I went to listen to someone's story, went ice-skating with the same person, and then told a story of my own amongst a table of friends later that evening. If you truly had any issues, you would had gone to the person who told the story in private. To lash out at me because you were not able to get a response of your liking from said person is not productive at all.

"You can try to lie to me, but in the end you can't lie to yourself. I wasn't able to get a response at all, you dodged questions... again. That's all you do. And you're actually proud of your stupidity. You're honestly far more entertaining than Kuklinski could ever dream of, never once have I seen someone take a consistently stupid cowardice and take as much pride in it as you have. It's one of the most delightful things I've seen in a while, like a child so impressed with their ability to say 'two plus two doesn't equal four because I said so.'"

Since you choose to use an either/or argument as an attempt to lead one to believe that what Kilgore said was slanderous, and you don't seem to have anything significant to say to me because you are too blinded by your obvious prejudice, I will take my leave from this street corner now.

"Have I used an either/or argument? I thought that I left my assumptions out and then left room for the responders to state no and then clarify why not. I guess that could be labeled either/or but then aren't all questions and answers based on any assumptions? Such as assumptions the definition of the word cunt has been switched with the definition of the word sandwich, I rather enjoy assuming I won't be seeing a woman spread her legs on the table in front of me at the restaurant when I said I'd like to eat a sandwich."

"I am prejudiced, against the incompetent and the stupid. You're my poster child for that. Go ahead, claim to take your leave again... As much as I hate knowing I'll need to respond again I know you'll be back..."

I listened to this entire speech just to make sure you didnt say my name.

"I rather enjoy assuming I won't be seeing a woman spread her legs on the table in front of me at the restaurant when I said I'd like to eat a sandwich."

Im sure you have that problem alllllll the time

""I am prejudiced, against the incompetent and the stupid. You're my poster child for that. Go ahead, claim to take your leave again... As much as I hate knowing I'll need to respond again I know you'll be back...""

I know i said if you kept my name out of your mouth id leave you alone, but kilgore is family.  So ill await your reaponse so we may start again.

Can someone fetch kuku for me so he may watch. We are partners after all.

Or you can move on from this street corner and we pretend were friends again. Up to you, but don't say i didnt offer friendship first.

I know you think my first response is always violence, but im a changed man.

You're a coward and an idiot, please do the world a favor, and put a gun to your head and pull until the headache from being asked to think goes away. I don't need insults for you, you just piss me off with your pride in dodging questions and logic in such a spineless fashion that I enjoy throwing them back at you."

Choose your words more carefully in the future, WhereWasI. 

Danger clears her throat.

So back to those spankings WiggleButt. You missed mine.

She frowns.

I put toothpaste in Cantona's hat (Please don't tell him. I am not sure he noticed yet). I stole back my gambling money from Toby while he slept. I put some dirt in Helix's coffee container. I do believe I have earned a spanking with my wonderful antics.

Smiling Wigglebutt pulls out a chair from behind the podium and sits down. He gestures Danger over and lays them across his lap, ass up. 

So how many are you talking here? How bad was the hat filled? Also do you like it soft or hard? 

Shaking his head as he realized how bad that sounded he grabs his paddle and awaits an answer. 

Chuckling she makes sure to put up a fight. Making things easier on other people was not her way of things.

You are the one handing them out so you should decide. It was filled with super glue all the way around. I wouldn't be surprised if he lost some .. uh.. hair because of it.