So I have bid my farewell of the EUOT.

[Eddie Teach]

These latest posts from you only make me think you actually are Dorsey again. 

Is Guller: schizophrenic? Otherwise he's either always been Dorsey or never been Dorsey.

[DGuller]

And your accusation that grumbler is a liar is based on his supposed claim that he didn't really care - so why would he have mentioned IPs later - and that would clearly show he was NOT lying now, since he apparently has already admitted to it later?

He mentioned it in a context of "I know IPs don't show it, but I know he's a sock puppet, I'll prove it".  So, no, it doesn't quite show that.

[Caliga]

Is Guller: schizophrenic? Otherwise he's either always been Dorsey or never been Dorsey.

Yes, my wording in that post was: awkward. 

[LaCroix]

i believe you, dguller 

[Caliga]

i believe you, dguller 

Dorsey!

[Maximus]

IIRC Miglia is the poster formerly known as PatMaster, and no newb.

Are we sure he's not the same person as Drakken? Surely this level of smug hysteria can't be replicated.

[LaCroix]

i believe you, dguller 

Dorsey!

dorsey must be the boogieman the way you people go on about him 

[Berkut]

And your accusation that grumbler is a liar is based on his supposed claim that he didn't really care - so why would he have mentioned IPs later - and that would clearly show he was NOT lying now, since he apparently has already admitted to it later?

He mentioned it in a context of "I know IPs don't show it, but I know he's a sock puppet, I'll prove it".  So, no, it doesn't quite show that.

But it doesn't show that grumbler was looking at IPs either, much less that this is somehow evidence that he is lying NOW.

What we are left with is you accusing grumbler of being a liar base don't the word of someone else who we cannot substantiate *now*, and who you *knew* at the time had an axe to grind himself.

Why would you just accept what he says so uncritically, if in fact you are so careful to not level accusations of dishonesty on others? Sounds ot me like you are a-ok with calling someone else a liar, even on grounds you know are very weak.

What can I say, I really don't like having my honesty questioned for shits and giggles.

Have you ever heard of the Golden Rule?

[DGuller]

But it doesn't show that grumbler was looking at IPs either, much less that this is somehow evidence that he is lying NOW.

Grumbler claims that he always meant the Dorsey thing to be a troll.  Either looking at IPs himself, or having the mods look at IPs, indicates that he was seriously investigating the possibility.

[Barrister]

IIRC Miglia is the poster formerly known as PatMaster, and no newb.

Are we sure he's not the same person as Drakken? Surely this level of smug hysteria can't be replicated.

This guy knows Swedish, which no matter how hard he wishes he did, is something Drakken doesn't know.

[Grey Fox]

Dorsey4Scary

[Berkut]

But it doesn't show that grumbler was looking at IPs either, much less that this is somehow evidence that he is lying NOW.

Grumbler claims that he always meant the Dorsey thing to be a troll.  Either looking at IPs himself, or having the mods look at IPs, indicates that he was seriously investigating the possibility.

But you ahven't shown a lick of evidence that grumbler looked at IPs or "had mods look at IPs". What is more, even YOU do not have any such evidence, except the word of someone you knew was not honest himself.

So again, we are left with you making accusations that you yourself have claimed to be very serious, and in fact have claimed that accusing someone of lying without good cause is as bad, or nearly as bad as lying yourself.

It seems like your aversion to being called a liar is purely personal in nature - you sure would not like someone else doing so, but are quite content to slap the label out there yourself as a means of attacking someone, even when you know the accusation is largely without merit.

[DGuller]

Berkut, you're also assuming that I don't remember grumbler spending pages upon pages of assembling proofs, like my posting history and such.  If that was all part of a master troll, then if I were grumbler, I'd just lie and pretend that I was seriously investigating.  It would make me look less sad that way. 

Based on preponderence of evidence that's all consistent with each other, there is no reasonable way that grumbler wasn't for some period of time really trying to prove that I was Dorsey.  Is Dorsey's word 100% reliable?  Given his history, probably not.  However, he's never been dishonest with me that I know of, and it would take a lot of imagination on his part to make up lies so specific, and that parts of which would later be independently confirmed. 

Is my case rock-solid beyond a shadow of a doubt?  No, and with old Languish gone, it'll never be.  Is it beyond a reasonable doubt?  Most certainly.  I'm comfortable with implying that someone is a liar by that standard, that's still way stricter than what you managed historically.

[DGuller]

Anyway, I've stated my case, and in more posts than I wanted to.  I know that you already had the conclusion ready with my first post, that I accuse other people of being liears lightly myself, and with each successive post you'll just amend your arguments to fit that conclusion.  Given the feeble nature of your attempts so far, I feel safe in letting you have the last word.

[Berkut]

Is my case rock-solid beyond a shadow of a doubt?

your case isn't shadow solid beyond the shadow of a rock. You have no case at all.

  No, and with old Languish gone, it'll never be.

It would not be even if every single PM between you and Dorset4Liar where available, because it is based completely on hearsay from someone who was telling you what you desperately wanted to hear, in all likelihood/

  Is it beyond a reasonable doubt?  Most certainly. 

Not even close to a reasonable doubt, much less beyond it. The evidence would not even be admissible in a court room, much less convincing.

"Some guy told me that someone else said something elsewhere! Totally!"

I'm comfortable with implying that someone is a liar by that standard, that's still way stricter than what you managed historically.

I think you are lying - I've never made any such accusation based on no evidence but the double secret word of someone with an axe to grind that could not be substantiated in any way at all.

But since when was this about me? Is your standard of acceptable proof for accusations now "As long as Dorsey says so, and it is better than the standard that asshole berkut uses", rather than actually being certain someone is lying, rather than just arguing with you? I thought you had this noble and objective standard of personal behaviour that does not include accusing others of lying as part of a debate?

What is this historical examples you are speaking of? I think we have a current example - this thread - of you accusing someone of lying without any objective evidence. Where is the example of me doing the same?

Of course, just to be clear, I am NOT the one playing the faux martyr about someone saying I am lying - who fucking cares? Only someone very insecure about their integrity would get worked up over anonymous people on the internet "questioning" it, at least in my opinion. That is just an opinion though, not a fact, so please don't call me a liar over it later, even if Jaron sends you double secret messages about what I say in TBR.