Smack quoted a line beginning "He assumed he had pants to crap in," etc. without giving the context . I suppose he could take a quote out of the joke section and imply the writer was being literal, by leaving the context out.
Actually that was taken from a discussion about religion, having nothing to do with boats. When a holy roller tried to imply the infallibility of the bible I mentioned the story of Adam and Eve.
According to the Bible , Adam praised the garden of Eden, praised the beauty of all the plants and fruit in it, including the forbidden fruit, and named al the animals.
Only then did he eat the forbidden fruit, and only then could he see that he was naked. So while he was praising the beauty of the garden of Eden, praising the beauty of all the fruit in it and naming all the animals , he was blind as a bat.
Being naked up to the time he ate the forbidden fruit, he assumed he had pants on , because if he had tried to take his pants off to take dump, he would have realized he was naked.
So this guy , blind as a bat, dumb as a stump, filthy enough to be willing to take a dump in his pants ,and lies like a mountie in a courtroom, is made in the image of a god we are all supposed to swoon over, worship and emulate?
Apologies for seemingly going off topic, but there was no other way to reveal what Smack was doing. This is typical of many of his manipulations thruout his posts. This is the message smack took a line out of context from , without giving the context?
If that kind of practice is fair game here, then I'm sure I can come up with similar tricks with such quotes from smacks posts, and Bobs, given that he endorsed such manipulation and deception. Boy, wait till you see some of the quotes I can manipulate from what Smack and Bob have posted!
If I leave out "Brent said " part, could I quote Bob as saying "My wife is a *****etc. etc . or quote Smack saying similar things?
You get the idea.
I never once insulted Bob's wife , just asked if anyone had seen her. I could easily arrange for Bob or Smack to do so, using Smacks strategy.
Or does using this type of misrepresentation mean Smack is overdue for a" long time out".
Ah Brent - you just keep stepping in it. Here's your quote from the "Bob Perry's take on Wolfenzee's dream boat" thread - a thread that had everything to do with boats (notice the red parts):
Aesthetically pleasing is different for those who buy whatever consumerism is trying to sell them , from those who do their own thinking. Have you ever seen any of my boats, or are you like the biblical "Adam", who named all the animals and praised the beauty of the Garden of Eden, while he was blind?
After praising the garden of Eden for it's beauty, including the beauty of the forbidden fruit, and naming all the animals , while blind , he only gained his eyesight after eating the forbidden fruit, and only then did he realize he was naked.(After having taken many a leak and dump, assuming he had pants on , never bothering to take them down, for if he had, he would have noticed that he had no pants on) As soon as he gained his eysight he was kicked out, no time left to praise or name anything.
Now there's a credibility problem! Funny nobody noticed!
Now where am I taking things out of context again? Where am I using "misrepresentation"? Keep trying.