Sittingnut won’t answer because he can’t answer.
Sittingnut wrote an article titled “sarath fonseka supporters incite and welcome violence” ( http://llibertarian.blogspot.com ). Commenting on this post, an anonymous person included a link in his comment ( http://www.dailymirror.lk/index.php/news/1579-court-severely-reprimands-police.html ) and wrote “Sorta puts the lie to your whole post doesn’t it”. In reply Sittingnut wrote “that link does not contradict what i say here”…………. Let us see what’s written in this Daily Mirror article. Here’s the first and the most important paragraph of it. “A Colombo Court today severely reprimanded the police for not carrying out their duty by arresting the armed thugs who attacked civilians during their ‘peaceful march’ at Hulfsdorp yesterday and said the police should be ashamed of dancing to the tune of politicians.”………… Let’s look at the title of sittingnut’s article again. “sarath fonseka supporters incite and welcome violence.” So what does the word “incite” means? Incite means stir up: to stir up feelings in or provoke action by somebody. But according to the article, all these protestors have done is staging a peaceful protest. They didn’t incite violence. They were the recipients of it. All the did was reacting……….. Sittingnut asks in a comment “but why should they throw stones at police vehicles and damage them?” The answer is there in this same paragraph. The police was dancing to the tune of government politicians. What does sittingnut want the Fonseka supporters to do?…. One thing about sittingnut is that he never accepts that he’s fukked no matter how many times he’s fukked. An anonymous commenter said “You can start from your title. You have said they ‘incited’ violence, when clearly they were recipients of it.” sittingnut replies “are you the same as above? as i explain before (read mr fool before repeating already refuted absurd argument).”………… I don’t know when sittingnut refuted this ‘absurd’ argument. All he had said about it was “that link does not contradict what i say here” and another version of this same line with a more derogatory tone to it. This is what sittingnut does whenever he’s in trouble; insulting the attacker and trying to dodge the question. The Daily Mirror article screwed both sittingnut and his post. But he’ll never acknowledge it… sittingnut goes on to write “i gave why i think sf supporters incited violence in post… they used false accounts of sarath fonseka’s arrest with allegations of physical abuse…”. An anonymous commenter asked him how does he support his claim that these allegations are false. I asked the same question in my previous post. So far he has answered neither of us. He won’t answer because he can’t answer. Instead he chooses to excrete on my blog, asking the same questions again and again, to all of which I’ve answered countless times. This is a tactic he uses to avoid questions to which he cannot answer. He says he won’t answer here because I censor his comments. He’s been accusing me of this for weeks now. So far, according to him, I had only censored 2 of his comments. But from yesterday night onwards, I had censored several of his comments according to him. Wow! Lot of things can happen in one night I guess. I’ve challenged him to swear by his mother’s name that he isn’t lying about me censoring. I’ve challenged him several times. So far he hasn’t taken up the challege. He can’t because he’s lying. But even though he’s a liar, he too came out of a woman’s womb… If he can’t answer me on my blog, he should have at least answered the anonymous commenter who asked him how does he support his claim that those allegations are false on his blog. So far he hasn’t done it either… I’m not surprised. I know exactly what he is; a dishonest government propagandist.