Come on down act like you thought it was something other than academics now. It's rather obvious that it wasn't an academics issue, and so he was correct that he was falsifying the truth.

So do you know what the exact reason(Link) for him not playing is because I don't. In post #24 I was guessing what it was. He is not correct saying someone is falsifying the truth unless he can prove the truth himself and he was asked several times without any response to do just that.

So do you know what the exact reason(Link) for him not playing is because I don't. In post #24 I was guessing what it was. He is not correct saying someone is falsifying the truth unless he can prove the truth himself and he was asked several times without any response to do just that.

 

 

He is 100% correct in saying that he is falsifying the truth. Liggins not playing had absolutely nothing to do with academics. Trust me. Now how do you expect him, or anyone else prove that he was being kept out due to testing positive for drugs? I'm pretty sure that the UK isn't going to release his drug test, but I have heard from two very good sources myself that was the problem with Liggins.

He is 100% correct in saying that he is falsifying the truth. Liggins not playing had absolutely nothing to do with academics. Trust me. Now how do you expect him, or anyone else prove that he was being kept out due to testing positive for drugs? I'm pretty sure that the UK isn't going to release his drug test, but I have heard from two very good sources myself that was the problem with Liggins.

Link

He is 100% correct in saying that he is falsifying the truth. Liggins not playing had absolutely nothing to do with academics. Trust me. Now how do you expect him, or anyone else prove that he was being kept out due to testing positive for drugs? I'm pretty sure that the UK isn't going to release his drug test, but I have heard from two very good sources myself that was the problem with Liggins.

He cannot, but he also cannot prove that someone is falsifying the truth at this time until we know the truth. So if he cannot prove it he should not be calling anyone out.

Link

 

 

Can you provide a link that discredits that Liggins wasn't playing because Coach Cal didn't like Liggin's haircut?

He cannot, but he also cannot prove that someone is falsifying the truth at this time until we know the truth. So if he cannot prove it he should not be calling anyone out.

 

 

How about a little common sense? That should be enough to tell that Liggins wasn't sitting due to academics, but if that isn't enough maybe this will help you see the light.

 

http://vaughtsviews.com/?p=2245

^So it's much like leaving a cake and a little hungry boy in a room and instructing the boy not to eat the cake. You leave for awhile and come back in and the cake is half gone. You didn't see the boy eat the cake, but, well, you know where I'm going with this.

Can you provide a link that discredits that Liggins wasn't playing because Coach Cal didn't like Liggin's haircut?

 

I don't have to because I did not say you where falsify the true about the haircut.

I don't have to because I did not say you where falsify the true about the haircut.

 

 

:ohbrother::ohbrother:Some people simply can't admit when they were wrong.

How about a little common sense? That should be enough to tell that Liggins wasn't sitting due to academics, but if that isn't enough maybe this will help you see the light.

 

http://vaughtsviews.com/?p=2245

 

Has nothing to do with common sense. It has to do with that no one has any proof of what happen. It is called Vaughtsviews. I have my view also, but I am not calling someone else's view false.

Has nothing to do with common sense. It has to do with that no one has any proof of what happen. It is called Vaughtsviews. I have my view also, but I am not calling someone else's view false.

 

 

He didn't say it was view. He stated it as a fact that Liggins was serving a one semester suspension for grades. That was false. End of story.

:ohbrother::ohbrother:Some people simply can't admit when they were wrong.

:ohbrother::clap:

 

You have not shown me where I am wrong. The debate has nothing to do if I am wrong about what Liggins did. You have yet to prove anything. I am not saying that Liggins was not suspended for drugs. All I am saying there is no one at this time on this board that really knows the reason for sure and maybe will never know. The whole argument is someone cannot say someone is falsify a story unless they can prove it themselves. What is it that you don't understand about that.

:ohbrother::clap:

 

You have not shown me where I am wrong. The debate has nothing to do if I am wrong about what Liggins did. You have yet to prove anything. I am not saying that Liggins was not suspended for drugs. All I am saying there is no one at this time on this board that really knows the reason for sure and maybe will never know. The whole argument is someone cannot say someone is falsify a story unless they can prove it themselves. What is it that you don't understand about that.

If you are saying that no one on this board really knows the reason, then why are you defending someone's right to claim something that they don't know? Are we all entitled to make false claims, but no one can reject the false claims of another? If LRCW says that DeAndre Liggins is the President of Tulavu, can I say that is not true? Or must I know that the President of Tulavu is Ian Fry before I can disclaim LRCW's false statement?

:ohbrother::clap:

 

You have not shown me where I am wrong. The debate has nothing to do if I am wrong about what Liggins did. You have yet to prove anything. I am not saying that Liggins was not suspended for drugs. All I am saying there is no one at this time on this board that really knows the reason for sure and maybe will never know. The whole argument is someone cannot say someone is falsify a story unless they can prove it themselves. What is it that you don't understand about that.

 

 

Why can't you understand that it wasn't academics like the poster had stated as a fact in his post? Why can't people use common sense instead of having to have a link for everything or have everything spelled out for them?

He didn't say it was view. He stated it as a fact that Liggins was serving a one semester suspension for grades. That was false. End of story.

And he stated that it was falsifying the truth. He did not say it was his view, either. I guess we will agree to disagree on this one until the truth is provided.

 

Moral of this story is you cannot call a person a liar unless you can prove the truth yourself. Once he proves the truth than he can say for sure that the truth has been falsified.