Jimmy Dick's Version of "Integrity" in Online Discussion

The following is edited from one of the usual heritage-hating blogs. It's an exchange between Jimmy Dick and myself that occurred in the comment thread of a particular post about veterans. (The "she" he mentions here is me.)

J. DICK: She and the other Neo-Know Nothings say the secession conventions were about anything but slavery and the Civil War was caused by anything but slavery.

CONNIE: Mr. Dick, I challenge you to find where I have ever, ever, ever said “the secession conventions were about anything but slavery and the Civil War was caused by anything but slavery”. I’ll tell you right now, you won’t find it, because I’ve never said it, ever. EV-VER. Which makes YOU the liar. Why? Why did you tell this lie? Either prove where I have said it, or apologize to me.

J. DICK: Oh, so you are ready to announce that the Civil War was caused by slavery? You’re ready to admit that the slave states seceded in order to preserve slavery? Say it clearly and I will be more than happy to apologize.

Note how he attempts to change the subject. He refuses to prove that I said what he claims I said, and brings up something totally irrelevant. It doesn't matter WHAT I'm ready (or not ready) to announce. It doesn't change the fact that he accused me of already having said something that he refuses to prove I said. I remind him of that....

CONNIE: Mr. Dick, you said I SAID , “the secession conventions were about anything but slavery and the Civil War was caused by anything but slavery”. The burden of proof is on you.

If you can’t produce a link, a copy-paste, anything, where I have said, “the secession conventions were about anything but slavery and the Civil War was caused by anything but slavery,” then you owe me an apology. 

Look what he does next. Pointing out that my not making a statement about slavery has nothing to do with his claim of what I've already said. And he says I want proof of what started the war? No, I'm asking him to prove where I said what he's claiming I said.

Question for my readers. Is Mr. Dick truly confused about the proof I'm asking for? If so, what does that say about academic-level reading comprehension? And if he KNOWS that's not the proof I'm asking for, what does that say about his intellectual honesty?

J. DICK: As expected and anticipated Connie Chastain is not going to make the statement that slavery was the cause of the Civil War. She wants proof...

...Well, open your eyes and mind and start learning. Read the primary sources such as the Secession documents. Read Charles Dew, James McPherson, Eric Foner, etc.

Connie, you said you wanted an apology. You will never get one because you can’t admit the truth. The evidence is overwhelming that the secession conventions were over slavery and that slavery started the Civil War. You reject the facts in favor of fiction [edit].

You get no apology.

I don't really care about an apology from you. I simply acknowledge that if you can't prove your accusation against me, it is a lie, and you owe me an apology for it. Whether you offer it or not doesn't amount to a hill of beans to me.

J. DICK: “I will be extremely pleased to announce to the world that I would be apologizing to Connie Chastain because she has stated for the record that slavery was the cause of the Civil War, that the men who fought for the Confederacy fought for the right to own human beings, and the men at the secession conventions chose to secede over slavery.”

When Connie Chastain makes that statement she will no longer be [avoiding the truth]. Until then she is.

That is all irrelevant to the fact that Jimmy Dick accused me of already having said something that he refuses to prove I said. Also, I do not believe Jimmy Dick has a corner on truth; what he has stated here is, at best, his opinion, his spin.

Do not bother to post anything unless you make that exact statement, Connie. I will accept and apologize for nothing but you stating that statement as fact. I will not be holding my breath.

CONNIE: Mr. Dick, you claimed I said something I’ve never said. You lied about me. These other demands you are making are irrelevant to the fact that you lied about me.

For my part, this exchange was to make the point that he cannot prove I said what he claims I said and without proof, his claims are lies. It's funny to watch him squirm, to try to change horses in midstream, to reframe the discussion to take the heat off himself, to move the focus from the past, i.e., what (he claims) I've already said, to the future, what he's demand that I say.

This is a sleazy, slimy discussion technique on Mr. Dick's part; but it's a hallmark of flogger discussion techniques one encounters all the time. He needs a nickname ... How would "Tricky Dick? do? Hahahahaha.