Here’s how you started.
Progressing nicely
.
Finally the Premise:
.
Now the passive aggressive repeat of the premise;
.
Again, progressing nicely.
.
Knowing things without knowing things
.
I at least took a shot at trying to get you to define what a chemtrail was
Your answer:
Some of your conclusions are demonstrably incorrect (contrails dissipate relatively quickly. (*Pro tip* “relatively quickly” actually has no meaning whatsoever.), yet you hold steadfastly to them as if they were physical law.
And the debate degenerates from there. This is a fairly common MO for you Parker….you open a topic passively. You’re not here to convince or argue, just wanting to know what ST posters think. When a ST Poster thinks something you don’t want him to think, you finally creep out of that cowardly passive-aggressive stance. Then the futility of debate is realized. You’re not here to debate. You’re here to proclaim your knowledge and make sure we “arrogant” know it alls are put in their place.
And now, you’ll deny this completely and lump me in with the rest of the arrogant know it alls. Fine. Dismissed.
nice job of putting Parker's posts collectively together into one easy to read pile of crap.
Its not about proving the negative, its about if your going to throw out hack half ass attempts at dismissal/debunking, BACK YOUR UP.
Very simple concept.
Still no one touches the substantive info. Ive laid it out, and Ive had the last word on every issue.
Back up the laughing smilies or stfu at this point.
There's no need for us to prove anything.Its not about proving the negative, its about if your going to throw out hack half ass attempts at dismissal/debunking, BACK YOUR UP.
Very simple concept.
Still no one touches the substantive info. Ive laid it out, and Ive had the last word on every issue.
Back up the laughing smilies or stfu at this point.
You have made the contention.
You need to back it up.
Currently there is really nothing substantive. Just a bunch of largely contradictory innuendo you claim to be gospel.
My contention? There are no chemtrails.
How do I back that up? No one has proved there are chemtrials.
That may be true for you, you havent made it a point to mock the topic incessantly, and you are en led to your own mind as am I.
But others have claimed the topic is laughable. If they want to keep cred, then:
1. when the information is presented creating a question of fact as has been the case, THEN
2. if they want to keep up the laughing smilies, I say the price of admission is to either:
a. deal with the evidence presented in good faith (not just argue over definitions and word usage, mind you, which is the best defense any of the United Skeptics have mounted to this point) or
b. stfu.
And the congressman backing the issue is more than enough to counter a group of patriotic sheep and one amateur know-it-all infallible weather man as far as creating a question of fact. No doubt about it. Kucinich has first hand knowledge, and he has made that knowledge public. 3 scrubs doing internet research cant overcome that very easily.
Now mind you they can continue with the smilies and the dismissive mocking behavior, but once told to put up or shut up, the continued mocking becomes an admission of defeat.
And to continue hiding behind the "cant prove a negative" concept is to admit there is no other shelter for their ignorance. Plain and simple.
Did this thread REALLY go NINE pages?
so you believe you have evidence of questionable evidence.
what do you suggest be done about it and what en y should pursue your request?
informed public is always the best option.
thats exactly what I thought. It went downhill early, and the best you can do now is posture...the above admission is worth my cost of admission
Bull .
e.g. Trial in a court of law: State rests its case, defense is left to create reasonable doubt. Defense that tries sacheting its way to a verdict is always a loser.
If you want the verdict, you need to deal with the plaintiff's assertions.
Suprised you dont understand how that works.
BTW I dont need to convince anyone. Take a look at my exchange with Teysha earlier. I just presented the OP for viewer's enjoyment. You want to mock my statements, its put up or be owned.
Parker, the very fact that you dismiss the idea of unicorn meat, when both RG and myself (two very credible witnesses) have confirmed childhood memories of eating it, makes you laughable and arrogant to the extreme.
LnG go find something better to do man. As WH, says, your ing your day debating such a laughable topic, posted by such a laughable poster.
Your arrogance knows no bounds. You can't prove the non-existence of unicorn meat, can you? And obviously, RG and I aren't the only ones; who do you think made that picture of the Unicorn Meat in a can? There's VISUAL EVIDENCE!
Maybe there was a bill that banned it; I'll look for any bill in the past 40 years concerning canning of animal meat. They probably won't have the words "unicorn meat" in there, but that's just due to the meat industry getting Congressman to edit that out.
Where's your reasonable doubt about Unicorn Meat Parker?
You want to mock my posts? Put up or be owned. Prove that RG and I never ate Unicorn Meat as kids. Or just keep using smilies and insults, and run away from the TRUE topic.
In a court of law, the state has to make is prima facie case, otherwise the defense doesn't have to do jack.
You have not done so in this instance.
Is "sachet" ever used as a verb?
inform that there might be something wrong?
what purpose does that serve aside from fearmongering?
not surprised he thinks he knows how it works but just proved beyond a shadow of a doubt he doesn't.
Parker just PWNED himself. Go back to watching 9/11 conspiracy tapes, .
such a losing example on so many levels. what you think is hammering home your point is complete waste of time, ing your day at that.
fail. you cant even make a single intelligent correlation between chemtrails and the bull that RG spouted off about, which was dealt with pages ago. And yet you continue to carry the torch like your life depends on it.
Kucinich's testimony alone is capable of conviction. try again. There are two referenced interviews where he addresses chemtrails as a real DoD program. You dont think his testimony would avoid a summary judgment? Really?
If there were a su ious male standing at the intersection nearest to your house, would it be fear mongering if your neighbor told you so?
Would it not benefit the situation to get as many eyes on the situation as possible?
With a hard description, isnt it possible that someone might ID him? Or at least you can keep an eye out to protect your family? Or if a cop lives in your 'hood, he might go question the guy?
What is the worst thing that you can do? Answer: dont say , and let the neighborhood be in the dark about the whole affair.
I said I already made my case. Kucinich alone makes for prima facie evidence. try again.
Says the guy who says we should be good Americans and let the govt have their way with our wives and kids. And ? Really Are you 15 years old?
Go do some homework boy...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote