I can win on certain issues/arguments. I cant prove aliens exist
(the equivalent of what you guys want, prove the conspirators, the conspiracy, track the distribution, even where such a strategy would likely be purposefully withheld to prevent public alarm... and with a yesterday deadline)
but I CAN dispel the assertion that every eye witness to a UFO is untrustworthy. And then I can dance...
You should stop giving yourself so much credit for your wisdom writing.
The questions you raise are hackneyed and silly, though somewhat redeemed by the unintentionally comic dimension of you taking them so seriously.
And the ambiguity you hoist up into the air for general admiration frankly looks more like a fig leaf for not knowing what you think and being all over the place.
I dont have to believe the conspiracy to think chinese product shouldnt be in the water, and municipalities nationwide shouldnt be spending money on useless powder for the water, that is a known toxin in sufficient quan ies, and that we should have a say in what medicines we put into our bodies.
You assume I come here to assert. I come here to question in a roundtable setting, with the focus being on finding answers. all you guys can offer so far is uninformed scepticism. it is no wonder why you lose on issue after issue.
the case will not get a verdict by this jury though.
I'll take my own uninformed skepticism over your half-baked inferences. Every day.
if this issue was as easy as uninformed "public is never duped/I am too smart to have the wool pulled over my eyes" skepticism, then this argument wouldnt have made it beyond page 2-3.
If my goal was to confirm that this is not a cut and dried issue, and that questions do exist, then...
uninformed being the key word here. Might as well concede that..
You're dancing in the wrong end zone. You just don't know it.If my goal was to confirm that this is not a cut and dried issue, and that questions do exist, then...
@Blake: now that might be a strawman...
you've done very little to inform us of anything other than Toyota uses fluoride and that you know how to copy and paste self-humorous pictures.
see above. maybe I do. or maybe I just realized that at least no one is gonna take my head off in while I stand here.
you and WH admit that you wont read any source I link.
wait for it....
Why deny yourself credit for that as well: your own brief was featherlight, nearly substance free.
Your case was so ty the jurors all went home, and now you are crying about justice denied.
I never showed this conclusively...you've done very little to inform us of anything other than Toyota uses fluoride
you misrep the quote. no one has enough evidence to convict including myself. conceded that pages ago.Why deny yourself credit for that as well: your own brief was featherlight, nearly substance free.
Your case was so ty the jurors all went home, and now you are crying about justice denied.
Now you want to have it both ways. I get that.
next you'll want me to prove JFK was hit because of his developing misgivings on Vietnam...
Na, there is no evidence in that picture on it's own merit that the receiver scored a TD. For all I know, the ref is coming to tell him he ran the wrong way.@Blake: now that might be a strawman...
Based on your failure to address the strawmen you set up and your confusing correlation and causation, you have not scored a TD by anyone's measure other than your own.
In fact, I might believe this is a cut and dried issue more now than before I originally entered this thread.
only if you make such an assertion.
even worse.I never showed this conclusively...
I can see you're distancing yourself now from some of the things you were suggesting earlier. That's probably wise.
If I didnt read it, I explained why somewhere in this thread.
Feel free to try another link.
I'm waiting for it.
It's kindly a long walk back. Hope you're not wearing your soft soled shoes, Fred Astaire.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
