Reply With Quote
Wait wait, let me guess, they don't allow endless postings of conspiracy theories, and re-hasing of long ago debunked bull .
I haven't clicked the link yet, did I guess right?
They only allow certain views on any subject matter they post.
Here is just one of many examples of how they don't allow public opinion.
Mallen Art disagreed on an earlier topic now look at his postings.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?...864376&theater
Wait wait, let me guess, they don't allow endless postings of conspiracy theories, and re-hasing of long ago debunked bull .
I haven't clicked the link yet, did I guess right?
I thought of you the other day, RG
Guy was talking about the difference between a skeptic and a "de-bunker"
skeptic says he will hold judgment to see the facts
debunker says such a preposterous idea simply cant be, then proceeds to throw out every argument conceivable. If one wont do it...the next will. And if none sticks, well... it just cant be, so it may as well have been debunked.
And invariably in his mind, it was before the debate even started.
Unfortunately for you, I do withhold a lot of judgments until I see facts, and those facts tend to support your theories a lot less than you believe they do.I thought of you the other day, RG
Guy was talking about the difference between a skeptic and a "de-bunker"
skeptic says he will hold judgment to see the facts
debunker says such a preposterous idea simply cant be, then proceeds to throw out every argument conceivable. If one wont do it...the next will. And if none sticks, well... it just cant be, so it may as well have been debunked.
And invariably in his mind, it was before the debate even started.
Feel free to get back to the chemtrail threads at any time.
I am more of an honest skeptic than you will ever be. Sorry.
No reason to apologize, RG.
I deleted my fb account some time back.
What was censored/distorted?
RG we have done too many rounds on here. We both know the second description nails your approach to a T. how else would you pick up a nick name like wormtongue?
The Economist magazine facebook page post many articles it is followed by a group of facebook friends that say the same replies. "oh wow" "this is a good article" "thank you for this news" and so on.....
I saw an article and asked a basic non threatening question and gave my views on the subject. The post was removed and when i went back to reply to another subject I was told I didn't have permission to engage in conversations on that page.
Now before you SR wannabee moderators chime in with all kinds of reasons they have and the right to do what they did. Keep in mind a simple PM to my facebook page saying why they don't allow certain replies or anyone who questions they're articles not good for their site. I would have understood I go to many facebook pages and groups were they don't allow public opinions.
For example many facebook pages are there for updates and info and they have a separate page that's say's "others" that is the page they have set up for the facebook friends to post links and talk about things thus not spamming their wall.
Economist magazine facebook page should not be moderated by amateurs and I am sure I am not the only one to call them out on this. And as an American of a country going down the toilet thanks to people like wildcobra and RandonLie I will still fight for what little rights I and many true Americans still have.
About the same way you picked up the nickname "chemtrail-boy".RG we have done too many rounds on here. We both know the second description nails your approach to a T. how else would you pick up a nick name like wormtongue?
The real fact is you are a "true believer", a dogmatic who cannot fathom that someone might honestly not agree with them.
For the dogmatic, someone who doesn't believe either is dumb, nor dishonest.
To be sure, there are a lot of dumb, dishonest people in the world. Your problem is that I am neither.
People like you whine and moan that if the non-believers would just "do their research" the truth would shine down on their heads. You can't accept the fact that doing research actually leads people to information that shows how ed your theories and beliefs about the world are.
You can't accept that, because you have shut your mind to anything that might contradict your pre-existing beliefs.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=158758
Alright so what was your basic nonthreatening question?
I actually read the economist so I really would like to know.
i do not like that type of either.
You will have to scroll back to a topic about China building to many golf courses. It was about their shortage on water. I said lets help them get water by building a Wall mart in China and that is when the started.
lmao thats awesome. how would building a walmart help?
They sell bottled water.
After I made this topic the folks at that site have given me a second chance and then i post this....
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?...!/TheEconomist
am i pushing the envelope?
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?...84798264897146
If I were just a few years older and working when that came out, I would have had one, and possible beat Bill gates to an empire.Sometimes you have to remind your laptop who it's ancestors were.
I wanted one of them sooooo bad....
You couldnt be more wrong (go figure). There are several posters here who are consistently good at debunking the theories I repeat. And I give them credit for their critical thought and succesful arguments.
They are non-believers like you. But they dont employ your methods of "de-bunking."
Again, your approach is flat out dishonest.
You can still find them on eBay.
You're just pissy because, as I have said, I don't fall to my knees and buy your bull as gospel.
You have glommed on to what amounts to a pseudo-religion, and are not here to find truth, merely to present dogma as fact.
As for dishonesty:
Catch me in a lie, saying something illogical, or generally misleading.
Go ahead, I will wait.
LOL...
Why would I want one now?
upgrade your your system.
Mouse,
You absolutely have to go after the Christian Science Monitor.
you know in your heart of hearts this to be true.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
