Originally posted by FreedomCommander
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
No, it was your attitude. Not because of asking for evidence, which I provided. You say that what I have provided was not done (theoretically quote)
under lab circumstances (theoretically close quote) automatically for you makes it a waste of time.
please do not put words into my mouth that I did nto say and that aer not true.
It just reinforces that you don't actually have a position beyong personal ause.
Evidence does NOT have to be done under lab conditions for me to consider it credible - there are a lot of things for which I am more than willing to
accept "non-scientific" evidence.
But evidence has to be credible - for example it has to have logical foundations and fit with what else is actually known.
the full blown scientific method is the "gold standard" of evidence, but ther is a lot of perfectly good eviddene out there that falls short of it.
The evidence you provided was hearsay and annecdotal - it is one persons opinion about how the world is going to hell in a hand basket, and you
refused to provide anything further.
I wanted you to prove me wrong on what I called you, but so far your only reinforcing it.
But why would I be worried about reinforcing that I wil not accept yor opinion and belief as actual evidence that anything you say is happening??
Thanks for the endorsement!
Any fool can criticize condemn and complain but it takes character and self control to be understanding and forgiving.
And here you are criticising and condemning me and not undetrstanding or forgiving me......
apparently you think ther is something wrong in examining evidence for how good it is - well there's nothing much I can do about your attitude to that
except say I disagree with it.
IMO it is not enough to say that someone says it is happening therefore it is happening unless they can show good reasoning and BACKUP for their
conclusions. In which case the backup information should also be available nd examined.
You have failed to do that.
Your "evidence" consists of a very long video from a known conspiracy theorist who is infamous for not actually having any good evidence to back up
nonetheless I am wiling to look at the section you say is relevant if you can isolate it for me so I do nto have to waste my time waiting through the
rest of it.
And you have refused to do so. you haven't said "sorry - i can't do that it jsut isn't possible (for technical reasons)" - you have berated me for
daring to apply reason and critical thinking to the assertion.
so - is that all you have - a long winded ramble by a single conspiracy theorist that you cannot isolate the bit you think it relevant from, and abuse
for me for pointing that out??
edit on 4-11-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)