Last Night in Sweden - Trump latest victim of the mandela effect

a reply to: pryingopen3rdeye

Ah yes, twitter...fact checking...yes, yes,...indeed...

a reply to: 22theworld

Except that's not what you said. So yes, if you change what you said to something else entirely that's essentially what I said just phrased differently, you're right in agreeing with me. So...if you think that

"90% of alleged Mandela effect cases are not actually the Mandela effect"

then you shouldn't say

I strongly believe a large number of Mandela effect cases are simple human error.

That's two different thoughts and ideas. One of which you actually said, one of which you're now claiming you said. Mandela effect in a thread about Mandela effect?

I like that you're complaining about me arguing semantics, all while you argue semantics, and totally ignoring the demolition of your improper use of Occam's razor which would be the post-content based argument you're whining about not getting.

If you're going to dismiss claims supported by "sources bankrolled by Soros" then it's only fair that the rest of us dismiss "your ass" as a source for your Mandela effect claim.

I challenge you to back up your claim with science. Actual science, not psuedoscience or your ass-science.

I'll wait.

originally posted by: numb3rs




And that's not all! With our absolution correction technology we can eventually fix other problems and/or leaks we don't desire into our Matrix! Hitler will one day have never served in office, and spent the rest of his days delivering mail! .

Can I go to the Reality where Hitler Cured Cancer?

originally posted by: Shamrock6
That's two different thoughts and ideas.

In a very strange permutation of the universe, perhaps. The equivalence would be clear to anybody, no matter how pedantic, who had two functioning brain cells. It is telling that you could not understand so simple an argument. And since the rest of your post makes it clear that further discussion is wasted on you, I'll just leave you to keep building your strawmen and adding your hominems. (In case it is not abundantly clear, this is a play on words. Ad hominem is the abbreviated Latin name for a logical fallacy, whereas to add is a verb in the English language. Hominem, as written here, does not exist as a stand-alone noun in the English language, although it is inflected as though it did)


[snipped]

a reply to: 22theworld

So...no source then?

ETA - pro-tip: don't complain about what you perceive to be ad homs (in case it's not abundantly clear, here on ATS 'ad hominem' is often shortened to 'ad hom') by creating an entire post that consists of nothing but ad hom attacks. It's generally perceived as a giant fail on the part of the whiner when they whine about something then turn around and engage in it themselves.

Kinda like how it's usually seen as a fail to say you're done with a thread and then continue to post. So, I'll say I'm done with you until you can provide a source and not just more emotionally driven diatribes that don't really do anything aside from make you look shrill and whiny.

All I know is that in the alternate universe that I come from, Nelson Mandala was an actor who won the Academy Award for Driving Miss Daisy. I think he played God and The President in a few movies, too.

He saw a future event and unknowingly and inadvertently transposed into the past

a reply to: Box of Rain

And voiced a few nature documentaries, I think?

He was a busy fella before he died tragically all those years ago.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: 22theworld

So...no source then?

Yeah it is kind of challenging to discuss something if we don't even know the specifics of what is being discussed.
I mean what is it exactly that makes a strong case for Donald Trump and a Reality Jump?
If I don't know what's being discussed then the topic has a really weak position.

I'm open to the possibility of considering Reality jumps but not when the case and the evidence is so piss poor.

originally posted by: numb3rs
a reply to: pryingopen3rdeye

Ah yes, twitter...fact checking...yes, yes,...indeed...

ah the old "shoot the messenger" tactic, a known logical fallacy centuries old. you've taken it a step further and decided to shoot the medium of the message....

it's like ignoring a stop sign cause it isn't the exact right pigment of red.

in this case the subject is what trump said. and the fact checking is what trump said later. the fact you would critique one while ignoring the other simply cause of two different mediums just casts light on your evident cognitive dissonance