Dragon Family lawsuit against the United Nations

[Anders Lindman]

Because while you have denied that this is the case, you have provided no evidence to support this assertion, and everything you have posted on the forum is consistent with your being under their control.

I did provide evidence: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7975377&postcount=946

That's enough at the moment.

 

[Tomtomkent]

It works the way I make it work.

You consider the conversation so far, all these pages of people telling you why you are wrong, a success? This is "working"?

 

[Tomtomkent]

I did provide evidence: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7975377&postcount=946

That's enough at the moment.

No. It is insufficient. You can tell, because people have been pointing out why it is not enough to convince them. Why it is not actual evidence of anything, least of all what you say.

 

[Anders Lindman]

I don't see how any rational person would draw the same conclusion about my comment as you. You are of course free to intuit whatever you like about the above sentence.

It still sounds to me that you are trying to wriggle your way away from what Rockefeller said. Being obscure usually doesn't make statements more clear.

 

[Tomtomkent]

I have already pointed out that I'm always one step ahead of y'all.

And you could not possibly be wrong?

Imagine why people might disagree on that point, and consider your "one step ahead" to be "self deluded to the point of hilarity".

 

[Craig4]

I did provide evidence: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7975377&postcount=946

That's enough at the moment.

No, not really. Still lowering the bar and failing to jump over it.

 

[Anders Lindman]

No. It is insufficient. You can tell, because people have been pointing out why it is not enough to convince them. Why it is not actual evidence of anything, least of all what you say.

It is sufficient in my opinion. I haven't even seen any debunking yet of that evidence I provided. You are just trying to avoid having to deal with it.

 

[Tomtomkent]

It still sounds to me that you are trying to wriggle your way away from what Rockefeller said. Being obscure usually doesn't make statements more clear.

It doesn't matter how it sounds to you. Sane people will see the context of the quote, and see it is not evidence of what you claim. Pretending otherwise just makes it clear you are unwilling to admit the limitations of your arguments.

 

[Craig4]

It still sounds to me that you are trying to wriggle your way away from what Rockefeller said. Being obscure usually doesn't make statements more clear.

Odd, the one time you find something to read between the lines that's actually there, you miss it.

 

[Anders Lindman]

No, not really. Still lowering the bar and failing to jump over it.

Show me some debunking of it then. So that your claims can be substantiated.

 

[Mojo]

I did provide evidence: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7975377&postcount=946

That's enough at the moment.

That isn't in any way evidence that you are not under mind control.

 

[Anders Lindman]

Odd, the one time you find something to read between the lines that's actually there, you miss it.

You are still just trying to avoid presenting your contrived interpretation of the quote it seems.

 

[Anders Lindman]

That isn't in any way evidence that you are not under mind control.

I have provided evidence for the possibility of mind control. Whether I'm under mind control or not is similar to asking if you are under mind control or not.

 

[Tomtomkent]

It is sufficient in my opinion. I haven't even seen any debunking yet of that evidence I provided. You are just trying to avoid having to deal with it.

It doesn't matter if it is sufficient in your opinion. You are not the person you came here to convince. You don't post here to read your won words do you? You post for other people to read them, in the hope of convincing others. Your "evidence" is not sufficient to do that.

If your evidence does not convince those of us who are objective to your claims it is, de facto, not sufficient for prupose.

As to the debunking, one can only assume you have not bothered to read the posts made by anybody else, or to research your own evidence outside of this forum. That in itself speaks volumes about the disregard you must hold everybody else in. You just splatter this thread with any old rubbish with out bothering to see if it has the slightest grain of truth.

 

[Anders Lindman]

It doesn't matter how it sounds to you. Sane people will see the context of the quote, and see it is not evidence of what you claim. Pretending otherwise just makes it clear you are unwilling to admit the limitations of your arguments.

More fluffy talk. Show me your contrived interpretation of the quote then. Or is being obscure your choice of defense?

 

[Craig4]

You are still just trying to avoid presenting your contrived interpretation of the quote it seems.

No, I am not. I'm waiting for someone else to come to the conclusion you did. Everyone but you seems to have understood my meaning.

 

[Tomtomkent]

I have provided evidence for the possibility of mind control. Whether I'm under mind control or not is similar to asking if you are under mind control or not.

The possibility? That is not proving the existence or use of it. Nor is it proof of a cabal to use it. And yes, it is similar to asking if anybody else is under the influence of mind control, but as you are both the one for whom the possibility and motive have been provided, and it is your theory, you are the first we shall want evidence for. Evidence that you are, evidence that you are not. You will notice that anybody else is irrelevant to this point.

Why will you not answer the issues directly, even as you accuse others of worming away from direct answers?

 

[R.A.F.]

I haven't even seen any debunking yet of that evidence...

What is it about burden of proof that you fail to understand??

 

[Anders Lindman]

You post for other people to read them, in the hope of convincing others. Your "evidence" is not sufficient to do that.

How do you know? This forum is public. There will always be ardent skeptics who disbelieve basically everything except what CNN tells them. On the other end of the spectrum are those who believe almost anything. So it's a bell-shaped curve and surely I have convinced enough people within that curve.

 

[Anders Lindman]

What is it about burden of proof that you fail to understand??

What proof do you need in relation to the evidence I posted?