Dragon Family lawsuit against the United Nations

[Anders Lindman]

Nope, thats an apology appreciated but not what I asked for. I asked for a reason. WHY did you not stop attacking people?

I made a mistake.

 

[R.A.F.]

Maybe (all you) debunkers only have a tough facade but are really uncertain behind that front of confidence.

Wow...you are projecting your own "faults" onto others...a very lame justification.


I (and I assume others here) am in no way uncertain...so you can drop that line of reasoning right now.

 

[R.A.F.]

I made a mistake.

Well, right there you've set yourself apart from posters like Patrick1000. He is completely incapable of admitting error...

So I guess a mild congratulations is in order....but don't allow it to "go to your head".

 

[Tomtomkent]

I made a mistake.

Well, you made several.
To feel the need to "attack" to begin with was the first.

 

[Anders Lindman]

Wow...you are projecting your own "faults" onto others...a very lame justification.


I (and I assume others here) am in no way uncertain...so you can drop that line of reasoning right now.

If you check my posts you will see that I'm often uncertain. And the tough facade can be subconscious so that you are not aware of it yourself on a conscious level.

 

[SpitfireIX]

And faced with an utter inability to argue according to the facts, Anders switches to an ad hominem approach. You're like Patrick1000 -- in moments of extreme panic they try to shame their critics away from responding to them.

Ah, that explains a lot. P1K is controlling his mind.

 

[R.A.F.]

...the tough facade can be subconscious so that you are not aware of it yourself on a conscious level.

Nope...sorry....just because you "want" something to be true, doesn't make it true.

You want to characterize "debunkers" as unsure of themselves, thereby giving you an "excuse" to imply error where none exists.


Argument rejected.

 

[R.A.F.]

Ah, that explains a lot. P1K is controlling his mind.

I don't know...P1K has difficulty, (to put it mildly), controlling his own mind, let alone controlling the minds of others.

 

[Anders Lindman]

Nope...sorry....just because you "want" something to be true, doesn't make it true.

You want to characterize "debunkers" as unsure of themselves, thereby giving you an "excuse" to imply error where none exists.


Argument rejected.

Not unsure of themselves. I mean the debunkers are unsure about the facts.

 

[R.A.F.]

If you check my posts you will see that I'm often uncertain.

So what?...you are not me.

Anyhow, you were claiming that debunkers were uncertain, not you.

 

[JayUtah]

And the tough facade can be subconscious so that you are not aware of it yourself on a conscious level.

Are you immune to this effect?

 

[Anders Lindman]

So what?...you are not me.

Anyhow, you were claiming that debunkers were uncertain, not you.

But you said that when I claimed that that I was projecting.

Wow...you are projecting your own "faults" onto others...a very lame justification.

So I pointed out that I was not projecting since I'm often uncertain about the facts.

 

[Anders Lindman]

Are you immune to this effect?

When it comes to conspiracy theories, I often know that I don't have the facts entirely clear. I have had to change my mind when finding new information. Someone who has a seemingly firm belief in something may subconsciously be uncertain, while someone who is consciously uncertain about things doesn't have a conflicting subconscious about that.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Well, you made several.
To feel the need to "attack" to begin with was the first.

His apology is about equivalent to apologizing for misspelling someone's name in a rant about how Jews murdered the Moon People. Even though it's more than most kooks do, I'm not sure it really counts for anything.

 

[JayUtah]

When it comes to conspiracy theories, I often know that I don't have the facts entirely clear.

Do the conspiracy theorists always have the facts entirely clear?

 

[Mojo]

So what?...you are not me.

Anyhow, you were claiming that debunkers were uncertain, not you.

But you said that when I claimed that that I was projecting.

Wow...you are projecting your own "faults" onto others...a very lame justification.

So I pointed out that I was not projecting since I'm often uncertain about the facts.

Fail.

 

[Anders Lindman]

Do the conspiracy theorists always have the facts entirely clear?

Obviously not since many CTs believe there were real planes involved in the 9/11 attacks for example. I'm pretty sure that there were no real planes involved, BUT I originally believed there were real planes involved and before that I even believed in the official 9/11 story!

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

So what?...you are not me.

Anyhow, you were claiming that debunkers were uncertain, not you.

But you said that when I claimed that that I was projecting.

Wow...you are projecting your own "faults" onto others...a very lame justification.

So I pointed out that I was not projecting since I'm often uncertain about the facts.

Umm... Admitting that you suffer the same problem you accuse others of suffering doesn't mean that what you did wasn't projection. Quite the opposite, actually; it strengthens the argument that what you did was projection.

 

[Tomtomkent]

When it comes to conspiracy theories, I often know that I don't have the facts entirely clear.

And yet you assert them here. And judging by this thread continue to argue based upon those assertions after you are shown to have no facts at all, and be comepletely wrong.

For example: Continuing to argue that the contents of a legal action to be validated simply by the suit being filed. Then arguing that criminal and civil actions are the same. And so forth.

If you do not know something is correct, and have been shown to be entirely incorrect on multiple occassions why continue to assert?

Why not try establishing facts BEFORE you write random meaningless wiffle here?

Don't get me wrong, I am not telling you to stop. I love to be reassured that no matter how stupid I make myself sound today there will always be somebody getting me beat in the race drown ourselves in the shallow end of the gene-pool. I am just fascinated to know why you would want to look a fool by claiming all kinds of rubbish when you have no idea of the facts, and why you would continue to defend your possition when the facts become apparent?

 

[Anders Lindman]

Umm... Admitting that you suffer the same problem you accuse others of suffering doesn't mean that what you did wasn't projection. Quite the opposite, actually; it strengthens the argument that what you did was projection.

That I have a strong facade of being certain but in reality am uncertain about those facts behind my facade? Nope, because I don't have any facade of being certain. Maybe a facade of being uncertain, lol.