What, you mean all those "we agree..." statements?
It's interesting that you didn't bother to reply to
this, but seemed to prefer to reply only to what you perceived as personal attacks.
I am unable to reply to your comments on badscience.net without breaking my integrity.
and those are not rebuttals, those are comments made about my post. and clearly you're actions violate your own comments.
I only need to link as others have to our previous arguments on badscience.net. The third value is my foundational argument, and it remains consistant. Any claim otherwise is deception/delusion.
My brother is a performer who specializes in pulp media, and the need to bring this into the discussion is....?
Mojo, your a small player in the game of dialectic, that is how it appears to me. You do not contribute value, nor is truth what you are after. Your philosophy is bad, it's contradictory, it's a belief system you have deluded yourself into thinking is science, or the result of something scientific.
That's your right to have that, I'm not trying to take it away from you. You just have done a poor job of creating a rational argument for it, and thus resort to spelling/grammatical errors, irrelevant factual errors, and members of my family to use as a 'case' for your argument. Keep doing that all you want, it's just useless for any critical assesment.
You dont address OS 012 critically, you dont address arguments of the third value critically, and you don't address philosophical distinctions regarding the conclusions of research. You argue like believers argue,irrationally. you're just using a different belief system.
I am going to finish my discussions with Zaay and Jonny, and pretty much continue to ignore your petty non relevant non critical harassments of myself and my family. Continue to express yourself, however, as you like, but dont fool yourself! You certainly havent fooled me.
No one is reading your blog, catch my drift?
BF
