Well It Was No Cherry Pie...

[Regnad Kcin]

Oh, and may I assume you are going to respond to the myriad other issues as detailed in my lengthy post several entries above?

 

[varwoche]

Crimresearch, are you aware that you have staked out an alternate reality? That anyone can simply scroll up and see in black and white that your posts are delusional? Let me remind you of your claim, emphasis added:

crimresearch: I find Jane Fonda thoroughly despicable for reasons that have nothing to do with her Vietnam activities, and I abhor her cynical arrogance ... And in a face to face situation, I would never shake her hand, and if prodded, would be delighted to tell her and everyone in earshot what I think about her, probably (no, certainly) resorting to such hyperbole as 'complicit in the deaths of thousands of women'

I assume you know this is a skeptical forum, so surely it does not come as a shock when you are asked:

Regnad Kcin: Merely asking you to detail your stance.

To which you bizarrely replied:

crimresearch: What a beautiful example of the mentality of the religious right.
...
Keep on goosestepping Nick.

As weird as this is already, here's where you step into an alternate reality. You have posted exactly NOTHING in support of your emotional rant. No links - no quotes - nothing. Yet, unbelievably, you post this fiction:

crimresearch: The fac [sic] that you refuse to see Jane Fonda's own words...the transcripts of her saying exactly that will pass as proof in the absence of refuataion

I repeat: You have not posted any transcripts. You have not posted any quotes.

And as a comical aside, what does this gibberish mean...

crimresearch: Show us something to refute the assertion that Jane Fonda is born again Christian.

Are you hallucinating? I've seen disjointed non-seqs before, but this takes the cake.

I have some questions and they are painfully simple:

1) Do you intend to support your claim that Fonda is "complicit in the deaths of thousands of women"? If no, just say so and I'll drop my inquiry.

2) Why is asking for evidence nazi-like? Will you retract your strange ad-hom?

Please, no more make believe and no new layers of invective. Just answer these simple questions with simple yes/no answers. Can you do that?

RK, crim claims to have me on ignore on alternate days (it's a hands over ears sort of thing -- he has a hard time coping with evidence in either direction). I invite you to quote me back if you wish.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by varwouche
Crimresearch, are you aware that you have staked out an alternate reality? That anyone can simply scroll up and see in black and white that your posts are delusional? Let me remind you of your claim, emphasis added:

Originally posted by crimresearch
I find Jane Fonda thoroughly despicable for reasons that have nothing to do with her Vietnam activities, and I abhor her cynical arrogance ... And in a face to face situation, I would never shake her hand, and if prodded, would be delighted to tell her and everyone in earshot what I think about her, probably (no, certainly) resorting to such hyperbole as 'complicit in the deaths of thousands of women'

I assume you know this is a skeptical forum, so surely it does not come as a shock when you are asked:

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
Merely asking you to detail your stance.

To which you bizarrely replied:

Originally posted by crimresearch
What a beautiful example of the mentality of the religious right.
...
Keep on goosestepping Nick.

As weird as this is already, here's where you step into an alternate reality. You have posted exactly NOTHING in support of your emotional rant. No links - no quotes - nothing. Yet, unbelievably, you post this fiction:

Originally posted by crimresearch
The fac [sic] that you refuse to see Jane Fonda's own words...the transcripts of her saying exactly that will pass as proof in the absence of refuataion

I repeat: You have not posted any transcripts. You have not posted any quotes.

And as a comical aside, what does this gibberish mean...

Originally posted by crimresearch
Show us something to refute the assertion that Jane Fonda is born again Christian.

Are you hallucinating? I've seen disjointed non-seqs before, but this takes the cake.

I have some questions and they are painfully simple:

1) Do you intend to support your claim that Fonda is "complicit in the deaths of thousands of women"? If no, just say so and I'll drop my inquiry.

2) Why is asking for evidence nazi-like? Will you retract your strange ad-hom?

Please, no more make believe and no new layers of invective. Just answer these simple questions with simple yes/no answers. Can you do that?

RK, crim claims to have me on ignore on alternate days (it's a hands over ears sort of thing -- he has a hard time coping with evidence in either direction). I invite you to quote me back if you wish.

Done. Not that it will result in a response other than invective, I'll wager.

 

[varwoche]

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin Not that it will result in a response other than invective, I'll wager.

Wager? What the hell RK, do I have "sucker" written on my forehead or something?

 

[varwoche]

Do you intend to support your claim that Fonda is "complicit in the deaths of thousands of women"? If no, just say so and I'll drop my inquiry.

As crimresearch appears to have abandoned the thread, I assume the answer is no, (s)he does not intend to support his/her vitriolic outburst.

Crimresearch, you do realize that when one makes false, damaging statements about others that, besides being decidedly counter skeptical -- and just plain lame -- this it is considered defamation, and there are potential (civil) legal consequences* if the injured party were to learn of the defamation and decide to act on it?

* I'm not a lawyer -- I welcome clarification.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

An update of sorts:

In another JREF thread (on Amnesty International), crimresearch made the following statement:

I can understand the logic to the first (holding the US to a higher standard), but in past discussions, I've pointed out why it is a bad idea to label every bad thing with the labels that should be reserved for the very worst things. Rape is rape, torture is torture, genocide is genocide, and they shouldn't be cheapened by misapplication...

I found the entry startling, seeing as how the poster seems to consider it perfectly reasonable to suggest in this thread, without providing any supportive evidence whatsoever, that Ms. Jane Fonda is "complicit in the deaths of thousands of women."

Perhaps crimresearch will finally issue a retraction, thereby realigning him/herself with the worthy practice of reserving labels, hyperbolic or otherwise, for actions that deserve them.

 

[crimresearch]

Already provided..you can refuse to click on the link, and proclaim 'No Evidence!!' all you want.

I've backed up my point, which was that your woo-woo 'health industry' has killed thousands of women suffering from body image disorders, and that Jane Fonda's videos are part of profiteering form that industry, thereby making her complicit.

Your responses, to ignore the facts, quibble dishonestly over definitions, to refuse to provide any facts in support of *your* counter-assertions, while stalking the board whining hypocritically for others to provide what you won't, and to suddenly move the goalposts to whether 'plural' means *more* than two, are just more evidence of your substitution of woo for logic..

As is your new trick or refusing to accept the normal definition of 'hyperbole'.


You lose.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Already provided..you can refuse to click on the link, and proclaim 'No Evidence!!' all you want.

No. As has been pointed out to you numerous times, there is no link in this thread to click on. Moreover, as I've read elsewhere in threads having to do with your contributions to these boards, you seem to have a very difficult time with the concept of links and evidence and supporting assertions. Pity.

I've backed up my point, which was that your woo-woo 'health industry' has killed thousands of women suffering from body image disorders, and that Jane Fonda's videos are part of profiteering form that industry, thereby making her complicit.

You have done no such thing. I can only guess that you suffer from some sort of malady if you believe you've "backed up [your] point."

Your responses, to ignore the facts...

Which you have yet to provide.

...quibble dishonestly over definitions...

Nope.

...to refuse to provide any facts in support of *your* counter-assertions...

Again, for the umpteenth time, I have made no "counter-assertions." I am asking you to back yours up.

...while stalking the board whining hypocritically for others to provide what you won't...

I don't suppose it would do any good to ask you to provide a quote of mine to support your statement above?

...and to suddenly move the goalposts to whether 'plural' means *more* than two, are just more evidence of your substitution of woo for logic..

Plural, as I've explained to you, means more than one. Simple.

And whatever you mean by "moving the goalposts" is beyond me. All along, just trying to nail your squirmy statements down.

As is your new trick or refusing to accept the normal definition of 'hyperbole'.

I'll happily deal with the above sometime later.

You lose.

You wish.

 

[crimresearch]

"Which you have yet to provide"

How predictable...you've decided join the 'Can't see any steenking links' brigade, and just to make sure that no one accords you a shred of honesty, you ask for evidence in one thread, and then claim you can't see it in another.


"Plural, as I've explained to you, means more than one. Simple"

Very simple...just like the *two* examples I've given right here in this very thread, which you continue to claim aren't plural.
Are you using something other than your fingers on which to count? That would account for the poor vision.


"I'll happily deal with the above sometime later"

Translation:
'I'll run away for a while, and resume stalking and demanding evidence while ignoring it, and refusing to provide any of my own, later'.

Here is a lovely parting gift for you, since you seem to have so much trouble clicking on links, and reading scientific papers when they are provided...

 

[Regnad Kcin]

How predictable...you've decided join the 'Can't see any steenking links' brigade, and just to make sure that no one accords you a shred of honesty, you ask for evidence in one thread, and then claim you can't see it in another.

How predictable. You've once again indicated (here and in at least one other thread) that there are links that other people (not just me) are ignoring. Links that you will not repost. Links that no one else will repost in your defense.

You are either operating with some odd computer system or are lying about the presence of links.

Very simple...just like the *two* examples I've given right here in this very thread, which you continue to claim aren't plural.
Are you using something other than your fingers on which to count? That would account for the poor vision.

Your puerile entries are as tiresome now as when you first engaged me in this debate following my simple request for you to support an assertion.

You know where I stand on the point regarding your inability to maintain consistency in regard to terminology. I won't repeat myself yet one more time as you are either being willfully obtuse or really are incapable of honest discourse.

Translation:
'I'll run away for a while, and resume stalking and demanding evidence while ignoring it, and refusing to provide any of my own, later'.

You might wish to add mind-reading to your resume of incompetence.

I have responded to aerocontrols in the appropriate thread. As for this or any other discussion...

You are beyond hopeless. You are a singularly pristine example of why our public (if not private) education system should be revamped. You are on my ignore list.

Enjoy.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

...Noxious individuals are a dime a dozen on the internet; crim is garden variety. What's not garden variety is an argumentation on a skeptical forum this blatantly disconnected from reality -- he doesn't even put up much of a facade. Odd.

Indeed.

 

[crimresearch]

How predictable. You've once again indicated (here and in at least one other thread) that there are links that other people (not just me) are ignoring. Links that you will not repost. Links that no one else will repost in your defense.

You are either operating with some odd computer system or are lying about the presence of links.Your puerile entries are as tiresome now as when you first engaged me in this debate following my simple request for you to support an assertion.

You know where I stand on the point regarding your inability to maintain consistency in regard to terminology. I won't repeat myself yet one more time as you are either being willfully obtuse or really are incapable of honest discourse.You might wish to add mind-reading to your resume of incompetence.

I have responded to aerocontrols in the appropriate thread. As for this or any other discussion...

You are beyond hopeless. You are a singularly pristine example of why our public (if not private) education system should be revamped. You are on my ignore list.

Enjoy.

Ahhh yes...the famous 'ignore' list where you respond to what I've written with ad homs, but refuse to answer any questions about your own assertions.

The links are there in plain site, for anyone to see, in the other thread on AI where you are whining about there being no evidence...the plural statements are here in this thread for anyone to count..and your actions in refusing to admit the truth and running away, speak for themselves across the board.