I agree, the proof is on the claimant. I am not the claimant, you
In this case you are the typical fundaloon [sic]
. You offer
supply no evidence and claim it as fact. I've demonstrated how
convoluted your thinking is. You've admitted to being out of your
depth. And you intuited statements I never made, showing an
intense cognitive bias.
Your accusations are correct, it just that they all apply to you.
On[masked]:15, Tim Campbell
The burden of proof is on the
claimant. Orel sounds like the typical fundaloon. No evidence,
no logic, no sense, and way out of his depth.
From: [address removed]
To: humanism-174 <[address removed]>
Sent: Thu, Apr 4,[masked]:27 pm
Subject: Re: [humanism-174] regarding TC3
[address removed]> Mr. Campbell:
Campaign, an operation energetically pursued to
accomplished a purpose.
I felt and feel that TC3 should
be removed from the group. It is my right to
think so and to
propose that action.
So, yes you did mount a campaign. It just didn't go
far as you hoped.
Now Here we have good example of pretzel logic.
At first you say it's "none of
As for not commenting on
things that I do not agree with or on
comments I do not like, once again,
none of your damned business. I will
comment when I like and about whatever
interests me enough
to comment. The only limit on me is the
constraints of 25 posts per day. Other than
that, I will do
whatever I please and whatever pleases me.
Should my comments offend the group or roll
absurd and insane, then anyone can complain
and Mark and Marni have the right to
chastise me or
toss me. You have the same right as I do.
Comment away, whine away, or keep your
yourself--all up to you! But if you make an
absurd comment, expect to be called on it.
me or by Randy or by anyone else here.
my damned business" Then you whine for a bit and
admit to being a hedonist.
And then you say it's okay for me to comment.
You and TC3 offered separate
scenarios to explain the collapse of the WTC
towers that I
(and most everyone else in the group, btw) found
absurd. You admittedly offered no evidence
for implausible explanations
You have a keen ability to see the irrelevant and
ignore the salient.
And you offered no evidence either. Had you read the
words I wrote
you might have understood that was in fact my point.
You gave me
your opinion, you shared no evidence.
I like the 'Valley Girl' impression, or maybe that's
the real you...