Re: Don't You Dare to Ask Ray? LOLOL!!!
Well lets see. As usual reactor1967 makes a call to limit someone’s free speech. And I notice from reactor’s comments he did not pay attention to all the points I made in an earlier post that debunked Charlie (and showed where Charlie debunked himself). If by “time limit” you are referring to my statement that: “the time for ‘intelligent debate’ is over” , then clearly you did not pay attention to the list of evidence in my post that exposed Charlie. Ignoring evidence that falsifies a person’s claim is only one step better than proposing a theory that is impossible to falsify. When someone falsifies something you say, and you simply ignore it, there can be no more intelligent debate because the person doing the ignoring is being selective. Intelligence is out the window, and sheer bias now controls the debate. Fact.
- Please show me some evidence that claims it is not scientific to “keep a score card”.
- How can one challenge false claims if not by enumerating everywhere they are false? (i.e. “keeping a scorecard”)
- For the record, I never asked (or have asked) Darby to step-in on my behalf or anyone else’s.
- It sounds as if you are making another veiled suggestion that people’s free speech should be somehow curtailed. Is Darby no longer free (in your mind) to respond as he sees fit to any post?
The discussion is Charlie and his claims. If you believe it is “negativity” to show where those claims are false, then perhaps you are more gullible than I once thought. Moreover, in the realm of “negativity” I fail to see how you can ignore the fact that the very post I was responding to by “droid56” was, in itself, nothing but a negative swipe at me and another TTI member. Question to you reactor:
Why do you only see “negativity” where you wish to see it? Is this your bias showing?
Nice analogy. But there is an “itty bitty” difference. We invoke science, not dogma. Those who simply accept Charlie’s claims (and others like them) are being nothing but dogmatic. In point of fact, that kind of behavior is more akin to the clerics in Iran and Iraq than challenging wild claims and their veracity.
And what, exactly, would you suggest for handling a claimant that continually ignores evidence that falsifies his claim? Let me give you a crystal clear example: Let’s pretend that I made a claim such as “It is a fact that reactor1967 is one of the world’s worst fathers to children.” You would, of course, wish to defend your honor and you would cite plenty of examples (that I know exist) for how you take care of your kids and raise them in an appropriate manner. You might even have your wife and kids come here to testify against such a claim. So how would you deal with it in a “positive way” if I totally ignored any and all such evidence, but instead continued to spew BS about you?
Oh…and as for “bringing another TTI member in for support” read my earlier reply to that accusation above. Got any evidence to back up your claim? ![]()
)
Do I have to point out to you (again) that I am not “TTI staff” here in this forum? I am a member and contributor just like you. You seem to have some sort of issue with “authority”, even where such “authority” does not exist. And Darby is not even “TTI staff”, which he has pointed out on many occasions. If you question my role as Mod over in TT Discussions, or have a problem with moderation of this forum at all, I suggest you take it up directly with Raul. I will always abide by his decisions.
Please show explicit evidence of “fighting” that is not aimed at Charlie’s claims. And if you are again suggesting that some “hit and run poster” can make a negative comment against me and another member, and either I or that other memeber are not free to respond, then you are again suggesting that free speech be limited. Would you really consider yourself a patriotic American if that is what you are suggesting, reactor?
And I have never infringed upon your freedom of choice nor your freedom of speech, have I reactor? Never have I mandated that you stay here, or that you read any post that may offend you. You are in total control of your existence. Why not let others have that same freedom you enjoy? Just because I (and others) may have different styles from yours, or we may believe differently from you, does not rise to the level of “offense” that someone’s free speech needs to be curtailed.
Good day,
RMT
