So they stole free marketing work from you? Start using these same skills to market against them until they pay up.
this is exactly the idea... mobilize all bounty hunters to spread the word about how Humancoin's team is not trustable, just a piece of s**t I say go even further. Find out where they market, and put your own ads up there exposing them. Go to where they live and where they sell their pilfered coins and tell everyone. |
|
|
|
Actually it is a well known logical fallacy called "no true Scotsman". So no, it is not really a valid argument. I will be back for more don't worry  |
|
|
|
I am not the one who introduced the idea of anthropogenic climate change. The entire community of atmospheric scientists did that. You have a strange way of taking widely accepted scientific ideas, and saying they are coming from me and my bias. The burden of proof is not on the person who subscribes to the consensus of research on the topic. The burden of proof is obviously on the person who goes against almost the entirety of the scientific community.
Your claim is not that the sun heats the Earth. Your claim is that the INCREASE in temperature is due to the sun. Those are two very different claims. Everyone knows the first, and the scientific consensus is that no more than 40% of the warming in the past 100 years and no more than 20% of the warming in the last 50 years is due to the sun.
I am not being funny but I really have to ask, do the two graphs from my last post even load in your browser?
Yeah, we all know you didn't create the idea of anthropogenic climate change. Yet here you are arguing that it is legitimate. You know what that means? The burden of proof is upon you to demonstrate empirical data to support the conclusion YOU SUPPORT. "The burden of proof is not on the person who subscribes to the consensus of research on the topic." This is quite a telling statement, thank you. This is what is known as an appeal to authority or and appeal to popularity. It is a logical fallacy. One that clearly demonstrates you think science comes from consensus. You skipped a step. The part with the empirical data. Now if it is just such solid science, why don't you present it so we can address it? Of course you can't so you need to create some kind of lame attempt at manipulation via the common need for humans to be accepted. Everyone knows do they? EVERYONE? Quite a bold claim. And yes your meaningless unsourced pictures loaded. |
|
|
|
Do you know why our civilization has gotten better over time? Not because of people trying to keep things the old way, but because of people looking at specific aspects of society and coming up with ways to improve them. In science, more and more precise ways of measurement have been developed over time. It doesn't mean they become perfect, but they do become better. These improved tools of measurement provide us with more specific information which is more helpful.
No one is saying that age is not important, I'm just saying that there are more precise ways to measure human aging that we should (and will) move to in the future. You explained why age is important but not why trips around the sun is the only way it should ever be measured. Good for you, you know how progress works on a very superficial level. Just to clarify, humanity, society, and technology don't progress by just randomly experimenting with the very fabric of society and "seeing what happens". That is why I stress actual scientific analysis based on empirical data, so educated modifications can be made with predictable results. Not just turning all of society into word salad and seeing what happens. You haven't come up with a more precise way of measurement, you have come up with word salad that superficially sounds scientific. All of this is just a red herring so you can avoid admitting there is ZERO SCIENCE behind any of your Postmodernist dogmas. My only problem with the psychology today blog is that it is a bit contradictory because it calls the "its too complicated" argument a red herring but goes on to conclude that it is less scientific because there is no core body of knowledge. So in essence, the world of psychology is too muddy and incomplete to be a field of science. That is a very "after the fact" view of science. Research doesn't have to yield useful conclusions to be scientific and no field's core body of knowledge exists before it is discovered. If you want to say psychology is a less evolved field then go ahead and say that but that shouldn't discredit it altogether.
Its a stretch to link any of this to marxism. You have so much negative passion when it comes to Marxism that it seems to be a paranoia. If Marxism was so powerful and ubiquitous, it would probably be more successful at creating Marxists. Good for you, you don't like the article. The fact is this isn't some crackpot fringe argument, it has been one ongoing since the "science" of Psychology was invented. The rest of what you say here is really just a mind numbing amount of mental gymnastics to twist your mind around your bias. Let me count some of the many ways Psychology is not scientific: 1. No control (no known normal to base studies on) 2. Results are not directly observable and largely subjective (exist in the mind and must be observed by secondary behavior) 3. Results are not repeatable (there is no way to standardize results) 4. It uses ambiguous unclear terminology 5. The results are not quantifiable There are more but I am bored with your endless diversionary side topics. It is not a stretch at all to link Postmodernism to Marxism. Here is some reference material for you. https://www.marxists.org/subject/frankfurt-school/https://www.thoughtco.com/frankfurt-school-3026079https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/the-philosophy-of-praxis-marx-lukcs-and-the-frankfurt-school/So as you can see The Frankfurt School of Critical Theory from which your specific brand of Postmodernism originated from was DIRECTLY INSPIRED BY MARXIST IDEOLOGIES BY SELF PROCLAIMED MARXISTS. You keep on denying reality if you like though. You don't see Marxists anywhere because you don't even know what Marxism is. You think you know, but you are just a pretender as evidenced by your pathetically inadequate replies. The appropriate analogy would be if someone took my farmers almanac and replaced it with a national weather service because I am talking about improving precision and accuracy by removing generalizations that were made long ago simply because that was the best tech that existed when these traditions started. Well I am glad I have you here to tell me what analogies I should be using, thanks. You aren't talking about anything except PURE IMAGINATION. Let me know when you want to involve some FACTS. So if you acknowledge that difference of environment and living conditions affect aging, regardless of the fact that everyone moves around the sun exactly the same way, then why is it so much of a "postmodernist" stretch to believe that there could be a way of measuring this difference in aging? Your hypothetical is meaningless. If you have a "more accurate way" then present it. Don't sit around here advocating we just fuck around with the very fabric of society just to "see what happens" because it "might be better" with absofuckinglutely zero evidence to support your claims. You are fucking with serious things we all depend on, you need to present serious evidence to support this kind of intervention on the systems WE ALL DEPEND ON. So to clarify, when I say the trans movement, I'm referring to transgender. Transexual movement exists to try and make transgender individuals cis-gender so they can better fit into a society that largely insists (1)gender is static, (2)binary, and (3)always easily identifiable by cis-association with genitalia at birth--- all of which are scientifically false. Yes those three are the case for most people but transgenders ARE rare. Fear-mongers try to paint an illusion that everyone is waking up becoming trans because its the cool new trend. Also, I have never met a transphobic person who knows there is a difference between sex and gender. That immediately disqualifies them from the conversation. Uh huh. Good for them. People can identify however they like. They have a right to decide this for themselves. What they do not have a right to do is demand ALL OF SOCIETY share this identification. Sure people should respect each other, but compelling the speech of others is not respect, that is totalitarianism. You see this is exactly what I was talking about. Who said anything about being transsexual is "the cool new trend" but you? I didn't you did. You have no argument so you need to set up a straw man to knock down so you can declare a victory. Convenient isn't it you can just disqualify people from debate unilaterally because they don't share your Marxist gender ideologies? Then you never have to answer to legitimate criticism, just call some one transphobic - boom thought process done. This ideology is HARMFUL to transsexual and gender dysphoric individuals. Instead of telling them that they could potentially seek helpful treatments such as hormone therapy, you sell them pseudo-scientific fairy tails about 347 genders instead in order to maintain them as a victim class, and condition them into believing everyone hates them and that's why they feel bad. These people are being USED as fodder to push Marxist ideologies as their expense, and it is LITERALLY costing lives. That doesn't bother Marxists though because they will just turn right around and claim they committed suicide because of trans-phobia. With victim status more firmly entrenched, they can continue selling the lie the world hates them and continue to weaken them to create a system of interdependence. |
|
|
|
|
So they stole free marketing work from you? Start using these same skills to market against them until they pay up.
|
|
|
|
Since Flying Hellfish can't engage in an actual debate without being able silence ideas he disagrees with, I thought I would post my replies to comments here as he deleted them so perhaps people can engage in an actual debate. Not just have some childish club where leftists stand around and reassure each other of their correctitude, normalizing increasingly erratic behavior. A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by the starter of a self-moderated topic. There are no rules of self-moderation, so this deletion cannot be appealed. Do not continue posting in this topic if the topic-starter has requested that you leave. You can create a new topic if you are unsatisfied with this one. If the topic-starter is scamming, post about it in Scam Accusations. So Ivanka killed a bunch of people, sold Uranium One to Russia, sold our weapons tech to China, and released a bunch of classified information directly resulting in deaths? News to me. Well, it certainly looked like a by-the-rules and logical reply to me. But what do I know? I'm not desperately trying to dream up ways to Kav good people like Ivanka. I don't even particularly like Ivanka either... this is just retarded. |
|
|
|
And here we are... right off the bat, head still firmly up your posterior, rather than reply to any of my quite valid arguments you begin to address the Postmodernist philosophical nature of time, and I am just closed minded and need to expand my line of thinking to reach "your level". No. This is another perfect example of Postmodernist mind rot. Rather than addressing the very real issues I raised you turn it into a philosophy discussion, and I just need to listen to the teacher until I "get it" (AKA operant conditioning).
I didn't reply to a lot of your arguments because I agree with them. You wrote a lot about the importance and utility of age and why time is a real thing. I never disagreed with any of those things. We only disagreed on what is the best way to measure human aging. Over and over, round and round you go with the endless relativism of Postmodernism. Nothing is real any more under your rubric. Definitions are meaningless. You define things as you go and as it suits you. A definition to confirm every bias. Yeah its only math, why should the method of measuring it be important? lets like, just try something new dude... like where everyone just like... fits in and is happy dude man. No. Reality is fucked up. Nature is fucked up. The world you live in is the plastic layer applied over this fucked up reality. You have lived in it SO LONG you have forgotten how ABSOLUTELY FUCKING RARE it is we get to live in such a civilized state. You mistaking one for the other think all we have to do to reach perfection is just to take one more step into your Postmodern relativism and we will finally reach this perfection you imagine in your mind. ITS NEVER GONNA FUCKING HAPPEN. GET OVER IT AND ENJOY THE EXCEPTIONAL STATE OF CIVILIZATION YOU ALREADY ENJOY and work to preserve it. Or you know, be an arrogant child about it and demand perfection and get hell on Earth. Your pick. You are again demonstrating your problems with basic logic and reading comprehension. I didn't say it took me 20 years, I said it was 20 years ago. It was an anecdotal personal story as a reference of the progression of maturation in thought. The differences don't matter. The fact is this process is known and universal regardless of the scale and velocity of that progression. Age is not linear? Ok Mr. Postmodern. Again we agree, the difference is that if someone who is 30 is aging at a different scale and velocity than other people who are 30, then why should they be given the same standardized level of maturity based on trips around the sun? So we agree that you have problems with logic and reading comprehension? Good. I am glad we are on the same page. Did you say you were a teacher? I already explained why age is important, and why the law doesn't give a shit about your Postmodern relativism. No. We don't. Psychology is not a hard science. It is barely a science. On the scale of most to least scientific studies it is at the absolute bottom of accepted sciences. By scientific I mean follows scientific method and measures empirical data. Also there is the fact that there are no controls to compare to, no known "normal". I can't make sense of what you are talking about here but I assure you psychology research is fully scientific. You don't need a variation of the independent variable to be labeled as "normal" for a study to be scientific. It sounds like you are just trying to discredit psychology because most of what you believe about the world was initiated before psychology existed and now the field is upending everything. Here I will let this author from Psychology Today explain this to you. This isn't some fringe argument, it is one that has always existed with psychology. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/theory-knowledge/201601/the-is-psychology-science-debateI am not discrediting anything except for your arguments. Psychology is ABSOLUTELY the least scientific of the main stream accepted sciences. Within psychology, Critical Theory is even at the bottom of THAT barrel and doesn't even qualify as being science. Critical Theory was simply a superficial layer of authority applied over Marxist doctrines to give it the trust and authority of a newly budding scientific industry of the time. Critical Theory is not science, it is Marxism wrapped in a superficial shell of science in order to use it to give itself credibility. This is a tactic you see repeated over and over within Marxist and Communist hijacked groups as well. They infiltrate an organization, control and subvert it to serve Marxist doctrines, diverting the effort and resources intended for some other cause, using that cause not only as a cover from criticism but then hindering it in the original goal in the process. You see this in countless minority and activist groups. Any organization that is publicly perceived to be a "victim class" is exploited to serve these goals. They pretend to champions of these causes while stepping on them to raise themselves up. You don't know a God damned thing about what I believe. Why don't you stick to figuring out what is going on in your own head first Captain Postmodern. Why not? because the law doesn't address individuals, it addresses all of us. In order for it to serve all of us this generalization is a requirement. Rule of law is important because it is the foundation on which we all agree to build our common reality. If this common reality is disassembled or destroyed then there is no rule of law, no society. You believe whatever you like in private, this concerns all of us. updated/upgraded So, if some one were to ask you if it was ok if they "upgraded" your living room with a bat and a sledge hammer, you would be ok with that? This is again more Postmodernist mind rot. You imagine it to be an improvement all you like. Your hallucinations don't effect reality, and are not proof of anything but your own delusions. Uh huh. Hey, can you tell me, what was the average life expectancy back then? Of course you didn't even bother to think about this because you are too busy struggling to confirm your bias. It was 36. Back then 36 was an old grandpa. Now it is closer to 72. People are living almost twice as long and you feel that no old people in charge then is evidence of anything other than the shitty living conditions of the time? I'm glad you acknowledge that environment and living conditions affect aging. That is really my key point in this entire thread. Oh I see, you are graciously and studiously seeing that I learn about history are you? I see so that wasn't a horribly embarrassing oversight on your part? Ok. Your point seems to be whatever you desire it morph into any given situation that serves your existing bias. No, I am saying academia is over run with Communist propagandists and those that parrot its ideology. I put science it quotations because there is no science involved in "Critical Theory", unless you count the ulterior motive of the Hegelian dialectic being applied. You said the trans movement, which is backed by science, was just critical theory. Is this because you aren't counting psychology as science? Who is really the one trying to redefine reality and how the world works. Facts aren't facts and entire fields of scientific research are really just communist propaganda. Those are some serious conspiracy theories that put you up there with the flat earth people. "The trans movement" whatever the fuck that means, is NOT backed by science. Some people are physiologically hermaphroditic, but this is EXTREMELY rare. There is a larger percentage of people who have certain hormonal or genetic conditions, which in some circumstances, with treatment, can lead to the successful and happy stabilization of the patient. No one wants to force trans people to be one way or the other, but lying to them and telling them there is no medical condition involved is cruel and again as I explained before using those with victim status to elevate Marxist/Postmodernist doctrines at THEIR expense. Many who get reassignment surgery are not happy with the results and wish they could go back, but they really can't. Instead of getting therapy that might help them decide whatever they want to be, and be happy with their existing body, they are taught the world hates them, and what they are feeling is because of society, not because a medical imbalance. Frankly I find the fact that Marxists/Communists/Postmodernists hide behind these people quite abhorrent. Because if you criticize them, automatically you are racist, sexist, homophobic, Nazi, bigot, insert label here. The very people claiming to fight for them are using them and holding them down. Yeah, who ever heard of memetics right? Didn't you claim to have a degree in psychology was it, and you say you don't know what a meme is? I don't just mean like I posted above, I mean the concept of a mind virus. Ok, well thanks for again demonstrating your total incompetence in the area you claim expertise in.
Its hard because you are trying to switch things around by saying that science is faith and just blindly following tradition is enlightened. When you can just ignore facts, bodies of reearch and entire fields of science to just make up your own rules, it becomes hard to follow and I can be labeled however you see fit. I am not ignoring anything. I love how you just blatantly and openly apply your anti-religious bias to me and assume because I don't agree with your Postmodernist mind conditioning I must be some kind of evangelical or something. Please do me a favor and pull your head out of your ass and focus on the subject at hand instead of trying to impugn my character with your imagination. I also find it absolutely fucking HILARIOUS you have the nerve to accuse me of "labeling however I see fit" when this is pretty much your exclusive debate tactic. Also, do me a favor, stop using fucking lazy quotes and quote me the right way so I don't have to fix your bullshit slacking every time I reply. |
|
|
|
Since Flying Hellfish can't engage in an actual debate without being able silence ideas he disagrees with, I thought I would post my replies to comments here as he deleted them. Perhaps people can engage in an actual debate this way, and not just have some childish club where leftists stand around and reassure each other of their correctitude, normalizing increasingly erratic behavior. A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by the starter of a self-moderated topic. There are no rules of self-moderation, so this deletion cannot be appealed. Do not continue posting in this topic if the topic-starter has requested that you leave. You can create a new topic if you are unsatisfied with this one. If the topic-starter is scamming, post about it in Scam Accusations. So Ivanka killed a bunch of people, sold Uranium One to Russia, sold our weapons tech to China, and released a bunch of classified information directly resulting in deaths? News to me. |
|
|
|
If we release the national parks and wilderness lands and forests, etc., to the general public to move and live there, the people would see how hard it is to live in some of these place. How would they find this out? Through trial and error. Then they would go away... or simply die from exposure. The intrigue would die out. Then nature would turn it all back into beauty over time. The problem is the ownership and regulation by government.  Nah, it would just instantly turn into the worlds biggest squatter camp. I agree a lot of them would die though. |
|
|
|
Have you ever heard of the Dunning kruger effect, TECSHARE?
Hard facts eh? How do you know what a hard fact is? If I present any statistical evidence about vaccines doing what they are supposed to do, you nutjobs will just say the same old, ''it's fake'' ''it's a hoax'' ''those statistics are made up by the government''
Hard facts lmao.
Oh please do go back into my statements in this thread and quote EXACTLY anything I stated that is not a hard fact. I will wait. All your horse shit that you are attributing to me, that I never said does not count. Have you ever heard of the Dunning kruger effect, TECSHARE?
...
Who hasn't, dipshit. And just FYI, grampy TS, I'm over 50. Adult diapers count as short pants too... |
|
|
|
|
It is extremely uncommon for a sitting president to visit active war zones for pretty obvious security reasons. Nice attempt at a hit piece tho. Maybe next time.
|
|
|
|
There isn't any evidence that it is more a result of sun cycles though. The problem is that you are looking for reasons (that have all been dubunked) to deny climate change instead of just looking at all of the evidence. We don't want climate change to be real but you want it to not be real and then reach for evidence against it. there is a difference in motives here and that difference puts you at odds with science because you are cherrypicking evidence that you think supports what you want to be true.
scientific theories don't need to be proven correct. theories only exist because the body of evidence suggests they are true.
Oh I see, so the idea that the sun heats the Earth has been debunked now has it? Do you even bother reading what you write? No, YOU are the one claiming anthropogenic climate change is a thing, the burden of proof is ON YOU. You keep talking about all this "proof" and "evidence" as if it is just an accepted fact. That's not how science or debate work. What am I cherry picking here? Now you are just throwing names of fallacies at me and using them as a cudgel. That doesn't even make sense. I swear, if you really are a teacher your students should start a class action lawsuit for defrauding them of their tuition. |
|
|
|
Have you ever felt alone and depressed? Have you ever felt that nobody likes you? Have you ever walked on the street and felt that everybody is looking at you in a bad way?
I really don't understand what happened to people.. did they forgot how to smile?!
I feel that people don't care anymore about others and i have seen so many fundraisers online that barely collect 100$. I see people acting bad with animals and nature.. and one with another. Where is this going to lead? Global corporations don't know what else to do to make money on poor people backs and step on bodies to become no.1.
I am ashamed of today's society.. we live in a cruel world and i wish it ends soon because this is not the way humans should live.
How do you feel about what's happening around us?
There are always going to be miserable people who see you aren't miserable and will want to bring you down to their level like crabs pulling each other down into a bucket. Try not to focus on them too much and focus on whomever you can find that is not like that. |
|
|
|
He then said that even if I made the deal with him, he don't have the money to pay me because it not his project so I can't accuse him of scamming.
Is this correct?
Nope his reasoning is flawed like what ibminer said he is responsible and it doesn't matter if the project developers didn't game him money to pay, he is the one who made a transaction to you that is why you are personally dealing with Intellectual Romanticist not the developers itself. He is liable for your fees and he should pay it. Same thing goes to participants who was not paid by the bounty hunters, they are the ones who gets tagged by DT members as they are also responsible for ensuring that participants gets the pay they deserve for the campaign, and your situation is not exempted by it. Didnt see this comment the first time I saw this thread. It is not flawed. How can I pay if I dont have money? Can you cook friend chicken without chicken? I couldn't pay because I was waiting for the money promised by the dev. Simple. If dev ran away, I will pay him with my PERSONAL money. But dev is still trying to keep his promise. I am a graphic designer and have gone through the almost exact situation the op has here before on the forums. Intellectual Romanticist was acting as an agent of the project, and thus took responsibility upon himself to fulfil an agreement for services. The fact that you have no money, or the dev ran off is not an excuse. If you don't have money on hand to pay for services DO NOT SOLICIT THEM. I would suggest you arrange some kind of payment plan with jacee that is mutually agreeable. However you need to keep in mind you are in the wrong here, so really it should more be them telling you how it should happen, but all you need to do to fix that is pay jacee for their services. |
|
|
|
Lol. Stop acting like you know a damned thing about me. Personally in subjects like these I find it unproductive to discuss anything but hard facts. You keep theorizing if it makes you feel better though.
If one won't 'theorize' then one does not have any hope of understanding anything. One simply has no avenues to explore. All one can do is regurgitate 'facts' about the way things work as presented by whoever you choose to rely upon. Relevant to this thread, that would be the FDA, CDC, etc for most of the participants. So, yes, 'theorizing' is a habit that I enjoy and will continue. You are relatively good at critical thinking and separating 'facts' from bogus quasi-claims of facts, but certainly don't have anywhere near the god-like powers that you seem to ascribe to yourself. And here on trolltalk with the likes of Astergath and Dr. Spamzalot hanging around, being able to smoke them out is a bit like being the thinnest kid at fat camp. Anyway, it is a source of interest to me why someone with your at least modest level of analytical abilities continues to put his full faith and confidence into the benevolence of our medical/industrial complex and is allergic to the hypothesis that whatever suspect actions they take could be anything more than an accident. I have 'theories' about it, but they are only of academic interest. Shrug. Go get maimed and have an expensive and painful death with the rest of them I guess. I'll continue to 'theorize' about the mechanics behind this all-to-common tragicomic event. You are relatively good at critical thinking and separating 'facts' from bogus quasi-claims of facts, but certainly don't have anywhere near the god-like powers that you seem to ascribe to yourself.  Son, I was conspiracy theorizing while you were still in short pants. You made me laugh with the fat camp line though, so I will give you an honest answer in spite of your incredibly presumptuous statement about me. The difference between me and you is I know how to debate better than you, and stick to topics I know I can support with hard core solid empirical evidence. We could stand around all day and jerk each other off with theories and argue, but it isn't going to change anything. However if you can have an intellectually honest debate with your opponent, on their own terms, they might actually fucking listen for a second instead of calling you a nut or a normie or whatever stupid shit people use to conveniently end their thought process. |
|
|
|
Now that I have your attention, I think this is an article anyone clicked this headline with glee should read. There are a few of you in particular on the forum here I have in mind who especially should read it. I thought it was an excellent article that does a good job of summing up what is happening in American as well as to an extent, global politics right now. http://www.unz.com/article/the-hitlergate-hearings/ |
|
|
|
I don't know, did you actually even bother to read it? I did. The lawsuit was only settled because it was a FOIA request, and the documents they requested, which were required to be filed by law, were never filed. As a result it was impossible to comply with the FISA request, resulting in the "settled" status. The conclusion is the government is not following the law. None of your other extremist red herring arguments matter, because I never made those arguments.
''The conclusion is the government is not following the law.'' The conclusion is that the government did not follow the law on that specific case on those specific reports. However, the first argument was ''government doesn't give a shit about safety reports because of this lawsuit'' That's simply not true as shown above. I don't know what your argument is, this thread is about vaccines being bad for you intentionally. Are you sure you know what your position is? Seems to me that TECSHARE is one of the many who's conditioning was mostly successful. He's not a fawning groupie of the CDC like you, Astergath, but he cannot shake the deeply implanted notion that Big Brother loves him even though most of the actually evidence points to the hypothesis that it is not the case. Or at best that BB displays his love for his peeps in a counter-intuitive and personally dangerous way. One of the most powerful tools that the social engineers have is a fear of rejection. Humans are wired to avoid group rejection because for most of our history it would have been incompatible with life and with reproduction. TECHSHARE, like most other 'normies', is very concerned about being labeled a 'conspiracy theorist'. For my part I wear the 'conspiracy theorist' label as a badge of honor. Eventually, as more and more of these 'conspiracy theories' turn out to be spot-on and in retrospect as obvious as the nose on one's face, having been a 'conspiracy theorist' back in the day won't be such a big deal. Lol. Stop acting like you know a damned thing about me. Personally in subjects like these I find it unproductive to discuss anything but hard facts. You keep theorizing if it makes you feel better though. |
|
|
|
|
Got mine this Friday! Thank you! BTW I PMED you several times about ordering... not sure why you haven't replied.
|
|
|
|
''The conclusion is the government is not following the law.'' The conclusion is that the government did not follow the law on that specific case on those specific reports. However, the first argument was ''government doesn't give a shit about safety reports because of this lawsuit'' That's simply not true as shown above. I don't know what your argument is, this thread is about vaccines being bad for you intentionally. Are you sure you know what your position is?
It is very kind of you to tell me what my own argument is, but I can do without thanks. With those kind of debate skills, you will be going places. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
