|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2014 11:01:06 GMT -5
And here I thought you wanted to end the discussion. Let's see, you called me a "%$&@ing asshole" and now a "rude, insulting asshole", then claim "That's me calling a spade a spade. The real anger comes out of you when you can't get someone else to see things your way." It sure looks to me like YOUR ANGER as a result of the fact that we disagree reduces YOU to childish name calling. Can I expect another response filled with angry name calling as an epilogue to this epilogue? That's rhetorical. BTW, you're absolutely right, this "discussion" has degenerated into a lot of irrelevant BS from you and I'm really not interested. You have your beliefs, stick with them, like I said multiple times, it's not my job to convince you of anything. Even better, you said you're already convinced and would like to retain your blinders on this matter (despite your claim that you're allegedly open to a "new" investigation), so there's no need to go any further anyway. You're a real piece of work, bobby. Maybe one day you'll figure out how to have a civil discussion. It starts with you being able to actually discuss something. Your surrender by avoidance of every point I made is accepted. Good day, Bobby.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 12, 2014 12:06:10 GMT -5
"Maybe one day you'll figure out how to have a civil discussion."
Ah the epilogue to the epilogue, just as expected. I take it your idea of a "civil discussion" includes calling me a "%$&@ing asshole" and a "rude, insulting asshole"? Are you familiar with the definition of H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E, eh Mr. Pot?
"Your surrender by avoidance of every point I made is accepted."
You're absolutely right, I give up. I thought I already said that. Your points are irrelevant except to you, I already told you I'm not interested in your BS. They've all been previously addressed anyway. If you want to take that as a "surrender", that's absolutely fine with me, that's also meaningless and irrelevant.
But just out of curiosity: What is your purpose in keeping up your BS? What was the purpose in you entering into this discussion in the first place? It seems to me you claimed more than once that you're already convinced and nothing will convince you otherwise. By getting into this discussion, I see it as either you're really not convinced and you're lying (perhaps to yourself) or you're trying to convince me, which is a total waste of time. I've read the NIST Reports, the 9/11 Commission Report and many articles and opinions supporting the official narrative so I certainly don't need more subjugated parrots trying to convince me of fairy tales created for the gullible and ignorant. Perhaps you have another possibility?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2014 12:18:23 GMT -5
"Maybe one day you'll figure out how to have a civil discussion."Ah the epilogue to the epilogue, just as expected. I take it your idea of a "civil discussion" includes calling me a "%$&@ing asshole" and a "rude, insulting asshole"? Are you familiar with the definition of H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E, eh Mr. Pot? No, that's what happens when you turn a discussion away from being civil."Your surrender by avoidance of every point I made is accepted."You're absolutely right, I give up. I thought I already said that. Your points are irrelevant except to you, I already told you I'm not interested in your BS. They've all been previously addressed anyway. If you want to take that as a "surrender", that's absolutely fine with me, that's also meaningless and irrelevant. But just out of curiosity: What is your purpose in keeping up your BS? What was the purpose in you entering into this discussion in the first place? It seems to me you claimed more than once that you're already convinced and nothing will convince you otherwise. By getting into this discussion, I see it as either you're really not convinced and you're lying (perhaps to yourself) or you're trying to convince me, which is a total waste of time. I've read the NIST Reports, the 9/11 Commission Report and many articles and opinions supporting the official narrative so I certainly don't need more subjugated parrots trying to convince me of fairy tales created for the gullible and ignorant. Perhaps you have another possibility? So you give up after having already gave up and yet here you are again. Is it just a pathological need to have the last word? My purpose, as stated already (are you sure you're actually reading these?), was to point out that A. the column 79 theory is not impossible as you stated and B. to point out that your comment about fires alone brought down building 7 is false also. Then I thought we could have a discussion about them so I provided an analysis supporting the column 79 theory to give us a starting point. You got ugly from there and my mistake was joining you. You keep claiming that I'm already convinced of something, but you fail to say what. The only thing I'm convinced of is that you bring up 9/11 just so you can hear yourself talk. You have no interest in hearing anything that proves you wrong or opens up the possibility of you being wrong. If there ever was proof of that, it's right here: "I've read the NIST Reports, the 9/11 Commission Report and many articles and opinions supporting the official narrative so I certainly don't need more subjugated parrots trying to convince me of fairy tales created for the gullible and ignorant." It's accept what you say or be called a parrot and told you don't understand physics and that you're out of your depth on this topic. Get some insight, Bobby.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 12, 2014 12:58:03 GMT -5
"Maybe one day you'll figure out how to have a civil discussion."Ah the epilogue to the epilogue, just as expected. I take it your idea of a "civil discussion" includes calling me a "%$&@ing asshole" and a "rude, insulting asshole"? Are you familiar with the definition of H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E, eh Mr. Pot? No, that's what happens when you turn a discussion away from being civil."Your surrender by avoidance of every point I made is accepted."You're absolutely right, I give up. I thought I already said that. Your points are irrelevant except to you, I already told you I'm not interested in your BS. They've all been previously addressed anyway. If you want to take that as a "surrender", that's absolutely fine with me, that's also meaningless and irrelevant. But just out of curiosity: What is your purpose in keeping up your BS? What was the purpose in you entering into this discussion in the first place? It seems to me you claimed more than once that you're already convinced and nothing will convince you otherwise. By getting into this discussion, I see it as either you're really not convinced and you're lying (perhaps to yourself) or you're trying to convince me, which is a total waste of time. I've read the NIST Reports, the 9/11 Commission Report and many articles and opinions supporting the official narrative so I certainly don't need more subjugated parrots trying to convince me of fairy tales created for the gullible and ignorant. Perhaps you have another possibility? So you give up after having already gave up and yet here you are again. Is it just a pathological need to have the last word? My purpose, as stated already (are you sure you're actually reading these?), was to point out that A. the column 79 theory is not impossible as you stated and B. to point out that your comment about fires alone brought down building 7 is false also. Then I thought we could have a discussion about them so I provided an analysis supporting the column 79 theory to give us a starting point. You got ugly from there and my mistake was joining you. You keep claiming that I'm already convinced of something, but you fail to say what. The only thing I'm convinced of is that you bring up 9/11 just so you can hear yourself talk. You have no interest in hearing anything that proves you wrong or opens up the possibility of you being wrong. If there ever was proof of that, it's right here: "I've read the NIST Reports, the 9/11 Commission Report and many articles and opinions supporting the official narrative so I certainly don't need more subjugated parrots trying to convince me of fairy tales created for the gullible and ignorant." It's accept what you say or be called a parrot and told you don't understand physics and that you're out of your depth on this topic. Get some insight, Bobby. Thanks, I was just curious. The only thing you've been able to prove so far is your hypocrisy.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2014 13:00:16 GMT -5
^^^ congratulations on getting the last word in. Even if it was to make a baseless accusation.
|
|