Your sovereign rights being flushed down the toilet by our politicians

[Woodman]

You have never backed up your viewpoint.

All you ever do is ask if stuff is peer reviewed.

You don't seem to have a mind of your own.

Isn't having something thrashed out by peer review and coming to a conclusion based on all evidence better than using just one mind forming at best an opinion?

[mashman]

Then where is it? Will you provide any to back yourself up, or continue the evasion?

Like what?

Dunno, I just make this stuff up as I go along.

[bogan]

Why do you dismiss the presence of nano thermite in the WTC dust samples?

Because I have seen no evidence of its presence.

So what you are really asking is why is my viewpoint controlled by the evidence? The answer to that is simple, it is the way of science.

[bogan]

Dunno, I just make this stuff up as I go along.

And it shows.

[bogan]

Isn't having something thrashed out by peer review and coming to a conclusion based on all evidence better than using just one mind forming at best an opinion?

Depends what answer you want I guess...

[Katman]

Because I have seen no evidence of its presence.

Quite simply because you refuse to view the evidence.

You're like NIST claiming they found no evidence of explosives when they openly admit they didn't look for any evidence of explosives.

[mashman]

Isn't having something thrashed out by peer review and coming to a conclusion based on all evidence better than using just one mind forming at best an opinion?

Yes... but I think the point has been made that the conclusion made was not done so with all of the evidence taken into account. Eye witnesses and the respected in their specialist field have decided this, not one mind (depending on viewpoint that may well be seen as wrong), but from many. You seem to be convinced that what is known is all that there is to know on the subject. Fair enough.

[mashman]

And it shows.

Pot Kettle...

[bogan]

Quite simply because you refuse to view the evidence.

You're like NIST claiming they found no evidence of explosives when they openly admit they didn't look for any evidence of explosives.

Post your best evidence then.

[Katman]

Post your best evidence then.

Go look for it yourself - it's not hard to find.

[bogan]

Go look for it yourself.

So you still have nothing then. Thought so.

To expand on that in the original context. The idea that you form a conclusion (or are given one) then go look for the evidence until you are convinced of its veracity is most unscientific. It shows massive bias and close-mindedness. That is why I back my conclusions up with evidence along with the conclusion; so debates of substance can be had. That is why the scientific community places so much importance on peer reviewed articles. And that is why I'm right so often

[Katman]

So you still have nothing then. Thought so.

So you're still a lazy cunt then. Thought so.

[bogan]

So you're still a lazy cunt then. Thought so.

And there it is; the evasion of my main point. You guys just make it too easy sometimes.

[Katman]

And there it is; the evasion of my main point. You guys just make it too easy sometimes.

Here's an idea, you could watch that film '9/11 The Anatomy of a Great Deception' with an open mind and then offer your viewpoint on the evidence presented therein.

But you won't, because you're too frightened that you might have to re-evaluate your viewpoint.

[bogan]

Here's an idea, you could watch that film '9/11 The Anatomy of a Great Deception' with an open mind and then offer your viewpoint on the evidence presented therein.

But you won't, because you're too frightened that you might have to re-evaluate your viewpoint.

That or I have better things to do than be indoctrinated.

Still, funny how your accusation of me never being able to back myself up so quickly ended with you refusing to back yourself up