Your sovereign rights being flushed down the toilet by our politicians

[Katman]

I view others as the viepoints they are, you attempt to portray them as evidence, which they are not.

If an eyewitness testifies in court as to what it was they saw, is that not evidence?

[bogan]

If an eyewitness testifies in court as to what it was they saw, is that not evidence?

Of course it is. But not their interpretation or viewpoint of that.

[flyingcrocodile46]

Posts 266 and 267 nailed you

Ah, ......

Ahh, .....

Ahh!

[Katman]

Of course it is. But not their interpretation or viewpoint of that.

Then the film I mentioned earlier contains loads of evidence.

It would all be presented in a court of law if the opportunity were made available.

Would you still refuse to view or listen to it then?

[yokel]

I view others as the viepoints they are, you attempt to portray them as evidence, which they are not.



Ah, now you're trying fancy words insults. Losing the debate with me really has gotten under your skin hasn't it



Ahh, the old education is just indoctrination argument. Brought to you by fruits of such 'indoctrination' like the internet.
You can assume wrong. Official as opposed to conspiracy theorist viewpoints do not enter into my decision making process at all. The evidence does; and its lack here is almost palpable.

you dont like youtube because you have a weak mind, your argument that something is wrong because it's on the internet is proof of that. you dont have any real decision making process, other than to agree with the majority/mob rules or peer reviews, which takes almost zero intelligence.

[flyingcrocodile46]

Of course it is. But not their interpretation or viewpoint of that.

Lol. Love the irony

[bogan]

Then the film I mentioned earlier contains loads of evidence.

It would all be presented in a court of law if the opportunity were made available.

Would you still refuse to view or listen to it then?

Evidence to what though? you mentioned it in regard to nanothermite, not something that can be proven with eyewitness testimony.

you dont like youtube because you have a weak mind, your argument that something is wrong because it's on the internet is proof of that. you dont have any real decision making process, other than to agree with the majority/mob rules or peer reviews, which takes almost zero intelligence.

Only a weak mind could conceive that that was my argument to begin with

[Katman]

Evidence to what though? you mentioned it in regard to nanothermite, not something that can be proven with eyewitness testimony.

You don't really understand the concept of 'evidence', do you?

[bogan]

You don't really understand the concept of 'evidence', do you?

Would you like to explain it then?

[yokel]

Evidence to what though? you mentioned it in regard to nanothermite, not something that can be proven with eyewitness testimony.



Only a weak mind could conceive that that was my argument to begin with

you have no argument you muppet.
your replies are just empty useless words that have no substance, just blah blah blah and no content.
looks to me that you've spent too much time in the education system, I luckily have not.

[bogan]

looks to me that you've spent too much time in the education system, I luckily have not.

No, that is certainly one thing I wouldn't accuse you of

[Woodman]

you dont like youtube because you have a weak mind, your argument that something is wrong because it's on the internet is proof of that. you dont have any real decision making process, other than to agree with the majority/mob rules or peer reviews, which takes almost zero intelligence.

How the hell did you draw that conclusion from Bogans posts?

[Katman]

Would you like to explain it then?

Do you not know how to use a dictionary?

[bogan]

Do you not know how to use a dictionary?

My understanding of it is consistent with the dictionary definition. So in the interests of shared understanding I asked you to offer further explanation.

[unstuck]

he said as he wiped the drool off his chin

That was not drool.