If anyone should be fair gamed out of existence as a dangerous
psychotic, the prove it case is a good contender.


      So, those who don't choose to believe every snake-oil salesman that
rolls along should be fair gamed?  And you call the prove it case


      That's your interpretation of what I said?


      Yes: my interpretation of your refusal to provide evidence for your
claim is that your claim is not something to be accepted, but instead
something to be put on my "maybe" list, to be inspected for value if I
ever need it.


      Does anyone see a dicontinuity with Kevin's thinking in the above?

      Pure weasle.

      He knows he was caught in an error again, and he tries to correct
it by writing what he SHOULD have written in the first place.

      But no apology for the pure shit that preceeded it.

      This is a common attribute of a meatball, they commit continuous
present time overt acts, either in life or in debate, and when caught
will quickly offer an alteration, but never an admittance that they were
wrong in the first place.

      Kevin's last statement is in fact correct, and is so obvious it
should never have needed stating.

      Claims are for consideration only, one takes them or leaves them as
one chooses.

      The prove it case tries to ENFORCE proof, and engages in
degradation and contempt on the character of those who won't.

     My starting statement about prove it cases remains on record
and I stand by it.

     Kevin's 'retractions' show that he is clearly capable of being right, 
but he seems to choose on a continuous basis to cheat instead.

     Eventually dealing with this behavior will become tiring.


Homer Wilson Smith     The Paths of Lovers    Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF        Cross            Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com    In the Line of Duty    http://www.lightlink.com

Fri Dec  7 22:41:17 EST 2007