Re: Challenge for naysayers of the Kensington Runestone

On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 00:06:06 GMT, Philip Deitiker
<Donevenask@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx says in
>news:io2cg1tm4ab2e5n1usm4okqskjbaoh00jv@xxxxxxx:
>
>> Yep. When I stick to the subject for long enough, Deitiker gives
>> up because his little games aren't working.
>
Here is the start of the derogatory remarks.

PD is so predictable.

>UNlike others here once I determine someone is a kook, I don't waste
>an incredible amount of time arguing with them. You will find very
>few post of mine to Inger, Seppo, Grapheus, DJM, Conrad, . . . . .
>when I come around to ignoring you it generally means that I have
>formulated that you belong to that group. Congradulations.
>
> Now if you like I can dice appart your propoganda like I did to Jim
>McGinn, making good issue out of the flaws in your argument
>construction and out of the propoganda you insert to cover those
>flaws. You should note that McGinn, like your doing currently, had a
>world class temper-tantrum after I did this, however, over time he
>learned just a little from the discussion. Unfortunately I don't have
>alot of time to waste educating kooks and getting up to a 3rd grade
>understanding of debate tactics.

Who gives a stuff about debate tactics except yourself? This isn't a
contest of verbal fisticuffs. It isn't a contest of who can twist the
cleverest argument. This is a 'sci' news group and we have to keep
going back to 'what do we actually know'.

> As a result I mainly ignore them.
>But if you insist I can dice your argument up for you, if you really
>insist.




Eric Stevens

.

Relevant Pages