Re: Hines-Renfors-Johansson-McCulloch team of scientific experts explain Vinland Map ink

IE_Johansson wrote:


<Stupid top posting cow's top posting healed>

> > Does this mean that you now acknowledge that the statements, made
> > by you and quoted by Dr. Towe, were nothing more than the silly
> > transparent lies of an unqualified fool?
> >
> > If so, is this the beginning of some insight into the depths of
> > your own stupidity?
> >
> >
> > > I am distressed that someone claiming to be a specialist in an
> > > area he knows less than null about as shown in your lines here as
> > > well as in per-viewed articles,
> > > knows so little about Theories of Science that he believes a
> > > circular-proof to be valid.
> > > That's distressing to say the least!
> >
> > Hmmm..... One part of this equation holds a Doctorate as well as a
> > number of other under and post graduate qualifications and has held
> > various positions in industry and academia and thus enjoys the
> > confidence of his academic peers, the other is a substitute Sunday
> > school teacher with a well established penchant for drivelling on
> > about things she knows nothing about, lying to try and paper over
> > the many and manifest gaps in her pitiful knowledge, and who may or
> > may not, hold a undergraduate Arts degree that apparently took her
> > considerably longer than usual to get even that....
> >
> > Dunno about you, but I know which one my money is on....
> >
> > >
> > > That such a scholar existed and starts libelling and worse
> > > whenever he is shown that his assumptions not only are invalid
> > > but also impossible from a scientific point of view to put
> > > forward, say a lot of the person trying to use
> > > circular-proofs..... Inger E
> > >
> >
> > Given that you are yet to establish that you actually have a working
> > knowledge of what such a basic legal concept as "libel" is, it
> > places into considerable doubt that you have the faintest idea of
> > any other term you blather on about.
> >
> > In short, you do not know what you are talking about.
> >
> >

> Mr Kook,
> first of all I have to tell you as usual can't read, can't comprehend
> or what else reason can there be that you don't understand but
> continue your abusive attacks?
>
> I don't acknowledge anything what so ever taken out of it's context!
> NO serious scholar would dream to act the way Mr Towe does and still
> believe he/she would be taken seriously by anyone than those who
> missed all learnt during lessons in Theories of Science,
> which btw at least here in Sweden we have courses in on every single
> level from B-level up!
>
> You and Mr Towe don't seem to get it - a quote is a quote but nothing
> more when taken out of it's context.
> Those who refer to a quote instead of showing that they comprehend
> the text where the quote origin aren't much of a scholar if that's
> all they can do. Their followers are only copycats.
>
> Inger E
>

Now let's be sure that I actually understand exactly what you are
saying...

If I, for example, in the course of a discussion, assert as a fact,
that the sky is blue.


And then later, someone else says "Mr Kook said that the sky is blue".


Then because it has now been removed from its context, a fact that was
true is no longer true and that I therefore cannot and should not be
held accountable for originally propounding that the sky is, or was,
blue.


The logical conclusion of this is that no assertion as to a fact can
ever be challenged because by natural process the challenge removes the
assertion from its original context.

Actually, that's not quite right, what you are really saying is that
nobody can ever disagree with you by pointing out the idiocy of the
bizarre lunacies you assert as facts, because to do so removes the
context of their assertion and thus they are no longer facts, and
therefore no longer susceptible to contradiction.

Only a first class k00k (such as yourself) would even think of trying
to put up something so breathtakingly dumb.


But then you are a stupid, dumb, lying, top posting cow aren't you
Inger Dear?

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Third class citizens
    ... Why is top posting such a stupid thing to do? ... Timmy's posts make just as much sense out of context as ... It makes more sense than what Toomy posts here. ...
    (uk.transport)
  • Re: Video Sender with UHF output
    ... Sometimes it is wise to re-read what you wrote before posting it, ... just to see how stupid you are about to look. ... Your snipping of what I wrote takes the above out of context. ...
    (uk.tech.digital-tv)
  • Re: Third class citizens
    ... Because there's no context you clueless twat. ... Why is top posting such a stupid thing to do? ...
    (uk.transport)
  • Re: Third class citizens
    ... Why is top posting such a stupid thing to do? ... Timmy's posts make just as much sense out of context as ...
    (uk.transport)
  • The Miracle/low probability TV with a TV withing a TV for ever post
    ... (View all originals) ... The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. ... I'm Martin Michael Musatov and I am so stupid. ... there is a God in heaven and right now he is smiling. ...
    (sci.math)