Conspiracy theories are dangerous...

[JakeStarkey]

Mike Piazza, the new HoF member for MLB, is every bit as qualified as David Icke, meaning neither knows anything about a supposed world conspiracy.

Neither knows anything? Have you read Icke's work?

I have glanced over DC and Marvel comic books, too. Nothing there.

 

[ObligationLaunch]

Mike Piazza, the new HoF member for MLB, is every bit as qualified as David Icke, meaning neither knows anything about a supposed world conspiracy.

Neither knows anything? Have you read Icke's work?

I have glanced over DC and Marvel comic books, too. Nothing there.

So you haven't, hence you have no clue what you are talking about.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Mike Piazza, the new HoF member for MLB, is every bit as qualified as David Icke, meaning neither knows anything about a supposed world conspiracy.

Neither knows anything? Have you read Icke's work?

I have glanced over DC and Marvel comic books, too. Nothing there.

So you haven't, hence you have no clue what you are talking about.

Read enough to know it is baloney. That you agree with David makes me know enough to know you are full of baloney,

BUT . . . we have a lot of neat conspiracy nuts here so you will fit right in.

 

[ObligationLaunch]

Mike Piazza, the new HoF member for MLB, is every bit as qualified as David Icke, meaning neither knows anything about a supposed world conspiracy.

Neither knows anything? Have you read Icke's work?

I have glanced over DC and Marvel comic books, too. Nothing there.

So you haven't, hence you have no clue what you are talking about.

Read enough to know it is baloney. That you agree with David makes me know enough to know you are full of baloney,

BUT . . . we have a lot of neat conspiracy nuts here so you will fit right in.

read enough? well, can you tell me what that was then?

probably not.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Mike Piazza, the new HoF member for MLB, is every bit as qualified as David Icke, meaning neither knows anything about a supposed world conspiracy.

Neither knows anything? Have you read Icke's work?

I have glanced over DC and Marvel comic books, too. Nothing there.

So you haven't, hence you have no clue what you are talking about.

Read enough to know it is baloney. That you agree with David makes me know enough to know you are full of baloney,

BUT . . . we have a lot of neat conspiracy nuts here so you will fit right in.

read enough? well, can you tell me what that was then? probably not.

You have been answered, so, no, you don't get "just once more" on your questions. Have you made some new friends here, I hope.

 

[ObligationLaunch]

You have been answered, so, no, you don't get "just once more" on your questions. Have you made some new friends here, I hope.

No, I haven't been answered.

I asked you what you had read, and then you sypped communicating.

That tells me a lot.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You have been answered, so, no, you don't get "just once more" on your questions. Have you made some new friends here, I hope.

No, I haven't been answered. I asked you what you had read, and then you sypped communicating. That tells me a lot.

You asked if I had been reading, and you discounted that. So, no, you don't get "just once more" about your nonsense.

 

[ObligationLaunch]

You have been answered, so, no, you don't get "just once more" on your questions. Have you made some new friends here, I hope.

No, I haven't been answered. I asked you what you had read, and then you sypped communicating. That tells me a lot.

You asked if I had been reading, and you discounted that. So, no, you don't get "just once more" about your nonsense.

I discarded nothing. I asked you WHAT you had read.

Please answer that questiion. I think you can't.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You have been answered, so, no, you don't get "just once more" on your questions. Have you made some new friends here, I hope.

No, I haven't been answered. I asked you what you had read, and then you sypped communicating. That tells me a lot.

You asked if I had been reading, and you discounted that. So, no, you don't get "just once more" about your nonsense.

I discarded nothing. I asked you WHAT you had read. Please answer that questiion. I think you can't.

I don't have to. You don't get "just once more." His material is silly, and I encourage anyone who wants an exposure to silly conspiracy nonsense, take a gander.

 

[ObligationLaunch]

His material is silly, and I encourage anyone who wants an exposure to silly conspiracy nonsense, take a gander.

Just once again an Ad Hominem. You are not arguing WHy it is silly.
If you have read it all, that must be easy for you.
So, my guess is you even haven't read it. But can't confess that now.

State WHY they are silly and give us some good arguments.

 

[JakeStarkey]

His material is silly, and I encourage anyone who wants an exposure to silly conspiracy nonsense, take a gander.

Just once again an Ad Hominem. You are not arguing WHy it is silly.
If you have read it all, that must be easy for you.
So, my guess is you even haven't read it. But can't confess that now.

State WHY they are silly and give us some good arguments.

I did not attack you, so you have lost the ad hom card as well. No need to any more than I would need discuss why the KKK is not a worthy subject for someone's time.

But you go right ahead and believe it if it makes you feel good.

 

[ObligationLaunch]

His material is silly, and I encourage anyone who wants an exposure to silly conspiracy nonsense, take a gander.

Just once again an Ad Hominem. You are not arguing WHy it is silly.
If you have read it all, that must be easy for you.
So, my guess is you even haven't read it. But can't confess that now.

State WHY they are silly and give us some good arguments.

I did not attack you, so you have lost the ad hom card as well. No need to any more than I would need discuss why the KKK is not a worthy subject for someone's time.

But you go right ahead and believe it if it makes you feel good.

I never wrote you attacked ME. But you did you use an ad hominem.

It is of course very telling that you can't tell us what you have read.

That is telling a lot.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Look up ad hom and use it appropriately.

Identifying conspiracy theory material as silly is honest, not ad hom.

Saying that conspiracy theorists deal in silly theory is honest, not ad hom.

Telling you are wrong is honest, not ad hom.

You have fail. Just the way it is.

 

[ObligationLaunch]

Look up ad hom and use it appropriately.

Identifying conspiracy theory material as silly is honest, not ad hom.

Saying that conspiracy theorists deal in silly theory is honest, not ad hom.

Telling you are wrong is honest, not ad hom.

You have fail. Just the way it is.

ALL of what you wrote here is an Ad Hominem.

Now, answer this. Why don't you tell us what you have read ?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Look up ad hom and use it appropriately.

Identifying conspiracy theory material as silly is honest, not ad hom.

Saying that conspiracy theorists deal in silly theory is honest, not ad hom.

Telling you are wrong is honest, not ad hom.

You have fail. Just the way it is.

ALL of what you wrote here is an Ad Hominem. Now, answer this. Why don't you tell us what you have read ?

Your slipping and skipping, son. No, it is not ad hom (look it up). I am not going to get into a discussion with you what I have read of Icke because I won't give you an opportunity to defend his trash. In other words, I am road block here for you that you will not get through.

 

[ObligationLaunch]

Look up ad hom and use it appropriately.

Identifying conspiracy theory material as silly is honest, not ad hom.

Saying that conspiracy theorists deal in silly theory is honest, not ad hom.

Telling you are wrong is honest, not ad hom.

You have fail. Just the way it is.

ALL of what you wrote here is an Ad Hominem. Now, answer this. Why don't you tell us what you have read ?

Your slipping and skipping, son. No, it is not ad hom (look it up). I am not going to get into a discussion with you what I have read of Icke because I won't give you an opportunity to defend his trash. In other words, I am road block here for you that you will not get through.

what exactly have you read?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Look up ad hom and use it appropriately.

Identifying conspiracy theory material as silly is honest, not ad hom.

Saying that conspiracy theorists deal in silly theory is honest, not ad hom.

Telling you are wrong is honest, not ad hom.

You have fail. Just the way it is.

ALL of what you wrote here is an Ad Hominem. Now, answer this. Why don't you tell us what you have read ?

Your slipping and skipping, son. No, it is not ad hom (look it up). I am not going to get into a discussion with you what I have read of Icke because I won't give you an opportunity to defend his trash. In other words, I am road block here for you that you will not get through.

what exactly have you read?

Not your business. I won't give you an opportunity to defend garbage.

 

[dblack]

Wait.... a thread claiming that conspiracy theories are dangerous is posted in "Conspiracy Theories". Hmmm...

 

[ObligationLaunch]

Wait.... a thread claiming that conspiracy theories are dangerous is posted in "Conspiracy Theories". Hmmm...

he you haven't read the whole thing.

 

[ObligationLaunch]

Look up ad hom and use it appropriately.

Identifying conspiracy theory material as silly is honest, not ad hom.

Saying that conspiracy theorists deal in silly theory is honest, not ad hom.

Telling you are wrong is honest, not ad hom.

You have fail. Just the way it is.

ALL of what you wrote here is an Ad Hominem. Now, answer this. Why don't you tell us what you have read ?

Your slipping and skipping, son. No, it is not ad hom (look it up). I am not going to get into a discussion with you what I have read of Icke because I won't give you an opportunity to defend his trash. In other words, I am road block here for you that you will not get through.

what exactly have you read?

Not your business. I won't give you an opportunity to defend garbage.

scared now? ok, that is clear now for everyone to see here.

Chicken!





Now,

what exactly have you read?