| Subject: Re: Ruppert: Advice for Whistleblowers |
| From: Wally Anglesea� <wanglese@spammersbigpondareparasites.net.au> |
| Date: 16/12/2003, 06:01 |
| Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.alien.research,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.paranet.abduct,alt.usenet.kooks |
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 01:35:18 GMT, no name <oobie@doobie.com> wrote:
<SNIP>
I calls it like I see it, liar.
You've never read the Rulebook For Argumentation either. Required reading
for freshman English 101. You lose, loser. You've committed a logical
fallacy.
Nope, YOu prove your claim about the UFO at groom lake
Can't?
Then you are a liar.
COPme back when you have *evidence*
A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The
broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists
weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.
Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a
mourner's face.
Law. The documentary or oral statements and the material objects
admissible as testimony in a court of law.
In law, you would merely be providing hearsay.
It saves time. When you demonstrate
that you deserve more than ridicule, then you will be entitled to be
takes seriously. Until then, why waste time taking you seriously?