| Subject: Re: Ruppert: Advice for Whistleblowers |
| From: Otis Reed |
| Date: 17/12/2003, 19:24 |
| Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.alien.research,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.paranet.abduct |
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 08:04:54 GMT, Wally Anglesea™
<wanglese@spammersbigpondareparasites.net.au> wrote:
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 05:08:17 GMT, Otis Reed <oreed@dontbother.net>
wrote:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 21:25:31 GMT, Michael Davis
<mdavis19@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
<snip>
Dumbo, you cannot transmit c
It is impossible. period.
That's not what anyone is asking you to do, kook. It's just a
straw man argument, and it's wrong anyway. Evidence can be
transmitted over any medium.
Dumbo, the argument was not whether 'evidence' can be transmitted,
but 'hard,physical evidence'
Information can be evidence, and
information can be transmitted over any medium.
That is not in debate, 'HARD.PHYSICAL evidence cannot
be transmitted over usenet, Dumbo.
Nobody asked for hard evidence to be transmitted over usenet, moron.
Yes they did. HW demanded:
"Nope. You made the claim, you get to back it up with hard, physical
unambiguous evidence. Don't have any? That's what I thought."
To which I pointed out it is impossible to provide hard, physical
evidence over usenet. You can try to spin it any way you want.
The fact is he was asking for 'hard physical evidence' over usenet
which is impossible