Quote:
|
Originally Posted by turbonium
Many of which had been asked multiple times over the course of a number of days, giving plenty of time to respond. Many of which were also asked before posts you've chosen to respond to...
Please point out the many questions asked multiple times over several days to me which I have failed to address.
|
You're not fooling anyone,
turbonium. The proof is there for all to see in the JFK thread. Why do you continue your disingenuous insinuation that you haven't intentionally failed to answer questions when the evidence is overwhelming that you do so whenever the questions get too hot?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by turbonium
I understand the issue, but it seems more obvious that this is a case of "completely avoid the points you can't address and respond to the ones you can handwave away."
Why do I think this? You've made statements about the damage to the Pentagon and the street lights, both well after I've posted evidence that proves those statements to be amazingly weak, and both in response to posts following mine. Meaning? You've apparently seen those points and decided to ignore them.
You know, rather than waste time by making all sorts of assumptions about me, all it really takes is a simple "turbonium, could you please answer the questions I asked you in post #__ ?" Or if I missed answering one or more of the questions in a particular post, just say "turbonium, could you please answer the question about _____ that you missed in post # ___?"
|
No one's making any assumptions about your behavior; we've simply drawn a conclusion based on overwhelming evidence. I repeatedly called your attention to the many unanswered questions put to you in the JFK thread, except that I didn't repeat the post numbers, and you didn't bother to ask for them. I didn't include the numbers because at that point you hadn't answered
any direct questions in nearly two weeks, and the ones I wanted you to address were marked "direct question" or something to that effect. So
why are you continuing to insinuate that your failure to answer is merely due to the fact that there's only one of you, and that you just missed some questions?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by turbonium
Edit to add: PeterB is very good at doing this - he refers back to a post# that was addressed to me but I hadn't responded to. I appreciate this method of debate. He seems to understand that there are times when sheer volume of material makes an oversight occur. And then I am more than happy to say "Sorry, Peter, I will reply in my following post." And I then make a priority of answering it.
|
Your statement is belied by the evidence from the JFK thread and other threads here and on apollohoax.com.
[edit: repeated word]