Ha ha ha. A schitzoid debate. I Can't think of anything more hilarious'. Its worse than playing Chess on your own.

Schitzoid debate hilarious pmsl

On the other hand I do know of at least THREE alternative accounts regularly posting in this forum. Once again, who is kidding who here?

I'm presuming Flat Stanley is 'theearthisflat' from the other lunatic thread. Pointless trying to debate with people who's ideas are so fractured from reality. It's their way or no way.

Do you mean 1 x Person with 3 Alias. and all three Alias post in this forum ?

Here the trouble causer. You care to add any decent dialogue on this topic . Nah didn't think so..bye byespace cadet

I'm afraid I'm not allowed to divulge personal details. Pesky laws and such.

But in the vain hope it'll put an end to this tiresome nonsense I'll happily agree to transfer £100 via PayPal to anyone who can prove I've used an alternative account in this (or any other) forum this decade.

If half the things I'm routinely accused of are true this shouldn't be a difficult question to answer ...

I reckon JML is The Butcher.They're always stalking and rapid to antagonise my beliefs. And when i challenge a debate they both do one.

=#FF0000EDITED:
You cannot post other posters personal details without their permission.
WANDERER

I've long since given up wondering why people do some of the things they do. Suffice to say we live in a weird, weird world.

That is very weird behaviour. With all the brain insults directed at myself over the months i could quite easily throw back but that'd make me worse than him, if anything i feel sorry for their behavioural actions seriously. Not only that he tried hiding his tracks and pinning those Alias's on me. Gee whiz The Butcher i feel sorry for you. Suppose that's the end of JML. Gee Whizz when challenged to a debate they/he ran off with his tail between his legs.

With this behaviour MY belief's are obviously causing his discomfort. Which means his beliefs are Vulnerable. The PROBLEM he is obviously suffering badly with [url=http://www.drkwamebrown.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/cognitive-dissonance.pngCOGNITIVE DISSONANCE[/url TUT TUT TUT.

=#FF0000EDITED:
You cannot post other posters personal details without their permission.
WANDERER

Only you see I have raised plenty of debate, however, you run away from anything that conflicts your views and then resort to silly insults and emoticons (Now who does that sound like!) So I have your undivided attention? Lets see if your a man of your word?

1.) How can anyone take anything you say seriously, when you present a quote as undisputable fact of there being an NWO, and then it takes me about 30 Minutes to discredit this, and provide the real quote?

2.) You use the fact that, there was a session ran to help children in disaster in the same day as Sandy hook happened, to prove that this was a hoax. You say that this cant have been coincidence. Yet there were at least six events in the same state, over the month before, and month of the event. Hardly significant proof is it?

So there you go, off the top of my head your starter for 10. Lets see if you can answer for a change.

The thing I don't get is why you are bothering going to all the effort. I mean, I do what I do because I find these topics fascinating and I post mostly for the many others who think similarly. Sure, it would be cool if a few more people clawed themselves out of their stupor - but the truth is it's largely a waste of time and energy appealing to their sense of reason.

No matter the quantity or quality of your evidence these people will keep on raising the bar as though the only kind of worthwhile truth is one which can be derived scientifically. Never mind the fact that in the courtroom the burden of proof is rarely (if ever) so high.

I've lost count of the number of times people dismiss evidence as purely "circumstantial" without realizing not only that such evidence is admissible in a courtroom - but that many cases have been decided [usolely[/u on circumstantial evidence.

[iCircumstantial evidence has a reputation for generally being weaker and less valid evidence than direct evidence. It is interesting and necessary, however, to emphasize that it is simply incorrect to assume that direct evidence is always stronger or more convincing than circumstantial evidence. Aside from scientific evidence, other examples of circumstantial evidence that may imply guilt include the defendant’s motive or opportunity to commit the crime, whether the defendant had resisted arrest, or if any suspicious behaviors were demonstrated. Unlike the incorrect examples perpetuated by television shows, movies, and novels, a majority of convictions are based solely on circumstantial evidence if for no other reason than this type of evidence is more commonly encountered at crime scenes than direct evidence.[/i

You're better off not engaging with these fools. It's a fundamental mistake to think people behave rationally. Mostly it's just dumb instinct.

I mean, I can't force you to quit banging your head against a brick wall. But I wish you wouldn't. It's not healthy.

He's even formed a conspiracy that seems to involve me. Which is a bit weird. I wouldn't get into a serious debate about the validity of unicorns or why Harry Potter is actually real with someone, so I'm certainly not wasting time with people who think the earth is flat, that everything we see is all made up by secret societies, and that scientists are all hiding truth from all of us. These people are the same as those that would argue for unicorns and Harry Potter. It's not running away from debate, it's that their arguments are so ridiculous that debating them lends them some kind of equal validity with reality. Which they are very far from.

I don't need to create alter-egos to stalk you and discredit you, Stanley. You do a much better job of that without my help.



Besides, I'm not the one on here who's bothered to find out my actual name and post here. Kind of a bit like stalking eh?