For you to summarily categorize me as playing a game and blow me off, which this post seems to do, reveals to me that you really do not want to talk about things....
Sorry, it was you that shifted the subject away from the discussion on Bowman's initial article, not me; summarily dismissing the argument about dates and selecting proposals vs. enacted positions. That's a game; you may not realize it's a game; you may not wish to call it a game, but it is.
In the front of my response, I pretty clearly said that it was necessary to settle that issue, because it was the foundation of moving forward.
Otherwise you might have to admit, gasp, you were mistaken.
I've been wrong a number of times in my life and I'm sure that will continue; I don't have any problem admitting when I'm wrong. I don't particularly enjoy it, but I don't have any problem doing so.
I originally show the current UN position, via the link and some selected text. You've responded with an article that was flawed from Harietta Bowman in a number of ways that I pointed out. Now you're saying: Otherwise you might have to admit, gasp, you were mistaken.
Would you like to show me exactly where you admitted you were wrong in offering Harietta Bowman's article as some substantive proof?
After looking over the Sierra Times links, you're suggesting that no one can make any sort of an assessment about the credibility of Sierra Times? Give them some time?
Did you examine to see what consituted "proof" of a global conspiracy of a New World Order? It was the appearance of names within the same article! That's what these people call proof.
One morning reading and I wouldn't trust the Sierra Times to give me directions to the 7-11. On the other hand you've been reading it for months and haven't formed an opinion.
jttmab |
