He is, and without any doubt [being obstinately argumentative and protective of the dominant myths of American elites]...
I'm not sorry if anyone here isn't comfortable with the questions I ask, or that - in my interpretation of the adverb "obstinately" - I don't back down when questions remain unanswered or slack off in my seeking of information.
I'm asking questions - nothing more, nothing less. Isn't that what we're here for?
...but one doesn't know his agenda.
I have to have an "agenda" to not buy the conspiratorial line and accept editorials, blogs, and undocumented assertions as being indicative of the "real story"?
Opinions, even strong ones, expert ones, are not evidence.
Correct.
Hypotheses are not evidence.
Correct.
Statistical improbability, or probability, is not evidence.
Usually not; however, they may point toward a preponderence of evidence. But in general, yes, you're correct.
Evidence would be a confession, under oath, of someone who was directly involved or who saw explosives being placed etc.
So you believe that sworn testimonies constitute "evidence"?
Evidence would be the chemical analysis of the steel from the core of the WTC which showed that explosives were used.
I believe you mean "evidence would be...analysis...show[ing] whether explosives were used". Correct?
And, meanwhile, LPS5 can have fun goading and taunting us...
Come now, Searle, don't take this personally. You said in a recent post that you were having fun exploring here. So am I.
Should I not?
Need I be a conspirator to simply ask the questions which,
despite all the allegations, ad hominem lobbing, wailing, and wholesale gnashing of teeth by Duray, Earl, and GUSTAVE "no planes were used",
remain completely, and conspicuously, unanswered?
...which, frankly, I don't mind because it keeps me on my toes.
Excellent, then! :-)
e |
