Kevin does, indeed, believe that his critics are stupid.
Stop trying to expand your unique club of morons to include all my critics. Not all my critics are stupid, but you and wade most certainly are, and the best part is you make the case for me.
o stupid, indeed, that they will not recognize the his utter lack of critical thinking abilities and cluelessness regarding even the rudiments of the logical analysis of the arguments of others.
Uh huh. So says the moron who jumped into this thread with his eyes wide shut.
Notice the weasel words at the end as well. Some "others" recall that "something disgusting" was said, and that "quite possibly," (maybe, perhaps, I guess...) it was the 'c' word.
There is nothing "weasle" about this as what I said was a fact, and it is entirely relevant to the matter at hand, which is whether this instance is anywhere near comparable to wade's claim that he received an email from some anonymous poster. It isn't. Wade's is supported by no evidence oither than his say-so. That's it. Nothing more. Bokovoy posts the email and it mentions at least one person who can verify the data therein. Wade keeps his email secret like it is something special to him, only alluding to portions of it so he can criticize us for making assumptions about what it does or doesn't contain.
Jack herself also never saw anything at all personally
Exactly, which is pretty much what I said, and it runs contrary to your clueless assertion that she expected people to take
her word for it. She presented the eye witness testimony and people can choose to believe or reject it. Of course, for people like you and wade, all you need is Will's denial, and the rest must be a bunch of liars.
and had to rely on second, third, and multiple hand sources for her knowledge of it
Uh, no. Multiple hand sources? Droopy is so daft that he doesn't understand what it means to be a first hand or second hand source. Talk about trying to be a weasle here! All of the witnesses to the event are first hand sources for themselves, but to us, they are second hand sources. There are no "third hand sources" involved, which would be a source based on what someone else said someone else said someone else saw.
When three people claim to see Will post that word, that counts as three second hand sources.
But they are only second hand sources to MsJack. You act as if they mentioned this to MsJack in a letter and they were never heard from again. To the contrary, they all came forward and bore their testimony, which makes them first hand witnesses! God you're dumb!
These others then waited, Anita Hill-like, for a long time until the time was ripe, apparently, to spring the claim.
We waited for what? You make absolutely no sense. If these "others" wanted to lie, then they could have simply lied by saying they saw the C-word. But the rest of them didn't say they saw the C-word; they said they recall seeing something pretty disgusting, and they were not at all surprised to hear that three first hand witnesses testified that it was the C-word.
Now that we're done with Curly, let's move on to Moe:
It doesn't change the alleged fact, nor was it intended to do anything of the sort-which leads me to ponder why, in all your presumed brilliance, you are asking me these inane questions? are you trying to appear smart? If so, it is having the opposite affect--just so you know.
I'll take that as a compliment considering the source. Aren't you the same guy who has a conniption fit every time someone pops in to thank me for my insightful and well researched contributions? Yes, I think that's you.
The fact is your idiotic statement made absolutely no sense, so I left it up to you to make sense of it, and reiterated the fact that nothing that you just said changes the established fact. I originally made about Bokovoy. Here, l et me take you by your hand again and walk you through this.
You said:
Besides, if you look very carefully at your own statement, you spoke of "their efforts"--which you alledged Will was to preempt by writing to "numerous LDS scholars." Last time I checked, David Bokovoy is only one person. Who else were you referring to in using the plural "their"?
Anyone with a normal brain would be able to discern what I meant by "their" if they read the citation you alluded to, which was:
Why did [Will Schryver] panic by writing numerous LDS scholars to find out what was being said about you so you could preempt their efforts? Gee and Hauglid both sent Bokovoy a copy of the email you sent out to them trying to dig for information about what's been said.
And you then make the idiotic statement that Bokovoy is only one person, so why did I refer to "their" in the plural. Really wade? Obviously, "their" refers to the plural nature of Will's email recipients. Why is this so hard?
For someone so fond of calling opponents moronic, you sure are having a terrible time following even your own end of the discussion.
As I just demonstrated, it is you who is dancing like a bear, pretending to have caught me in a snare when all you're really doing is trying to delay the inevitable. You and droops have always been inconsequential small frys who make me look much smarter than I really am.
So, let me remind you that the post I quoted of you above, was in response to a post by Will, in which he made absolutely no mention or even a hint of Bokovoy, and in fact was referring to the participants on this board in general, and those on the mega thread in particular.
I already provided the quote you alluded to, and it proved your response to me was nothing short of idiotic since, as you just stated, it had nothing to do with Bokovoy, and yet you responded with:
you spoke of "their efforts"--which you alledged Will was to preempt by writing to "numerous LDS scholars." Last time I checked, David Bokovoy is only one person. Who else were you referring to in using the plural "their"?
Hence, you are the one who insinuated my comments included Bokovoy, not I. Try to stay on top of what's been said, if not from me then at least from you're own mouth.
His comments were in regards to "threats" of his ouster relevant to what was being said on the mega thread (of which Bokovoy was not a part). This means that it was, in fact YOU, who interjected Bokovoy into the discussion at that point, and it was YOUR statement that contained the words "their efforts."
As anyone who knows how to read will clearly comprehend, I only "interjected Bokovoy," to the extent that I said he was the recipient of numerous emails from those who had been contacted by Schryver. He was the recipient of such emails only because Schryver tried to implicate him in some conspiracy. That's it. But Schryver was wrong, and those scholars he contacted knew Schryver was wrong, which is probably why they turned on him by contacting Bokovoy to inform him of the email smear campaign in which Schryver had been engaged. Really wade, this is so simple.
For the third time, if YOU weren't referiring to Bokovoy, then who all were YOU including in the "their"?
OK, I have to assume you're joking at this point. I mean really, I know you're dumb, but no one on this forum can be this dumb.... right?? Please tell me it ain't so wade. Please tell me you're not still asking me the idiotic question about "their" when the answer to your question is found in the original citation which you failed to cite. I clearly idenitified "Gee and Hauglid "and last time I checked, they represent two different people, which would, as some of us learned in grade school, constitute a plurality.
Please do your very best to stay on track.
I'm spending all my effort trying to take your seriously. It isn't even funny anymore how dumb you are. At this point I just feel sorry for you.
Evidently, you lack sufficient intelligence to remember what the CFR was specifically in regards to. So, let me remind you. You said that I was duped by a Will pseudonym.
Uh, yeah, I know. I believe you were. You then did a CFR and I then provided a reference that supports that conclusion. You then go on with your usual idiotic rant about how you're CFR was misunderstood, bla bla bla... You're done wade. But I guess you should get some kind of credit for not immediately slinking away into the shadows, even if the only reason you don't is because you're too stupid to know you've lost.
Your argument above claims the evidence is strong that the email was from Will.
You don't say.
You also express skepticism about me having received such an email.
Yes, this is true.
Nowhere in the above do you provide the least argument that the email was from a Will pseudonym. Care to try again Einstein?
I just did, but again, you're tooo stupid to understand basic logic. Let me try again in case some onlookers are walking into this for the first time. Now according to you, the "informant" named Spurven as one of the many conspirators against William. From my reading of the exchanges, Spurven is no enemy of Will. He is no enemy to anyone for that matter. The only person who has ever mistaken Spurven for an enemy of Will, is Will. Hence, your informant, if he exists at all, is most likely Will, because no one else in their right mind would ever confuse Spurven as anyone's enemy. Now put your thinking cap on and reread this four times before responding.
You obviously assumed incorrectly.
Obviously. But so what? Why is my assumption that you would be upfront and complete in what you claim your informant said, somehow count as knock against me? You and droops keep reiterating my false assumption about this as if this raises the score in your favor. Good grief you're desperate.
Like Bokovoy, I excluded portions of the email that I though might inadvertently reveal the identity of the sender. Bokovoy's name was a part of the excluded portion.
Why exclude his name but include others? It doesn't make sense, hence I think you're just playing your usual games. But it doesn't really matter since there is no reasonable basis for assuming Bokovoy was in any way involved in this. If he were, then certainly someone at NAMI would know of it, and this would mean Bokovoy would be throwing his credibility on a tightrope, risking it completely if someone at NAMI decided to out him. But the fact is you have no reason to believe your "source" is in any position to speak informatively on this matter. I mean think about it. In what plausible venue could someone connect a slew of MD posters with Bokovoy? If you think there is an ounce of credibility to your "informant's claim, then yes, this is just further proof of your anti-analytical thinking.
There you go, jumping to false conclusions again. Your rant above assumed my answer to your question would be Yes. Well, it wasn't. Don't you feel stupid now?
Trust me wade, EVERYONE feels dumber after trying to engage you in conversation. But why the hell would I feel "stupid" for assuming you actually mention Bokovoy in the email in order to make some kind of point?
No. In fact, were you paying closer attention, and were really up to your faux legendary investigative skills, you would know that I most willingly took David at his word.
Then maybe you should tell this to yoru erstwhile supporter, droopy. He seems to think there is something to your "informant's" email that provides an "unsanitized" version.
Your poignant irony aside, at least I have open to considering that I am wrong, and willing to admit those few times when I was wrong.
I already said I suspected you disagreed with droopy, who was obviously too stupid to realize that was a possibility. You poured cold water on his tag-team fantasy. You never explicitly implicated Bokovoy, though Droopy obviously interpreted it that way. But to be honest, I don't pay much attention to what you believe or post, because your opinion is so frequently useless on these threads.
You, on the other hand...
What have I been wrong about? You can't say.