Nope, nothing but the identity of the person being referred to.
Um... and how does this serve as "definitive proof" charity wasn' t referring to me?
It seems that all has taken place here is that charity threw an old poster's name at you and you confirmed he/she actually exists.
But what connects this person to this situation other than charity's say so?
Were you aware of a similiar rumor about this person beforehand?
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein
Nope, nothing but the identity of the person being referred to.
Um... and how does this serve as "definitive proof" charity wasn' t referring to me?
It seems that all has taken place here is that charity threw an old poster's name at you and you confirmed he/she actually exists.
But what connects this person to this situation other than charity's say so?
Were you aware of a similiar rumor about this person beforehand?
No, I wasn't. All I can confirm is, as you say, that said person exists and that charity claims some knowledge of said person having been outgunned by an EV on a radio program.
No, I wasn't. All I can confirm is, as you say, that said person exists and that charity claims some knowledge of said person having been outgunned by an EV on a radio program.
Possible candidates...
Chris Tolworthy.... Michael Griffith... who else I wonder
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein
Nope, nothing but the identity of the person being referred to.
Um... and how does this serve as "definitive proof" charity wasn' t referring to me?
It seems that all has taken place here is that charity threw an old poster's name at you and you confirmed he/she actually exists.
But what connects this person to this situation other than charity's say so?
Were you aware of a similiar rumor about this person beforehand?
No, I wasn't. All I can confirm is, as you say, that said person exists and that charity claims some knowledge of said person having been outgunned by an EV on a radio program.
The next logical question should be "what radio program"? Then you would at least be able to verify if the person in question really was on it and perhaps whether or not it looked like they were losing the debate. Of course, even then charity will have to account for her claim that this debate was responsible for turning the apologist into a critic and being a major ego hit. Which I'm sure she'll be able to do, considering she's never even met the person and was just rehashing someone else's gossip.
"reason and religion are friends and allies" - Mitt Romney
Zoidberg wrote:The next logical question should be "what radio program"? Then you would at least be able to verify if the person in question really was on it and perhaps whether or not it looked like they were losing the debate. Of course, even then charity will have to account for her claim that this debate was responsible for turning the apologist into a critic and being a major ego hit. Which I'm sure she'll be able to do, considering she's never even met the person and was just rehashing someone else's gossip.
All I agreed to do was confirm that the person she referred to in the PM was a real person. I can't confirm anything else beyond that. You're right that she alone will have to answer for repeating a rumor if she does not have firsthand knowledge of it.
Zoidberg wrote:The next logical question should be "what radio program"? Then you would at least be able to verify if the person in question really was on it and perhaps whether or not it looked like they were losing the debate. Of course, even then charity will have to account for her claim that this debate was responsible for turning the apologist into a critic and being a major ego hit. Which I'm sure she'll be able to do, considering she's never even met the person and was just rehashing someone else's gossip.
All I agreed to do was confirm that the person she referred to in the PM was a real person. I can't confirm anything else beyond that. You're right that she alone will have to answer for repeating a rumor if she does not have firsthand knowledge of it.
I suppose we'll just have to wait for further installments from charity, if there are any to be had. Thanks for verifying the person's name.
"reason and religion are friends and allies" - Mitt Romney
Runtu wrote:OK, I have definite proof that the person charity is referring to is not Kevin Graham. I don't think this person posts here, so that may be the cause of the confusion.
Have you heard of this person before? Can you verify that the situation described by charity really happened to this person?
Yes, I have heard of this person, and If I recall correctly, the person used to post on FAIR. But not here.
OK...Thanks for your integrity, Runtu. That's why you're one of my fantasy concubines. ;) (See this thread here if you're confused: concubine thread)
I do have one more question for Charity regarding this mess. If the person in question was not a poster on this board, then what was the relevancy of the posted rumor in the first place?
No, I wasn't. All I can confirm is, as you say, that said person exists and that charity claims some knowledge of said person having been outgunned by an EV on a radio program.
Possible candidates...
Chris Tolworthy.... Michael Griffith... who else I wonder
Chris Tolworthy is one of my favorite people. These days he's posting on FLAK. I remember Michael Griffith from way back.
No, I wasn't. All I can confirm is, as you say, that said person exists and that charity claims some knowledge of said person having been outgunned by an EV on a radio program.
Possible candidates...
Chris Tolworthy.... Michael Griffith... who else I wonder
Chris Tolworthy is one of my favorite people. These days he's posting on FLAK. I remember Michael Griffith from way back.
I wish Chris would come here. I remember him from long ago.