Originally Posted by jimmac
I've tried to stay away from how immature you sound.
Actually, that's what I was saying...you don't sound like an adult.
To be honest SDW you're not worth debating with as you don't use logic. You don't listen to what anyne else says. You just make up lame excuses for you to seem right.
That's it in a nutshell.
There it is. Your arguments and assertions stand on their own. No one may question them, or you will take your marbles and run away. At least, you saw you will. But then you're back.
Originally Posted by jimmac
I thought you were going back off and let this be a SDW/jimmac thing ( )?
Anyway and I think I speak for several here SDW is famous for obfuscation and subterfuge ( and if you don't believe me look back through the forums in the past many have noted this when you back him into a corner he calls you a name and disappears ).
First, you speak for no one but yourself. Secondly, you have never once been "backed me into a corner." Third...I don't answer to you or anyone else as to when I post. I have this thing called a life. Sometimes it gets in the way of me posting on AI. Imagine that.
So I ask him a question and he turns around before answering mine and wants me to meet his criteria? I'll answer him as soon as he answers in a clear fashion about the facts ( not that they left a few facts out because I asked if there were large gaps indicating bias ) on that website ( which I feel he'll never do but hope springs eternal ) and not dodge the issue.
Or the issue of if the facts are in error. If not they stand and there's a lot of them.
At this point I've lost track of what question you even mean. It's not hard to do with your rambling posts. You've asked two recently, both of which I've responded to:
1. If the site [historycommons] is factual, what's wrong with it?
---I've answered this in-depth several times. I've even cited specific examples from the site's timelines.
2. What facts are left out?
As I've indicated, this is impossible to answer completely. There is no way one can provide a comprehensive list of what's NOT there. That said, I did offer a few examples. One of these was that there was nothing in the Iraq War timeline about Bush being told about WMD by George Tenet.
It also occurs to me that anyone who would ask question #2 must believe that History Commons' timelines are all-inclusive and without omission. That is, they include EVERY event leading up to the subject of the timeline itself. Is that your position?
But I'll meet his criteria afterwards as I've linked to many places for support of my claims many times however I'm prepared to hear that I didn't really because linking to experts with data in the same articles
isn't enough or that it's part of the " Criminal liberal media " and I should go to some more acceptable source ( not CNN, MSNBC, ABC or some other nationally recognized site ) some place that says he wants to hear.
Go ahead. We're waiting.
If all of that kind of distraction doesn't work then he'll start to correct your spelling!
No, I'll correct horrendous misuse of the English language.
However this is a conversation that has gone on for better part of a decade. I doubt that you getting involved here will make much of a difference.
I think I'll sleep fine about my word but I don't think I should allow SDW to distract from the issue by trying to turn the focus on me before addressing what I've asked.
I've answered you at least three times. You'll ignore it, though.
And agreeing with Frank777 is ok with me. He's almost never right when he does his drive by ( never looking at what's going on ) jabs.
Plus what the hell has this has got to do with DEBT and the Republicans vs the Democrats? He's derailed yet another thread that might be uncomfortable for his world view.
There it is again. "X is never right! Don't listen to him!"