* Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [050804 04:24]: > > And I judge your evidence poorly researched. This does not enhance your > > credibility when you expound at length (and length and length) on legal > > affairs.
That was a good one. > It's really interesting that people who show no evidence of having > invested any effort whatsoever themselves in research of any aspect of > this topic are so quick to reject, not only the slightest speculation > beyond the proven facts, but any evidence I may have brought to bear > on any conclusion distasteful to them. I'm sorry. But I (and I think most here) can not rethink everything every time someone writes something. So if you say something I think is wrong, and you want me to believe it, it might be helpful to give proofs, hints or proper arguments. I do not know about the other people here, but I guess most of them will simply ignore long texts. If you have a point, make it. Long self-contradictory texts, inconsistent reasonings, deducing things I do not believe from things I hold even less true or not at all, not to forget your accusing speech will not make me believe you, but only make me feeling guilty of feeding the trolls when answering you. > Ignorance is bliss, I guess. Oh, all hail Micheal, the great martyr trying to open our eyes. Better this way? Sorry for writing, but I can only ignore a certain amount of such posts, Bernhard R. Link -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
