In UK atheists considred more moral than theists.

[Drich]

I'm not going to respond to this tonight, but let's start here with just a tidbit.  I'll simply point out that, by all indications, you were refuted on the meaning of tohu/bohu (Genesis I believe) several Christmases ago.  You left early so we never actually finished that discussion, but at the time you left, you had simply repeated an argument that I had shown to be flawed.  I'm fully willing to revisit the discussion if you like.  But if you remember the discussion, you lead with a source that didn't exist, then you made a claim that was wrong according to Hebrew grammar, and then you posted a word study, which, as I pointed out to you, was actually self-refuting.  If posting non-existent sources and such is your way of leading with your weak material, well all I can say is, mission accomplished!   At best, it's unclear that you have always been right about scripture. I get that you probably don't remember the argument, but this is a typical case of counting the hits and ignoring the misses.  That's confirmation bias, and you are guilty of it a lot.   But that hasn't stopped you from making a boast here.   That type of confirmation bias is very common.  Fortunately, most people don't go around making brags like you do.  When you do, it's going to get you into trouble.  Especially if you are frequently wrong.  I'll try to respond to your specific complaints and counter-arguments at another time.

You can find the tohu/bohu thread here.

I think the larger point you missed there was I don't run from or avoid question... however at the same time it does not mean I am required to give you an answer your looking for. often times there is too large of a gap for me to fill in the answer I have and where you are, Meaning If I leave a topic it is not because I did not answer it. I just did not fulfill your personal expectation. further more Or actually I started that thread by saying, I will not be going down every rabbit hole. meaning will not follow every straw man you want me to chase down... it is all right there in the OP If I drop a topic it is not because I did not try, either my opponent is not smart enough to understand the answer because he or she has been conditioned to only accept a answer they were expecting the church position to be, or they simply refuse to accept anything I say. again, my job here is not to make your satisfied only provide you with the truth. Many people hate the truth even when Christ Himself was doing this he ran into the same type of people that are here today that would rather die in a lie than to just listen and ponder the truth.

---

Maybe one more, just because I think it's instructive.  

I lived the warnings in 6th and 7th grade I went to museums and watched the predictions on 16mm film that captain kirk or someone famous narrated, And I remember quoting wait a sec...
https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/06/...g-ice-age/

This shows what happened.

and it quotes a primary source:

an actual clip from a climate change paper at the time which triggered a media meltdown pun intended. At the same time other scientists was all about global warming. the article is trying to show how the media blew a trivial theory out of proportion and gave it creedence when it should not have... Somehow we are to also think the media is protected from make this same sky is falling mistakes again.

Your claim in that thread was that science and scientists are unreliable, frequently changing their predictions.

 As such, what matters is what scientists had to say on the matter, not what the media did.

 As pointed out to you in that thread, even Wikipedia pointed out that the notion of a mini-ice-age was not supported by the majority of scientific papers.

who gives a squirt? how would a 10 year old have access to these papers? IF Time magazine or one of the other media sources made such a big deal this was being taught in schools, or if the school system just picked this up and ran with it then it is on the society/government to change the curriculum to match the majority of the work.. which I believe it did. it is easy to ask what side of the fence you were on in 1975 and people tell you of course the winning side, and oh no I did not get mixed up in all the hype! it almost seems foolish to even be discussing this, and it is almost all certainly conjecture and story telling. This crap was taught to kids as scientific fact.. why do you think they made a movie with the star trek guys? they showed this at the science museum in the 1980 i can't imagine the scientific community was so ball less they could not control what was being passed off as science if it were so wrong back then!

 See the graph below for an example of what Wikipedia said on the subject.  Jumping from a claim about what scientists say to personal anecdotes and quotes about what the media said is simply flawed and very shitty argument, and it's an example of poor thinking.  And yet you count this as a hit or a case where you were right.   Now, it's possible that other sources do support the point that scientists predicted that in the majority back then.  But when you post a source which clearly contradicts you, as you did here and in that "atheistic satire" thread, then you've got no room to argue.  Misrepresenting sources is a form of lying.  I don't believe you likely intentionally misrepresented Wikipedia, but this is simply an example of your inability to think well, and springboarding from that into absurdist territory (as here).  In that post you again claimed that I had not responded substantively to your arguments.  I had (here and here).  

tertiary material what else you got? meaning I can make a graph too. I need something solid I'm not asking for primary source, just not a wiki page that can be fake infoed for the sake of saving face. Again I used wiki because it directly quoted primary material that showed scientist paper on the subject. I need something more this reeks of BS because of how involved the educational system was in this country back then. Let me see what I can find...



BOOM!
primary source material, which trumps your graph:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc...l-warming/
Granted 2010 but it says the idea of global warming is 35 years old.. now I was 35 in 2010 so it puts the concept the first time it was mentioned in 1975. which means everything you quoted that put global warming like your graph into the bull shit bin.

Can you see the reason for the mistrust in your precious 'science.' meaning in theoretical science? they can be off a few dozen years/meh close enough. they can out right mislead by making your graph start in 1965 and show a slightly high which could indicate one paper (otherwise why start in 1965) but the truth is the first paper on global warming did not happen till 1975 which should have been 20 papers on the subject by then! 20 papers 1..ooops close enough huh?

get out of here with this bs You are arguing experience I lived this crap along with research. Again according to the post about avoiding questions you just quoted... Just because I drop a subject does not mean I concede. It simply means I gave you an explanation and if you think you are winning the argument if I leave I'm ok with that. my task is not to reshape your mind, just provide you with truth. This the first time around was the reason I quit and will quit here again for the same reason. you have been exposed to the truth and if you choose to hang on to your cock and bull nonsense I will let you have it with no other arguments.. That is what the post you quoted says! and I have done that very thing. you don't seem to understand that I am not here to convince you to full fill I don't avoid questions statement. all I need do is provide you with the truth. once I smack down the secondary or primary sources and explain them.. it's done... anything else is fun./me having fun with you/making you all look like clowns for not accepting the scientific/irrefutable evidence you all claim to work off of. like here with the global warming. in 1975 there were more papers on global cooling than on global warming according to your own graph (5 to 10 papers) and my article that says there is only one global warming papers.

Yet you will persist I will make fun of you/make you look stupid, for ignoring real world evidence, you will hang on and I will move on.. then you will mark down a win in your little book remember none of the details. otherwise you would not bring this crap back up only for me to spoon feed you crow again.


Granted last time i did not go this in depth but I felt I went far enough/had other more import fish to fry/remember I am dividing my time between all of you and while you may only have one in depth jumbo post to write I usually have 3 or 4 a day. which again was the reason for my I do not shy away from any questions post.

(ETA:  It's possible to suggest that your point was that blindly following media representations of science is not reliable, but that really is a non-point.  Nobody was arguing in that thread that the media was infallible.  If that was your point, then it was flawed as well, in addition to your introducing it with a misleading post which mentioned science, not popular understanding of it or the media.  I'll quote the thread again:

commentary asside here is a wiki page dedicated to what they did know in the 1970 and literally hundreds of different papers all giving a different theory (which now is being lable conjecture because the theory and time line were wrong but back then that conjecture was scientific fact just like GCC is now!)
But again Dozens of PEERED REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC papers and references/evidences to the comming ice age.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

verses what?!?!? your 1lousey paper?!?! give me a break. you out of your depht there. you assumed your graph was right, you were wrong. again you are arguing both research and experience. It was this ice age stuff, then pollutants/acid rain, can't breath the air which is why we opted for car to emmit co2. Now if the concern in the 1980 was co2 then why design all cars to emmit this rather than the cotail of hydrocarbons? why not collect and capture like we do now with diesel co2? (again because co2 was not a thing anyone who tells you other wise is a post milleniam full of shitter/fraud. Then came the ozone hole/ can't go outside everyone living in domes then ocean dying for all the garbage, and then.. global warming, when that didn't pan out global climate change so that no matter what happens the sky will fall unless we pay carbon taxes.

The fact that there were some scientific papers arguing the theory does not advance the thesis that science as a whole was.  Here you are clearly not talking about media representations, but what scientists had to say ("but back then that conjecture was scientific fact").  And as noted, on that point the science was clearly against the mini-ice-age hypothesis.  The fact that there are minority opinions in science is unremarkable.  Arguing that we should distrust science as a whole because of the existence of minority opinions would just be stupid.  But feel free to clarify your argument here.  At a minimum, you claimed that the theory in question was considered scientific fact, a point which your own source refutes.  How can it be any clearer, Drich?)

seriously.. this is where you get mad and feel like I am ignoring you. your whole paragraph has no bearing on anything because I have up rooted your tertiary BS with a 2ndary source, therefore your conclusion are also garbage which makes your chage and final solution invalid.. I typically ignore this which again makes you made.. if I pick this apart I feel like it's already been done for a non lazy mind and does need me chewing up every detail for you..

(ETA2:  And I just checked the source you just quoted and that contradicted you as well (here). From your own source, "But people who obsess about these few instances of cooling-focused press are being a bit selective."  Of note, the article mentions two articles in popular magazines about the global cooling hypothesis and an "In Search Of..." episode, compared to two stories in national newspapers, including a headline.  So the numbers from your own source don't support you.  This is really basic stuff, Drich, and it doesn't look good.)

what is basic is to have several points of reference before you try and take anyone to school. I provided you with a paper and a provenance that ignited this scare if not fueled by the scientific community it most certainly was not confronted and stopped with in a decades time. Then I even up rooted your source material you were trying to use to scold me. what does not look good is this lazy attempt to come at me, when you yourself are guilt of the very same thing you are charging me with. So then when I have you on your heel after some time of being ballergient with me how do I drive the point home how do I put a scare in other would be challengers who want to come at me 1/2 cocked and have not done the research? what can I say or do to make you feel low if not lower than the pedestal you are trying to force me on to?

Or is that your complaint with me? when I win I treat you as an atheist would treat an ill prepared christian? IF I call you names, IF I question your intellect, IF I ridicule an argument that was so easily over come. IF I point out the foolish arrogance and pride it took to come at me gun blazing with source material I quickly over came... That is the reason you can melt down and just become a fact checker, but rather than comment you find 1 fact in 10, then start the lying cunt routine...

Do I like I said in the I answer all questions thread drop it?

What if you are not smart enough to tell when I drop a subject it is because I feel you have been exposed to several different levels of evidence, yet you ham fist on you keyboard as if nothing was side by me? then forever more you just count the win in your little book? to the point I can't get a word in edge wise, because all you see is a win.. never mind the F-ing op that explains everything I said and would do... what if you were to proud or simply not smart enough to understand I have not the time or inclination to argue a point adnauisum till either you get it, or I shame you into silence?

Again level 7 anger is all you guys get anymore and I move on. I'm not doing these crazy angry matches anymore.

So how about this. I show you you are wrong I stick by my guns and unless you can organize a proper factual defense I let it go... meaning if I over turn a tertiary source like wiki with a secondary source like that article which arguably be a primary source as it states 1975 was the first global warming paper because the date and not the papers direct content but again the date the content was first published was the core of the argument we are having.. You don't come back with more commentary or blog b/s, and start doing victory laps or over stretch and start the shaming me because you think your argument is rock solid.  put your big girl pants on google primary secondary and tertiary source materials and approach me like someone who has two sticks to rub together as far as intellect goes, rather throw mud and see what sticks.

This is why I always feel I am right if not 95% of the time. again I start with commentaries blogs wiki pages/people thoughts albeit smart people's thoughts, then I'll make a statement that usually supports the position. Then I take the source material for said wiki page as my secondary which sometime will also include definition/reference material to establish we are on the same page. then I will google primary material/irrefutable evidence.

meanwhile back in the swap you guys are calling me stupid, don't know what i am talking about, don't make sense or you start doing victory laps... Why would I think I was wrong? when rather than do the research or what you do is wrong, you all begin a campaign to kill the messenger in order to discredit the message...

tell you what here is what I see.. lets see what you do with that without calling you names..[/quote]

[Minimalist]

Why can't your fucking "god" teach you how to use the quote function.  He's as fucking inept as you are.

[The Grand Nudger]

The fact that we identified the hole in the ozone layer and then passed effective regulations to curtail cfcs is how we dodged that bullet.

It's difficult to imagine a worse example as a defense of climate science denial. In any case, I don't know that carbon taxes are -the- way to go, and they certainly aren't the only way to go...but it's worth mentioning that we already pay them. Remediation isn't free or cheap, nor is environmentally spurred migration, nor the loss of biodiveristy and habitat. I've long wondered why a specific political subset doesn't immediately recognize the ideological amenability of making polluters and exploiters pay their own bills, rather than squeezing John Q Taxpayer like a lemon.

It's almost as if there's no consistent guiding principle on the matter...or something.

[Drich]

Why can't your fucking "god" teach you how to use the quote function.  He's as fucking inept as you are.

You always provide me with perfect real world examples of the B/S I am talking about...

Can't address the message, so attack the messenger. make the messenger look bad in you weak mind it is the same as destroying the message. I see it on the news all the time and even in the commentary/fake news more.. if you can make a joke about someone they loose all credibility somehow.

I can't stand soft minded people to whom this appeals to.. except you minnie you mind is the soft serve this website is known for.

Tell me some more about the constitution.. (note I will not be making fun of you personally but the things you think do and say about the constitution!)

---

The fact that we identified the hole in the ozone layer and then passed effective regulations to curtail cfcs is how we dodged that bullet.

It's difficult to imagine a worse example as a defense of climate science denial.  In any case, I don't know that carbon taxes are -the- way to go, and they certainly aren't the only way to go...but it's worth mentioning that we already pay them.  Remediation isn't free or cheap, nor is environmentally spurred migration.

here's the thing sport.. CFC... are heavier than air, much. In Fact if there is a leak in a container it can stay indefinitely in an open air container if the material is not blown out or the container not tipped over.

Ozone... is 15 to 30Km high

it was said when we first were made to take our freon tests it would take 75 years to drop the levels low enough to effect the ozone layer. why? because it was supposedly the chlorine which broke apart from the molecule chain which caused atmospheric saturation takes a very long time to decay in the open air. so we should technically be getting worse/hole bigger for the next 50 years.

yet the hole is gone.

Which makes some in 'science' say we have no idea why the hole is or as there and why it is seal. but if the hole is seal then there is no way for the CFC's to split if less time cause the reduced saturation let alone regeneration of the O3 layer. This is not chemically possible.

A more sensible theory has to do with solar winds.. when the sun's output is very high it bombards the earth with actual particles of solar energy which could indeed break down O3 into O2 or just O (o3 being ozone into just oxygen) but you can't tax the sun and duponte (the makers of cfc refrigerant) isn't gong to pay the government billions to make people buy the 'new stuff' because the cfc they were making patent ran out...

Oh, guess what else! the Chfc/HFC (the stuff we converted to in the 90s to save us from the CFC of the 60 70 and 80) you know the stuff we used to replaced the cfc that ate a hole in the ozone???, That 'new stuff of the 1990s patents are running out, and guess what is next on the government chopping block for bad refrigerants! YES the SAME Chfc and HFC's that saved us from the ozone hole, are now global warming/climate change contributors so we have to stop using them Just as Duponts patents and licenses agreements are expiring! and guess who use has a newer replacement?!?! That right DUPONTE!!!! Dupont's new replacement which will be good for 20+ years until those patent run out are here to save us from our own.....  It just cost 10x as much!!! plus the pressures are crazy/more repair bills and home a/c system change out time cut in 1/2!! plus it is crazy toxic and some said highly flammable as it contains a high amount of natural gas.

[Drich]

I'm not going to respond to this tonight, but let's start here with just a tidbit.  I'll simply point out that, by all indications, you were refuted on the meaning of tohu/bohu (Genesis I believe) several Christmases ago.  You left early so we never actually finished that discussion, but at the time you left, you had simply repeated an argument that I had shown to be flawed.  I'm fully willing to revisit the discussion if you like.  But if you remember the discussion, you lead with a source that didn't exist, then you made a claim that was wrong according to Hebrew grammar, and then you posted a word study, which, as I pointed out to you, was actually self-refuting.  If posting non-existent sources and such is your way of leading with your weak material, well all I can say is, mission accomplished!   At best, it's unclear that you have always been right about scripture. I get that you probably don't remember the argument, but this is a typical case of counting the hits and ignoring the misses.  That's confirmation bias, and you are guilty of it a lot.   But that hasn't stopped you from making a boast here.   That type of confirmation bias is very common.  Fortunately, most people don't go around making brags like you do.  When you do, it's going to get you into trouble.  Especially if you are frequently wrong.  I'll try to respond to your specific complaints and counter-arguments at another time.

You can find the tohu/bohu thread here.

---

Maybe one more, just because I think it's instructive.  


Your claim in that thread was that science and scientists are unreliable, frequently changing their predictions.  As such, what matters is what scientists had to say on the matter, not what the media did.  As pointed out to you in that thread, even Wikipedia pointed out that the notion of a mini-ice-age was not supported by the majority of scientific papers.  See the graph below for an example of what Wikipedia said on the subject.  Jumping from a claim about what scientists say to personal anecdotes and quotes about what the media said is simply flawed and very shitty argument, and it's an example of poor thinking.  And yet you count this as a hit or a case where you were right.   Now, it's possible that other sources do support the point that scientists predicted that in the majority back then.  But when you post a source which clearly contradicts you, as you did here and in that "atheistic satire" thread, then you've got no room to argue.  Misrepresenting sources is a form of lying.  I don't believe you likely intentionally misrepresented Wikipedia, but this is simply an example of your inability to think well, and springboarding from that into absurdist territory (as here).  In that post you again claimed that I had not responded substantively to your arguments.  I had (here and here).  



(ETA:  It's possible to suggest that your point was that blindly following media representations of science is not reliable, but that really is a non-point.  Nobody was arguing in that thread that the media was infallible.  If that was your point, then it was flawed as well, in addition to your introducing it with a misleading post which mentioned science, not popular understanding of it or the media.  I'll quote the thread again:


The fact that there were some scientific papers arguing the theory does not advance the thesis that science as a whole was.  Here you are clearly not talking about media representations, but what scientists had to say ("but back then that conjecture was scientific fact").  And as noted, on that point the science was clearly against the mini-ice-age hypothesis.  The fact that there are minority opinions in science is unremarkable.  Arguing that we should distrust science as a whole because of the existence of minority opinions would just be stupid.  But feel free to clarify your argument here.  At a minimum, you claimed that the theory in question was considered scientific fact, a point which your own source refutes.  How can it be any clearer, Drich?)

(ETA2:  And I just checked the source you just quoted and that contradicted you as well (here). From your own source, "But people who obsess about these few instances of cooling-focused press are being a bit selective."  Of note, the article mentions two articles in popular magazines about the global cooling hypothesis and an "In Search Of..." episode, compared to two stories in national newspapers, including a headline.  So the numbers from your own source don't support you.  This is really basic stuff, Drich, and it doesn't look good.)

I applaud your efforts, Jörg. I got burned out dealing with these dickheads a decade ago. Mostly. When I see something completely egregiously stupid, I just can't help myself, though.

So I get applause if in fact the evidence supports me? of course not. youre just looking to have your ears tickled by what you already want to hear. The truth would be an unpleasant note for you, and why would you appaude that?

[Bob Kelso]

So I get applause if in fact the evidence supports me? of course not. youre just looking to have your ears tickled by what you already want to hear. The truth would be an unpleasant note for you, and why would you appaude that?

* emphasis is mine*

Oof, no ear tickling please. Or tickling in general.

[The Grand Nudger]

---

The fact that we identified the hole in the ozone layer and then passed effective regulations to curtail cfcs is how we dodged that bullet.

It's difficult to imagine a worse example as a defense of climate science denial.  In any case, I don't know that carbon taxes are -the- way to go, and they certainly aren't the only way to go...but it's worth mentioning that we already pay them.  Remediation isn't free or cheap, nor is environmentally spurred migration.

here's the thing sport.. CFC... are heavier than air, much. In Fact if there is a leak in a container it can stay indefinitely in an open air container if the material is not blown out or the container not tipped over.

Ozone... is 15 to 30Km high

it was said when we first were made to take our freon tests it would take 75 years to drop the levels low enough to effect the ozone layer. why? because it was supposedly the chlorine which broke apart from the molecule chain which caused atmospheric saturation takes a very long time to decay in the open air. so we should technically be getting worse/hole bigger for the next 50 years.

yet the hole is gone.

Which makes some in 'science' say we have no idea why the hole is or as there and why it is seal. but if the hole is seal then there is no way for the CFC's to split if less time cause the reduced saturation let alone regeneration of the O3 layer. This is not chemically possible.

A more sensible theory has to do with solar winds.. when the sun's output is very high it bombards the earth with actual particles of solar energy which could indeed break down O3 into O2 or just O (o3 being ozone into just oxygen) but you can't tax the sun and duponte (the makers of cfc refrigerant) isn't gong to pay the government billions to make people buy the 'new stuff' because the cfc they were making patent ran out...

Oh, guess what else! the Chfc/HFC (the stuff we converted to in the 90s to save us from the CFC of the 60 70 and 80) you know the stuff we used to replaced the cfc that ate a hole in the ozone???, That 'new stuff of the 1990s patents are running out, and guess what is next on the government chopping block for bad refrigerants! YES the SAME Chfc and HFC's that saved us from the ozone hole, are now global warming/climate change contributors so we have to stop using them Just as Duponts patents and licenses agreements are expiring! and guess who use has a newer replacement?!?! That right DUPONTE!!!! Dupont's new replacement which will be good for 20+ years until those patent run out are here to save us from our own.....  It just cost 10x as much!!! plus the pressures are crazy/more repair bills and home a/c system change out time cut in 1/2!! plus it is crazy toxic and some said highly flammable as it contains a high amount of natural gas.

Right, right, the universe itself is engaged in a massive conspiracy to make you look like a flaming idiot so that duponte can grind out more coin...and that's why we should do nothing in the face of this new challenge, which is fake news.

[Drich]

---

---

I applaud your efforts, Jörg. I got burned out dealing with these dickheads a decade ago. Mostly. When I see something completely egregiously stupid, I just can't help myself, though.

Can I add that science reacting to better data over time is a strength and not a weakness.

because you are brain washed...

making amendments= we did not know what the F we were talking about hence the change. but this time everything is truthful/fact.. till you have to change it again and again and again... 

Could you imagine what you would say about a religion that changed it mind about 'god' as much as your scientist change their minds about science?

You would say it take way too much faith to believe the current innervation of your 'god' would be the correct one. or didn't you say that the last innoration of your God was 100% correct? You would loose your minds if our roles were reversed and you were taught to view us that way. and rightfullful so.. There is not TRUTH in something always changing the story.

but that's the problem isn't it. you care not for the truth only truthieness.. whatever the lemming infront of you says.. that is all that is important but you do not want a fate any different than the guy next to you.

[The Grand Nudger]

Shouldn't the faithful be a little more concerned with gods green earth, as it's divinely mandated caretakers?

[Angrboda]

In the first place, these were your sources.  If you're calling your own sources BS and saying we shouldn't trust the sources that you cite, then you have a fucking screw loose.  Fine.  I'll dismiss all the sources that you've provided for your claims.  There.  Now you have no support for your arguments.  Happy?

As noted, what you were debating was that science gets things wrong.  Arguing that the media gets things wrong is not what you started with.  If you want to claim that the media gets some things wrong, particularly about science, then I'd agree with you.  That is a point without consequence.  In addition, as shown by the very article you cited, the media didn't get it as wrong as you claimed.  Again, can I believe your sources or not?  From the article upon which the graph was based (which you had access to): "Even cursory review of the news media coverage of the issue reveals that, just as there was no consensus at the time among scientists, so was there also no consensus among journalists. For example, these are titles from two New York Times articles: 'Scientists ask why world climate is changing; major cooling may be ahead' (Sullivan 1975a) and 'Warming trend seen in climate; two articles counter view that cold period is due' (Sullivan 1975b). Equally juxtaposed were The Cooling (Ponte 1976), which was published the year after Hothouse Earth (Wilcox 1975)."

Additionally, Wikipedia which you quoted, which included the graph, also included the information that graph was based upon and that information was as freely available to you as it was to me (here).  The article you now think trumps your own information only looked at articles that used the term "global warming," which is not necessarily inclusive of all relevant articles. The indexing service upon which that article was based doesn't even index some of the relevant sources.  If you had bothered looking up the source article that the graph was based upon, you would have found the details about their methodology, as well as the following table which refutes your implied claim that the 1975 article was the first to cite an increase in global temperatures (with full sources in the paper). Even if your new citation were a good argument, since you didn't provide it in the context of the discussion when the issue was raised, it's rather irrelevant. You didn't dispute either the graph or its sources when I quoted them. This is just you going back and trying to cover your ass. You're a day late and a dollar short, Drich.

Your response to me is nothing more than pathetic bullshit.  If I can't trust your sources, then what is the point in you posting them?  This is just ridiculous.  I've shown you wrong in multiple ways using information that you provided and still you protest.  The obvious answer is that you're a lunatic who can't think reasonably, defends himself at all costs no matter how ridiculous, and is thoroughly irrational.  If you were just stupid, I wouldn't have much of an issue engaging with you. But your faults extend much further than that.  So, given your ridiculous response to this issue, I won't bother responding to the rest of it, as there would be no point.  I may or may not engage you constructively in the future, however in general, I am once again writing you off because you are a complete lunatic.  If you feel like putting me on ignore or not engaging with my replies, knock yourself out.  The behavior of clueless lunatics like you is of no concern to me.

Now, fuck off.