(August 22, 2017 at 12:59 am)Khemikal Wrote: @Astonished
Meh, being selectively skeptical still counts as being skeptical. Similarly, being skeptical -for no reason-...to hell with evidence, still counts as being skeptical.
RR fits neither description of nominal skepticism. RR is not a skeptic. RR is stubbornly credulous, the very opposite of skepticism of any kind.
Nuh uh. He's skeptical of your skepticism about the thing he claims he's not talking about.
