| Re: Another Vandemann Lie!! Actually a number of them. But what else is new?
He made reference to my mother explaining to me the definition of "virgin"
after vehemently stating that he has not used the word to describe a
photograph. What was the reason for having my mother explain to me what the
word "virgin" means? Regardless, he was proven to have lied in his
statement.
He has called me a liar on numerous occasions.
Stating that he does not resort to name calling is totally inaccurate.
Saying that he doesn't adhere
"Ed Pirrero" <gcmschemist@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1165419017.967432.231760@f1g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
>
> Bruce Jensen wrote:
>> Ed Pirrero wrote:
>>
>> > Really? Which part is opinion?
>> >
>> > I see one in there, besides the invective.
>> >
>> > E.P.
>>
>> I pointed out two of them, which you snipped. The rest are left to the
>> readers' perceptions.
>
> OK, now I see the other one. "Much" of what he wrote wasn't opinion.
> Less than half of his points were opinion. I do agree that the
> invective makes for difficult reading.
>
> Really, if you want to have discussion on the merits of a particular
> course of action, it's best to leave hyperbole and name-calling out.
> Mike doesn't adhere to that in the least, and cherry-picks his "facts"
> as suit his conclusions. Real scientists usually refer to such things
> as "junk" science.
>
> No matter how fervently one believes in something, they are not
> entitled to their own set of facts.
>
> E.P.
>
|