| Re: Another Vandemann Lie!! Actually a number of them. But what else is new?
[Top-posting fixed]
Roberto Baggio wrote:
> "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.
> >>
> >> 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.
> >
> 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.
Who said he doesn't?
BTW, figure out how to post properly, OK?
E.P.
|