Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Vault
Time Travel Schematics
T.E.C. Time Archive
The Why Files
Have You Seen...?
Chronovisor
TimeTravelForum.tk
TimeTravelForum.net
ParanormalNetwork.net
Paranormalis.com
ConspiracyCafe.net
Streams
Live streams
Featured streams
Multi-Viewer
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Time Travel Forum
John Titor's Legacy
Who Perpetrated the John Titor Hoax?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Peregrini" data-source="post: 53430" data-attributes="member: 2670"><p>What fun. It appears we shall continue.</p><p>Mr.Temporal Recon;</p><p>I have been civil, at least I believe so, with you so far. Yet, each additional post of yours appears more hostile than the previous. ( I hope I'm not making an assumption)</p><p>I am not the least bit tuckered out and no, I am not thirsty. At least not for what you have to offer.</p><p>Let's begin:</p><p>There are four times you have appealed to the "audience" for help.</p><p>Post #58</p><p>Post #62</p><p>Post #66</p><p>Post #66</p><p> </p><p>I agree. You do need help.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Please, if you can possibly spare the time, list a few, or all, of my attacks against you. Not against your evidence, but you personally.</p><p>Here are some of yours;</p><p>You presume to call anyone who does not accept Titor's story (or is it if they don't believe your evidence about Titor's story) " intellectually dishonest":</p><p></p><p></p><p>You call me a failure:</p><p></p><p></p><p> </p><p>You make fun of the fact that I "know how" to use a dictionary.</p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p> </p><p>You claim I have invented a term.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>You have referred to "lay" community or person like it is a bad thing, are you somehow above that station?</p><p>At this point I must ask, "Are you a lawyer? You act like "you think" you know the law."</p><p> </p><p></p><p>Funny, if anyone really cares to, they might look at posts #45 & #46, and decide which one is more lengthy.</p><p>(oh look, I've appealed to the "audience")</p><p> </p><p>You question my training and education.</p><p> </p><p></p><p>Do you presume to know me? Do you know my training or education? Have I challenged your authority, education or, training? Don't misunderstand this. I am not angry or defensive. I have nothing to be defensive about. I am responding to your audacity.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>But, are you helping me learn from my mistakes or yours?</p><p> </p><p>Sarcasm?</p><p></p><p> </p><p>I compared your definitions and mine. They were the same. Once again the main definition concerning your position;</p><p>Your definition (Black's Law Dictionary )</p><p>Evidence: Something (including testimony, documents and tangible objects) that tends to prove or disprove the existence of an alleged fact</p><p>My definition (Dictionary.com)</p><p>evidence</p><p>1. ground for belief or disbelief; data on which to base proof or to establish truth or falsehood</p><p></p><p>Yep, I got em ( though actually, I am getting them for your edification, not mine. I already know what they mean. You seem to be having the biggest problem with understanding the proper use of words and I am only trying to help you learn. You're welcome too).</p><p>skep·tic [skep-tik]</p><p>noun</p><p>1. a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual.</p><p>2.a person who maintains a doubting attitude, as toward values, plans, statements, or the character of others.</p><p>de·bunk [dih-buhngk]</p><p>verb (used with object)</p><p>to expose or excoriate (a claim, assertion, sentiment, etc.) as being pretentious, false, or exaggerated:</p><p>I must be a little of both.</p><p></p><p>Yes, I do have evidence.</p><p></p><p>Nope, I still don't assume.</p><p></p><p>"generally sweeping generalizations" (redundant) [ do you want the Webster's of that term?]</p><p>"usually come from the most uninformed of us" ( hmm. a generalization I do believe)</p><p>"don't you agree"</p><p>I guess, considering the above, I must.</p><p> </p><p></p><p>Post #62</p><p>I think this is the first and only time when you have. Your Gallantry knows no bounds.</p><p> </p><p>Now the Penultimate point.</p><p> </p><p></p><p>Post #35</p><p></p><p>post #42</p><p></p><p>Post #44</p><p></p><p>Post #46</p><p></p><p>Post #46</p><p></p><p>post #49</p><p></p><p>Post #49</p><p></p><p>Post #49</p><p></p><p>Post #49</p><p></p><p>Post #54</p><p></p><p>post #58</p><p></p><p>Post #62</p><p></p><p>Post #62</p><p> </p><p>Well, you have been "all over the place" with what you call "the stuff" in your book and I'm sorry to have to tell you, No, the legal community is not firmly behind you in your, ehem, definitions of evidence, proof and fact. (that is a huge assumption and generalization on your part) You still have it wrong.</p><p> </p><p>At post # 35 you entered the debate here with a declarative statement that Titor was in fact a time traveler.</p><p></p><p> </p><p>In post #38 I asked if you would show this evidence that proves it beyond a reasonable doubt. It is now post #67 and you have evaded every request, replying with nonsense and implying I, and anyone else that wants to know, should read your book.</p><p> </p><p>At this juncture I must tell you; "Mr. Temporal recon, you are beginning to bore me. It is time to put-up or shut-up. Either offer some evidence to support your claim that Titor IS a REAL time traveler, the reason that this debate began in the first place, or Shut The Fuck Up!</p><p> </p><p>(not really, I just though it was fun to say that. If you want to continue, we will, and we can begin to "really" discuss you and your book. Just cuz I won't buy it doesn't mean I didn't check into it.)</p><p> </p><p>Well, Good luck with your book sales. I won't be buying one of course but, you hang in there cupcake, somebody will.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Peregrini, post: 53430, member: 2670"] What fun. It appears we shall continue. Mr.Temporal Recon; I have been civil, at least I believe so, with you so far. Yet, each additional post of yours appears more hostile than the previous. ( I hope I'm not making an assumption) I am not the least bit tuckered out and no, I am not thirsty. At least not for what you have to offer. Let's begin: There are four times you have appealed to the "audience" for help. Post #58 Post #62 Post #66 Post #66 I agree. You do need help. Please, if you can possibly spare the time, list a few, or all, of my attacks against you. Not against your evidence, but you personally. Here are some of yours; You presume to call anyone who does not accept Titor's story (or is it if they don't believe your evidence about Titor's story) " intellectually dishonest": You call me a failure: You make fun of the fact that I "know how" to use a dictionary. You claim I have invented a term. You have referred to "lay" community or person like it is a bad thing, are you somehow above that station? At this point I must ask, "Are you a lawyer? You act like "you think" you know the law." Funny, if anyone really cares to, they might look at posts #45 & #46, and decide which one is more lengthy. (oh look, I've appealed to the "audience") You question my training and education. Do you presume to know me? Do you know my training or education? Have I challenged your authority, education or, training? Don't misunderstand this. I am not angry or defensive. I have nothing to be defensive about. I am responding to your audacity. But, are you helping me learn from my mistakes or yours? Sarcasm? I compared your definitions and mine. They were the same. Once again the main definition concerning your position; Your definition (Black's Law Dictionary ) Evidence: Something (including testimony, documents and tangible objects) that tends to prove or disprove the existence of an alleged fact My definition (Dictionary.com) evidence 1. ground for belief or disbelief; data on which to base proof or to establish truth or falsehood Yep, I got em ( though actually, I am getting them for your edification, not mine. I already know what they mean. You seem to be having the biggest problem with understanding the proper use of words and I am only trying to help you learn. You're welcome too). skep·tic [skep-tik] noun 1. a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual. 2.a person who maintains a doubting attitude, as toward values, plans, statements, or the character of others. de·bunk [dih-buhngk] verb (used with object) to expose or excoriate (a claim, assertion, sentiment, etc.) as being pretentious, false, or exaggerated: I must be a little of both. Yes, I do have evidence. Nope, I still don't assume. "generally sweeping generalizations" (redundant) [ do you want the Webster's of that term?] "usually come from the most uninformed of us" ( hmm. a generalization I do believe) "don't you agree" I guess, considering the above, I must. Post #62 I think this is the first and only time when you have. Your Gallantry knows no bounds. Now the Penultimate point. Post #35 post #42 Post #44 Post #46 Post #46 post #49 Post #49 Post #49 Post #49 Post #54 post #58 Post #62 Post #62 Well, you have been "all over the place" with what you call "the stuff" in your book and I'm sorry to have to tell you, No, the legal community is not firmly behind you in your, ehem, definitions of evidence, proof and fact. (that is a huge assumption and generalization on your part) You still have it wrong. At post # 35 you entered the debate here with a declarative statement that Titor was in fact a time traveler. In post #38 I asked if you would show this evidence that proves it beyond a reasonable doubt. It is now post #67 and you have evaded every request, replying with nonsense and implying I, and anyone else that wants to know, should read your book. At this juncture I must tell you; "Mr. Temporal recon, you are beginning to bore me. It is time to put-up or shut-up. Either offer some evidence to support your claim that Titor IS a REAL time traveler, the reason that this debate began in the first place, or Shut The Fuck Up! (not really, I just though it was fun to say that. If you want to continue, we will, and we can begin to "really" discuss you and your book. Just cuz I won't buy it doesn't mean I didn't check into it.) Well, Good luck with your book sales. I won't be buying one of course but, you hang in there cupcake, somebody will. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Time Travel Forum
John Titor's Legacy
Who Perpetrated the John Titor Hoax?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top