If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Ken Pangborn reneges on word
Greegor wrote:
Kane was forced to admit that the reference showed correlation but not causality, "forced?" I made the observation long before I used the word, "concede" which I used to cut Ken and Doan off from their escapist use of the title to avoid discussing the actual study. and that the title wrongly asserted causality, That is true ONLY if one presumes the title does in fact reflect the content of the article or the study. It did not. It was not wrong because it asserted causality but because it did not conform to the content of either. I predicted the usual mental masturbation from Kane. You are lying. Nailed dead to rights Kane just weasels MORE. Nothing to weasel. Ken lied, and Doan IS lying. I made NO claim the study or the article was trying to claim cause. I pointed out myself the title was not consistent with either. What's the idea, Kane, to BURY your CONCESSION among all of this volume of denial? Me? Bury it? I've demanded Doan POST IT...he has kept it buried and simply screamed accusations without providing the original proof. He's a liar. You are a liar. Ken's a liar, because you will make accusations then refuse, when confronted, to show the proof. So, where IS my "concession," Greg? In it's full context. You need to read my "concession." All it was was another way of saying what I had already said...that the title did not accurately represent the content of the article or study. That is what I conceded. Do you think it will work? Work to get Doan or Ken to honestly discuss the study? No, but I had hopes. Work to get them to provide the proof of their accusation about my "concession?" Hope. But I had hopes. So far my hopes are dashed. They are still avoiding the actual article and their errors. And they are using the title, as you are, to make a claim about my statements that is not true. Tell you what. YOU bring the posts up and show where I concede that the article or the study tried to claim cause. Go for it, Liar. Or better, YOU argue the content of the study with me. Let's see How YOU run now. Just like Ken and Doan. By the way, leave the ****ing addresses alone. You touch them and I'll start posting your posts to even MORE relevant newsgroups where those that recognize liars and thugs like you are even LESS tolerant than I am. I'm tired of your thuggery, Greg. 0:] |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Ken Pangborn reneges on word | Greegor | Spanking | 133 | March 6th 07 04:16 PM |
Ken Pangborn reneges on word | Greegor | Foster Parents | 133 | March 6th 07 04:16 PM |
reading | Stephanie | General | 65 | November 28th 05 07:23 AM |
Teaching a 5 yo to read | Jim | General | 42 | May 2nd 05 02:59 AM |
A praise report. PRAISE GOD!!! | [email protected] | Solutions | 8 | April 23rd 05 02:44 PM |