Wiki
Quote:

Serowbot wrote on 11/06/19 at 08:50:34:


A man from outer space reviewing our modern day media might list Project Veritas as a right wing group but they'd also list the NY Times as a left wing group.

The video of the news anchor is pretty clear. There's no ambiguity. She felt her network sat on the story to protect their opportunity to interview the Royal Couple and because of the involvement of Bill Clinton. There's no deceptive editing.

"Bitter, party of one, your table's ready. Bitter, party of one, your table."

 Good one.

"Really Eggore......???"

 It was an attempt at sarcasm.  I do not think anthropological pathologists are jerks, they do go to school, and they almost exclusively use physical data to come to conclusions.



"But I noticed you still seem to be harboring some resents, over negative comments, from others, about your past experience with the Savage, etc..... "

 I don't harbor any resentment, I just indicate when people gripe that I have been through it too, and it makes little logical sense to be emotionally invested in what a forum member does with their personal property.  But they do, and its weird.



"Given your testimony, I must ask, why are pathologist allowed to give expert testimony, in our courts then?

You know what a expert witness is, right?"

 I do.  I've been one a number of times.  See above, I was attempting to indicate the exact opposite of what I think, I was unsuccessful.

There aren't 'versions of reality',

Nonsense. I have one version of reality, you have one, Eegore has one, TT has another, Sew has one.....  

Everyone has their version of reality, but every reasonable person acknowledges the obvious which is there really is only one reality, but we perceive it through the filters we put over our own senses.  

You see things in a manner I think is simply not true, you think I see things not true, a third person sees things differently than either of us....  

This is not a new concept. Like I said, everyone understands that.

That's a hollow equivocation- saying, essentially, that there is no objective truth, that all perspectives are equally valid.   A transparent, self-flattering, absurd conceit.  

I beginning to believe you don't read with a great deal of comprehension. Either that, or you're just arguing to argue. Or some combination of the two.

I said quite specifically, and I quote myself:
"but every reasonable person acknowledges the obvious which is there really is only one reality" which is essentially saying there is an objective truth.
I also said everyone of us have different perspectives that we believe are valid but may or may not be.

Like I said, I don't think you read well or perhaps you had what you thought was a clever slam "transparent, self-flattering, absurd conceit" and you worked it in, but it really doesn't make any sense.

You could hold that the S40 is a V-Twin, while another that it is a single cylinder- your believing the other is wrong doesn't elevate your broken consideration.   When confronted by pictures in the manual, you look for fault in the character of the author, discounting photos and diagrams.    When multiple manuals are then proffered, you attack the bearer.   That's a fundamentally dishonest ploy- and typical of you, Mark.
Completely and obviously not true. I can look and see the S40 is a single cylinder. Now, let's imagine I had never seen the S40 and someone told me it was a twin and I believed that person. Once I actually saw the single cylinder, I would know the truth.  

You think you are providing evidence that proves your hate driven opinions are factual, but you've not. You are providing more hate driven opinions.

And you're trying so hard to make yourself look smart, which you obviously are as you very write well, you're making yourself look foolish. I would suggest you stop and save a little face.

There was no burn TT you foolish man. I refuted everything Mavi wrote.

So TT: are you saying the statement " everyone of us have different perspectives that we believe are valid but may or may not be"  
is fundamentally different from Mavi attempt to argue that statement with: that saying, essentially that there is no objective truth, that all perspectives are equally valid

Don't both points of view state the same basic concept? If not, please explain how?

WebsterMark wrote on 11/06/19 at 15:50:56:

Thumperclone expressed his estimation clearly enough- accurately too, considering the request for explanation.   The impression you cultivate ain't something you can rectify with rationalizations, Mark.

There was no burn TT

Turn the chard embers of what remains of the sign on another obvious lie.

1.  Fact - trump broke the law with his quid pro quo.
That is an opinion, that is not a fact. It has not been adjudicated by a legally binding authority. It is an allegation based on someone's interpretation (opinion) of how a law should be applied.

This is not debatable.