Non problematic evidence?

[Charles Collins]

Untrue?

It seems to me you don't even know what the word means. You keep talking in riddles, making claims that you can/will not back up with anything solid. It's pathetic.

There isn't anything I said that wasn't true. And you can't provide a single example of something that isn't true.

As long as you keep playing these immature games I will indeed continue to keep on calling you out about things you claim you are not saying whilst actually saying it.

You have posted 63 times since March 28 and none of your post have been either part of a discussion or otherwise informative, which - again - justifies the question what it is exactly that you are doing here, except bore us all to death of course?

I give up. You are completely hopeless. Good luck.

[Martin Weidmann]

I give up. You are completely hopeless. Good luck.

How big is your mirror?

[Walt Cakebread]

How big is your mirror?

I doubt his mirror is big enough to see the reflection a giant fool....

[Martin Weidmann]

I doubt his mirror is big enough to see the reflection a giant fool....

Regardless, it turned out that Charles Collins is just one more LN who believes evidence which he can or will not explain, defend or discuss.

Nothing new, really... there have been a bunch of those in the past and there probably will be more in the future.

[John Iacoletti]

Regardless, it turned out that Charles Collins is just one more LN who believes evidence which he can or will not explain, defend or discuss.

Particularly annoying after he demanded (in the other thread) that I explain myself after I said that what little evidence there is that points to LHO is weak and circumstantial and all of it is questionable, arguable, impeachable, or tainted in some way. I responded with a lengthy and detailed explanation. Then all of a sudden he?s not interested in discussing the evidence.

[Martin Weidmann]

Particularly annoying after he demanded (in the other thread) that I explain myself after I said that what little evidence there is that points to LHO is weak and circumstantial and all of it is questionable, arguable, impeachable, or tainted in some way. I responded with a lengthy and detailed explanation. Then all of a sudden he?s not interested in discussing the evidence.

He'll have my vote for the biggest waste of time award in 2019.

The only good thing to come out of it is that he can never credibly challenge or question other posters