"On Oct 15, 2007 8:23 AM PDT, you wrote:
[W]hy is it those who are so frightened and threatened by the data we present never want to argue the data itself, but always try to attack us personally? Could it be because arguing the data is a losing proposition for you?
Pretty funny, Mike...."
1 comment:
see https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=3389103009363410023&postID=3086644707768770223
My post of April 17, 2008 7:36 AM asked for doucumentation of claims regarding the career of so-called “Dr.” Ken Johnston, the alleged “head of photo archives” for the Apollo program. Bara called this a ‘personal attack’ and denounced miscellaneous ‘creeps’ – but refused to provide evidence, or post my response:
Mike: "So once again, Jim, you choose a personal attack as your first option, since you can't argue the facts".
I do not think these words mean what you think they mean.
In my lexicon, a 'personal attack' is calling somebody a liar, a moron, a creep, an evilly-motivated agent of the dark forces, etc etc....
"Argung the facts" in my book is asking what evidence is available to support claims and interpretations made by other people, regardless of those people's personal motives or shortcomings.
Who of us is it, who is doing WHICH of these approaches?
Ever since you and Richard began your campaign of personal attacks on me for asking factual questions related to your claims, I have continued to dig out evidence and verifiable facts that cast your verbal allegations into question.
And you continue to bluster, dodge, and .. well, attack personally with nonsensical smears and made-up excuses. List of examples available on request.
If I'm not understanding your English properly, please clarify. and don't just say, "It's in my book somewhere...".
More.. Mike: "you might have been a worthy adversary."
Don't overinflate your importance. I've never thought of you as any sort of "adversary" with all the implications of that term. More of a 'noxious irritant', at most.
Post a Comment