Compulsory vaccinations

[Notch7]

I only have one

Himmie, you are posting under 2 different names just in this thread.

Personally I think your old user names "walkswithturkeys" and "ghostofredherring" far more inventive than your current names.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

You mean there are other defective people on here?
You, and others believe an unprovable theory.
That's faith. You should call it a religion.

Himmie, you are posting under 2 different names just in this thread.
Personally I think your old user names "walkswithturkeys" and "ghostofredherring" far more inventive than your current names.

Clearly there are other defective posters on here.
They make unprovable false allegations because it amuses them.
They know their allegations are unverifiable and untestable, but they make them anyway.
Their allegations, and anyone who believes them, is based on pure bigotry and blind faith.
If that is the kind of person that they are, can anything else they claim be worth reading?
I don't think so.

 

[johnny2007]

Clearly there are other defective posters on here.
They make unprovable false allegations because it amuses them.
They know their allegations are unverifiable and untestable, but they make them anyway.
Their allegations, and anyone who believes them, is based on pure bigotry and blind faith.
If that is the kind of person that they are, can anything else they claim be worth reading?
I don't think so.

As usual you're asking for proof even for personal opinions.
So, I'll turn it to you: prove that you post under only one username.

 

[Mottie]

I think the Captain is having problems answering my post #30. Perhaps Dazzler can answer it for him?

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

If someone was posting under two identities for nefarious reasons, do you think they would admit it if asked?

I think the Captain is having problems answering my post #30. Perhaps Dazzler can answer it for him?

I can try:
If someone is posting under two identities for nefarious reasons, it's highly unlikely that they would admit to it, otherwise they wouldn't have been doing it for nefarious reasons.
What does that prove?

 

[Mottie]

I can try:
If someone is posting under two identities for nefarious reasons, it's highly unlikely that they would admit to it, otherwise they wouldn't have been doing it for nefarious reasons.
What does that prove?

Well, they wouldn’t have been doing it for non-nefarious reasons, would they?
Your answer proves that you cant accept their claim of having one identity as the truth. Are you answering for the pair of you?

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

As usual you're asking for proof even for personal opinions.
So, I'll turn it to you: prove that you post under only one username.

I'm glad that you now admit that your allegation is purely a personal opinion and not anything based on facts.
Judging by your usual claims and statements, the same applies, despite your claims that they are reality.

It's not possible to prove that anyone only posts under one username, just as it is not possible that one does. That is what makes your, and others, allegations spurious.

spurious

1. not being what it purports to be; false or fake.
   "separating authentic and spurious claims"
2. (of a line of reasoning) apparently but not actually valid. "this spurious reasoning results in nonsense"

Similar:
bogus

fake

not genuine
specious

false

factitious

counterfeit

fraudulent

trumped-up

sham

mock

feigned

pretended

contrived

fabricated

manufactured

fictitious

make-believe

invalid

fallacious

meretricious

artificial

imitation

simulated

ersatz

phoney

pseudo

pretend

cod

adulterine
​

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

Well, they wouldn’t have been doing it for non-nefarious reasons, would they?

Yes, they could have been doing it for amusement, their own or others.

Your answer proves that you cant accept their claim of having one identity as the truth.

Yes, it's as nonsensical as the allegation that anyone has more than one identity.
Both are unprovable.
So why do you make unverifiable allegations?

Are you answering for the pair of you?

You asked me to, remember?

Perhaps Dazzler can answer it for him?

 

[Mottie]

You asked me to, remember?

That was a rhetorical question.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

That was a rhetorical question.

A rhetorical question means no answer is expected. It does not meant that an answer can be denied.
Moreover, a rhetorical question frequently has no question mark, especially if the rhetorical nature is not obvious.
You can of course claim that a question was intended to be rhetorical if you don't like the answer.

 

[transam]

Well, they wouldn’t have been doing it for non-nefarious reasons, would they?
Your answer proves that you cant accept their claim of having one identity as the truth. Are you answering for the pair of you?

its not the first time dazzler has been running multiple ID's , he was doing it a good while back under one of his previous user names

cap tin Dazzler the master of covert operations

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

Himmie, you are posting under 2 different names just in this thread.

Personally I think your old user names "walkswithturkeys" and "ghostofredherring" far more inventive than your current names.

As usual you're asking for proof even for personal opinions.
So, I'll turn it to you: prove that you post under only one username.

Well, they wouldn’t have been doing it for non-nefarious reasons, would they?
Your answer proves that you cant accept their claim of having one identity as the truth. Are you answering for the pair of you?

its not the first time dazzler has been running multiple ID's , he was doing it a good while back under one of his previous user names

cap tin Dazzler the master of covert operations

Clearly there is a concerted effort by a limited group who are intent on discrediting others based solely, as johnnoy2007 admits, on purely a personal opinion, and as mottie admits, is completely unverifiable.

There can only be one reason for their group conspiracy theory, they feel completely outmatched by the wit and intellect of those that they seek to discredit. Why else would they posit this conspiracy theory?
Anyone?

 

[transam]

hmmm a response from cap tin dazzler either as the cap tin or as dazzler

probably mentioning ****s

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

hmmm a response from cap tin dazzler either as the cap tin or as dazzler

probably mentioning ****s

Blimey, a response from transam without any racist remark. That's a pleasant change.

 

[ReganAndCarter]

I only have one.



Not hundreds. Just a handful. You are one.

Don't know whether you do it just to wind me up or whether you are defective.



Possibly so regarding your posts.



I only post under the one ID.



Why dont you trust me when I tell you Im not posting with multiple IDs?

Multiquoting and answering individual points one after the other is trademark Herring, Turkeys, Himmy, Dazzler. It's more or less unigue to you/them. Gives you away every time.