The problem is that you dismiss substantiated facts, without a shred of emperical evidence to the contrary, so you can push a far-fetched agenda. Only what strangelove has to say matters to strangelove; nothing else does.
So if I say that George Washington was the first president and that is a historical fact with plenty of physical emperical evidence substantiated by qualified historical scholars and it doesn't fit with your conspiracy that George Washington was really murdered by the Jesuits and an imposter was the first president then you simply make a snarky comment and dismiss the aggregate of the world's evidence proving George Washington was, in fact, the first president (without proving he wasn't) because it doesn't fit with your conspiracy agenda.
That's the problem and we do not find it acceptable.
This is not the strangelove conspiracy hour where all real evidence and scholarship is meaningless and only starngelove's far-fetched conspiracies have meaning.
You'll have to build your own forum for that purpose and find a way to attract people to it or learn how too interrelate with people here on CC on something other than a delusional narcisstic sarcastic level where you actually begin to deal with the evidence others bring to the table in a meaningful way. That is if you want anyone to care two pennies as to what you have to say.
^ That is an accurate statement. You have not dealt with much of anything except to paste a quick wiki comment the source of which you didn't cite and a couple of authors considered spurious as you dismissed every single scholar, piece of evidence, and historically accepted fact brought to your atention without any evidence whatsoever but your own authority couched in a snarky sentence or two.
If I was to exercise your way of interrelating, I would just waive my hands and say Eric Phelps is a fraud as are any other of the sources you shared and move on to something relevant. That's how you've operated here and we're not going to stop pointing it out when you do so because it is not reasonable.
And while I can appreciate that you have a conspiracy forum where you guys cosign each other, this isn't that place.
Here you have to PROVE what you're asserting if you want us to accept it and DISPROVE what you don't accept. Since you fail to do so, we reject it. Your opinion isn't as important to us as it is to you. It's not what you think, it's what you can prove. That's how it works here strangelove. And we don't read minds either so start expressing what your positions are more coherently.
Right now, we have to play off bits and scraps of information you toss out there while you react to what people say in their attempt to figure out what your position is and where you're coming from because you won't express it well.
Substanciated by WHO? The RCC and people who have a 'Protestant' nametag? that doesnt make anything FACT. I advise people to listen to Alberto Riveras testimony and make up their own minds. You want to dismiss him as a phony regasrdless of the substanciated facts that prove he is an ex-jesuit priest.
Whats my far fetched agenda then?
You can say whatever you want. People will have to use their brains to come to discern the truth.
WE? Who's WE? All I see is you and a devout catholic getting the hump. the rest of the guys arn't complaining about anything.
+1 BuzZword....can you just say conspiiiiiracies one more time please I dont think they heard you in china.
I do have my own forum where Christians talk openly about conspiracies and other such material without having to put up with pompous condescension around every corner.
I've dealt with your evidence. I've said they are lying. You've dealt with my evidence. You said they are lying. So we both think the others sources are lying. So we'll just have to keep bringing forth evidence and let the thread reader decide. If you THINK your sources are somehow more reliable than mine then I guess thats just a bonus for you eh? no need to keep going on about it.
.