Posted on 07/02/2009 1:44:05 PM PDT by cycle of discernment
Trying to boost the post count..., eh?
I’ll tell you why I was *extremely happy* to see that this eBay seller had said he was giving this document to WorldNetDaily... I knew that this meant we would *finally* get our verification, in short order — of whether he really did have a document, and whether the document (if it existed) was authentic, and we would be putting this “speculation” on the matter behind us in a matter of a few days.
I think our “few days” is close to being up about now. If WorldNetDaily has not reported receiving the documentation by sometime early next week (I’m being quite generous here... LOL...), then we can be assured that we’ve got sometime following the exact same “game plan” that Chief Editor Korir used at API (African Press International) in scamming everyone.
This was already debunked. How could you be so gullible as to still hold out hope that WND is going to give us verification of of its authenticity?
As far as I can tell, WND hasn't told us anything yet. They've let us figure it out on our own. And now that we've exposed Lucas Smith as a fraud, you're insisting we should look to WND for answers. No thank you.
You said — This was already debunked. How could you be so gullible as to still hold out hope that WND is going to give us verification of of its authenticity?
—
I was debunking this one from the start... LOL...
No, the reason I was so happy that WorldNetDaily was going to get it — is — this was the first instance of *anything* in which an “outside contact” was supposed to have contact with the document.
AND THUS..., that meant in short order it would be debunked right away, being that it wasn’t true.
It’s when something like this is “supposed to” go to an outside contact, that is a public contact, that one is able to have something positively debunked. And from what we’ve seen, that has happened.
I would recommend that for all such documents. That they all go to outside contacts and public contacts (like WorldNetDaily) who publishes information to the public on their news site.
That’s how you get something debunked...
Oh..., and you’ll notice that I mentioned chief editor Korir, because *that* was the exact same thing he was going to do, too... that is — send his “tape” to an outside and public contact, Fox News.
When that never happened, then it was debunked, too. It’s like I was saying in many previous posts, about this and API (African Press International) and chief Editor Korir.
And so..., I would recommend that everyone *always take a debunking stance* immediately on these kinds of things and *not* accept them right away. Embrace all the negative information on supposed evidence or documentation about Obama — *until* — something is first *positively authenticated* and *absolutely authenticated* and/or verified. That’s the course of action to take with all these scammers and the so-called “evidence” that is supposedly “out there” (on the Internet).
Definitely fun! :-)
Saul Alinsky teaches that we should have **fun** doing what we like. :-)
And...Wow! What a inexpensive way to stir up interest in Obama’s natural born status!
My thoughts exactly!
Too bad we were attacked by some who didn't see it the way we did, their loss.
That's what they get for being trolls though, forever pissed off at life and always unhappy (typical libs)
Bull. Show me where you posted any proof that it was a fraud. You didn’t debunk anything, and neither did WND. I did. You kept saying we needed WND to tell us if it was authentic or fraudulent. You’re still saying that, and it’s still not true.
WND was in contact with him, and still didn’t debunk it. In fifteen minutes of casual searching, I found proof that he was a fraud. The next day, I posted some of what I found; enough to prove he was a fraud. Other FReepers repeated what I posted, and added to it. He was proven a fraud by FReepers, and still you were claiming that we needed WND to tell us whether or not it was a fraud.
You’ve been pushing WND like some kind of messiah. Obviously we don’t need WND to tell us what we already know.
It sure was fun. Now we just have to sit back and wait for WND to tell us what to think. LOL
Sitting here chuckling! :-)
I was debunking this one from the start... ~ Star Traveler
Calling people gullible, and claiming WND has a monopoly on facts does not constitute proof that the auction was a fraud. And now claiming that we can't be sure it was a fraud unless and until WND says so doesn't count either.
It was easily debunked when it didn’t show up at WorldNetDaily. That was the debunking of it and that’s why I was glad it the eBay seller said it was going to show up there. After that, it was easy... the rest was downhill...
If it didn’t show up, it’s a scam. And it didn’t show up.
On the other hand if it did show up, then WorldNetDaily, as an outside contact and having nothing to do with the eBay seller, would be able to verify it. Again, the next step in debunking it, if the first step was followed through with.
But, in this case, the first step of getting it to WorldNetDaily was never done.
And so, it’s just like it was with chief editor Korir at API (African Press International) where he said the same thing, the tape was supposed to show up at Fox News. But, it never showed up there... thus debunked...
That’s all the proof that a normal and sensible person needs...
It’s not a complicated process.
My birth certificate hasn’t shown up at WND either. That doesn’t make it a fraud.
Debunking it means proving it false. Just because your fantasies involving WND didn’t come to fruition, doesn’t prove anything. Besides, when I debunked it, it wasn’t supposed to be at WND anyway.
Try to work with the facts, okay?
Gullible is accepting such a claim right off the bat and claiming that Obama is afraid of it and that Obots are trying to keep it from getting out to the public, and that the fact that people were bidding it up to $1 Million showed that it was valuable.... :-) .... All of that was most likely *staged* by the scammer himself... LOL... That’s not debunking it, that’s accepting a scammer’s claim to legitimacy...
And you never saw me say that WorldNetDaily had a claim to all the facts. What you’re missing here, is very simply, that *this* was the *first instance* in which an *outside connection* (outside of the one making the claim and selling it) was supposed to be getting the document.
That was the very thing that made it possible to definitely debunk it, just on the basis of what happened, after the seller said he was sending it.
It’s *that fact* that an outside entity is supposed to be getting it — that provides for the “debunking”. If it doesn’t show up, then it’s debunked.
It’s exactly like chief editor Korir and his claim of sending the Michelle Obama phone tape to Fox News. It never showed up there, either. No one said that Fox News had an exclusive claim on the truth, either — but — the fact that it was supposed to show up there — and never did — that was enough to show that it was a hoax.
You said — My birth certificate hasn’t shown up at WND either. That doesn’t make it a fraud.
—
If I said to the FReepers here that I had your birth certificate and it showed that you were born in Kenya, you would dispute me in that assertion of mine (unless you’re claiming that you were actually born in Kenya, which I doubt that you were...). For sake of this illustration, we’re going to accept that you were not born in Kenya.
BUT..,. I’m saying on this forum that your birth certificate *does say* that you were born in Kenya. You’re saying that it doesn’t.
SO..., I post that I’m sending your birth certificate, that I have in my possession, to WorldNetDaily for them to look at and verify that this is *indeed* true. Well, after a while it never shows up at WorldNetDaily, and you say that I haven’t proven it.
After a certain amount of time, when it doesn’t show up at WorldNetDaily — people here are going to conclude that what you say is more credible than what I’m saying, because I did say I was sending it to WorldNetDaily — and — it never showed up there.
If I was being as true and honest about it showing up at WorldNetDaily as I claim to be in saying that this supposed birth certificate says (as I’m looking at it) that you were born in Kenya — then — it would have already shown up at WorldNetDaily.
All the readers here can conclude that my story has been debunked, that I don’t have the birth certificate and that it’s not as I said, in that you were born in Kenya...
As I said, it’s a *real simple idea* and is not complex.... LOL...
You are taking this far, far, far too seriously!
Where's you Saul Alinsky sense of humor?
See post #135 ... you’re taking the liar far to seriously.
Well..., I would recommend a writing class for you, to spruce up your writing abilities on these posts... they’ve got a kind of deja vue to them..., seems the same over and over again, don’t quite know what it is... LOL...
You said — You are taking this far, far, far too seriously!
—
Oh my! I don’t think I could take it as seriously as some I’ve seen posting here. I mean..., that’s way beyond how seriously I can take it... :-)
Basically, all I do is follow one of two general rules I have on posting here. The second of the two rules is to always try to be considerate enough to reply to whomever posts to me...
Heck! If not for that rule, I might hardly have any posts at all here... :-)
See post #135 above to expose your deceitful posting nature.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.