You say:
“How is debunking the misinformation in your prior post “defensive”?”
I say:
Because you have an attitude problem. You sound very annoyed that someone is slapping you down and doing so superbly.
You say:
“You explicitly said other birth certificates of the time have the same header and seal. I simply pointed out that the WND article never said this. You misrepresented the content of the article.”
I say:
WND article states they are similar. As I said earlier, it might be possible for WND to be SO STUPID and SO BLIND as to not notice that that the name of the NATION is different on the documents. However, that is quite unlikely.
You need to go to debate school. You are committing what is called the ‘Burden of Proof Fallacy’. You say that WND must explicitly state that the Republic of Kenya is in the other birth certificate documents. This is silly because at the time it was written, such demand did not exist. In the same way, WND does not explicitly show that Lavender exists as a person, so by that same logic one would say he does not exist. That is not logic, that is a fallacy.
The burden of proof is to just show that no one used ‘Republic of Kenya’ in official documents or anywhere else at that time. If you saw the newspaper article in this thread, it clearly shows that people were referring to Kenya as ‘Republic of Kenya’.
You say:
“Is being corrected threatening or upsetting to you in some way? If you don’t like being corrected, don’t misrepresent articles and don’t make stuff up no matter how much you want it to be true.”
I say:
You don’t do corrections. You just offer fallacies.
It is like saying WND has to prove that Obama exists and is a real person because the article did not explicitly show that Obama exists.
You say:
“I’ll keep correcting people who spread clearly false misinformation, such as claims that the 1963 constitution called Kenya the “republic of Kenya”. Why is correcting misinformation a bad thing again? How does letting false ideas proceed unchallenged benefit the community?”
I say:
No one is claiming that the 1963 constitution calls Kenya the ‘Republic of Kenya’. What is being claimed is that official documents at the time did print ‘Republic of Kenya’.
This is something that can EASILY be disproved. Yet, no one has done so. In fact, there is evidence that ‘Republic of Kenya’ was being used at that time as even in that newspaper photo Red Steel posted in this thread.
You say:
“Oh you think you caught dr. evil now hm? So this is how your ego works. If someone corrects a mistatement you have made, instead of graciously conceeding the point, you attack the person who corrected you personally and smear them as troll.”
I say:
I never called you a troll or a viral messenger. Please learn to read, thank you.
I said if you keep harping on the same point, over and over, in thread after thread, that would be an indication that you had an agenda and would likely be a viral messenger.
Note how you are switching to ad hominem, attacking ME. I never attacked YOU. I do declare I am attacking viral messengers and will do my best to spot them.
As I said before, disagreeing with someone doesn’t make them a viral messenger. However, posting the same point in thread after thread, over and over again, certainly indicates an agenda and likely is a viral messenger.
In your response, you just ADMITTED you did this (posting the same thing over and over). I don’t look at your post history. I really don’t care.
And you wonder why I said you were being defensive? He he he...
LOL...still...”viral messengers”. LMAO