Would you care to amend this. I am saying Polarik prove who he is and his status as an expert. The other statements are "If" statements. "If" he is not an expert as he claims, then he could produce a thousand page document but all the conclusions will be in question. You came to the conclusion he is accurate, but would that conclusion be compelling if you found out that he is not the expert he claims?
I have asked and pinged Polarik on many threads to produce evidence who he is for the sake of establishing his expertise, even, if he wishes, to provide the affidavit he signed with his last name blacked out if he is concerned about security. He has never responded. Heck, a photograph of his PhD with his name blacked out would be fine.
Ron Polarik was invited to an Interview on TV, so who was the masked man that showed up in his place?
Not questioning he is a real person (albeit, he admits that isn't his name), I am asking him to prove he is the expert he claims. The credence of all his 'evidence' rests on if he is actually an expert. Go back and look at his evidence. Look at how many conclusions he comes to using phrases like 'from my experience' or 'in my expert opinion'.
If he is an expert as claims, those can be registered evidence. If he is not an expert, then those are just opinions.
Polarik has proven his mettle here on FR. You haven’t.
My 'mettle' here isn't to argue if it is real or not, my mettle is simply to raise the standard of what we call proof and to provide a little critical thinking so we don't fall for the next game change de'jour like we did Larry Sinclair, Whitey Tape, Michell Obama Tape, drug dealing, API stories, etc, etc.. We are batting something like 0 and 10 on these game changers we where hoping for. Time to make sure our swings at the ball are a little tighter.
Would you care to amend this. I am saying Polarik prove who he is and his status as an expert. The other statements are “If” statements.
***No, I do not amend my statement. Your libels were not within conditional “if” statements, so you cannot weasel out of them. Who was it that showed up at the TV interview and signed affidavits in Berg Vs. Obama? It was Ron Polarik. He’s met the standard. You have not.
I have asked and pinged Polarik on many threads to produce evidence who he is for the sake of establishing his expertise, even, if he wishes, to provide the affidavit he signed with his last name blacked out if he is concerned about security. He has never responded. Heck, a photograph of his PhD with his name blacked out would be fine.
***I haven’t seen your pings. Fine. I’ll ask myself if it’ll satisfy you. Ron, what are your Bona Fides? How can we check them?
(albeit, he admits that isn’t his name)
***Ok, fine. One more thing I’ll ask as well from Polarik. On the Obamacrimes website, it says: “Dr. Polarik” is a pseudonym and his identity is obscured in this video.
The credence of all his ‘evidence’ rests on if he is actually an expert. Go back and look at his evidence. Look at how many conclusions he comes to using phrases like ‘from my experience’ or ‘in my expert opinion’.
***So what? His analysis speaks for itself.
If he is an expert as claims, those can be registered evidence. If he is not an expert, then those are just opinions.
***He’s testifying on behalf of Berg, so his expertise will be voir dire’d by the defense. That’s more of an expert than 95% of the population, but if that doesn’t satisfy you, what will?
My ‘mettle’ here isn’t to argue if it is real or not, my mettle is simply to raise the standard of what we call proof and to provide a little critical thinking
***Bull Shiite. If you are trying to raise the standard for critical thinking then stop using classical fallacies and arguments from silence.
so we don’t fall for the next game change de’jour like we did Larry Sinclair, Whitey Tape, Michell Obama Tape, drug dealing, API stories, etc, etc..
***Here’s the difference between Polarik and all that garbage you bring up: Is Sinclair testifying as an expert in a CertifiGate case? Is the Whitey Tape part of any evidence in a CertifiGate case? Is the Michelle Obama Tape evidence in a CertifiGate case? Is the drug dealing part of expert testimony in a Certifigate case? etc. etc. None of those other stupid inquiries rise to this level, so you are engaging in a fallacy of using the wrong analogy. So much for raising the level of critical thinking.
We are batting something like 0 and 10 on these game changers we where hoping for. Time to make sure our swings at the ball are a little tighter.
***”We”? I didn’t hope for nuthin’ on the Whitey Tape. I gave up on the API soon into the shenanigans. I don’t log onto Larry Sinclair threads. If you’re the high falutin’ expert on critical reasoning, what were YOU doing falling down those ratholes?