LashL Goddess of Legaltainment



Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 35,775

deep44 Originally Posted by Notice that BigAl didn't even know the letter was a matter of public record until someone pointed it out:

And somehow you think that that is a valid criticism of an individual who, despite not knowing the specifics about whether or not he would able to obtain the document, actually took it upon himself to go to the source in the real world, make the appropriate inquiries, obtain the relevant document, and post it?



Bizarre.



I would think that you should be annoyed at the "truth"er cult leaders whose dogma you follow, as they did not share the document with you and your fellow "truth"™ movement members, and did not bother to tell you the reasons for the petition being rejected, choosing instead to simply make further appeals to "truth"ers for more money, without giving you the information that they should have shared with you. Are you getting it yet? Here you are making a left-handed (and utterly ridiculous) jab at a rationalist who took the time and trouble to ascertain the information and obtain the documentation that your "truth"er cult leaders should have given to you and should have published days ago, but didn't.



Does any of this make you realize that perhaps those whose dogma you follow are not telling you the whole, unvarnished truth™? And does that not make you rethink your willingness to follow that unsubstantiated dogma? And somehow you think that that is a valid criticism of an individual who, despite not knowing the specifics about whether or not he would able to obtain the document, actually took it upon himself to go to the source in the real world, make the appropriate inquiries, obtain the relevant document, and post it?Bizarre.I would think that you should be annoyed at the "truth"er cult leaders whose dogma you follow, as they did not share the document with you and your fellow "truth"™ movement members, and did not bother to tell you the reasons for the petition being rejected, choosing instead to simply make further appeals to "truth"ers for more money, without giving you the information that they should have shared with you. Are you getting it yet? Here you are making a left-handed (and utterly ridiculous) jab at a rationalist who took the time and trouble to ascertain the information and obtain the documentation that your "truth"er cult leaders should have given to you and should have published days ago, but didn't.Does any of this make you realize that perhaps those whose dogma you follow are not telling you the whole, unvarnished truth™? And does that not make you rethink your willingness to follow that unsubstantiated dogma?