Update December 2008:
Joran van der Sloot changes his story again. This time he claims what I suggested in my audio file; namely, that she was sold as a sex slave.
Also the website does not say she WAS sex trafficked. It IMPLIES that she was. Don't be daft on purpose. You're using liberal lawyer tricks to try to talk about what the meaning of "was" was.
Baby, that's why we don't use old, old sources. It's embarrassing when you make big statements without all the data.
For instance, the data that I have that YOU have never heard of is video footage of Joran Van Der Sloot going in and out of his hotel room as he is murdering a woman in a hotel in South America.
When you look at his history of murdering women, it becomes clear what happened to Natalee Holloway. If you have a better explanation then YOU prove it. But you can't prove it if you're using old "evidence" that ignores all the things we have learned.
The bible is good, but it doesn't prove that, just because it stays good, everything else is eternally true, as well. I mean, we used to wonder who killed the Lindbergh baby, now we have enough proof to know. You gotta stay informed on things that are in the present and not argue when other anons try to correct you, dear.
Baby, that's why we don't use old, old sources. It's embarrassing when you make big statements without all the data.
You literally just did that.
For instance, the data that I have that YOU have never heard of is video footage of Joran Van Der Sloot going in and out of his hotel room as he is murdering a woman in a hotel in South America.
Wasn't Natalee, it was the other woman that he was ACTUALLY found guilty of murdering.
You're trying to muddy the waters.
And provided NO PROOF that Van Deer Sloot murdered Natalee. Not even a conviction?
The source I used is fine. I notice you're trying to shy the conversation away from what it says about Ron Paul. Your original accusation that the website contains error is false.
Please try to understand: the guy who responded to you was trying to explain why your post wasn't being taken seriously. It was because you use outdated sources. Then I came in and pointed out that outdated sources are bad because they contain information that is no longer considered up to date. Now you are trying to get me to explain things to you--who knows nothing about what your're discussing--and you are telling me that I'm wrong. Eye roll emoji, right?
You're making this whole thing into a joke.
The point was that you are not aware of your sources and they make your argument look weak. It's just a very basic rule of writing and researching that they teach high school kids: evaluate your sources because they suggest things about the validity of your conclusions. Don't use out of date material.
But somehow you've turned that into you defending a serial killer.
The website is a perfectly fine source of information. The information is not outdated. You tried to lie to prove it was outdated and you've yet to provide any evidence of your claim.
you are not aware of your sources
Hey speaking of, let me get a source that shows Van Der Sloot is the CONVICTED MURDERER of Natalee. Or were you lying?
The website doesn't say she WAS sex trafficked.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disappearance_of_Natalee_Holloway
Prove it.
Also the website does not say she WAS sex trafficked. It IMPLIES that she was. Don't be daft on purpose. You're using liberal lawyer tricks to try to talk about what the meaning of "was" was.
So you were being daft on purpose inferring the website said SHE WAS trafficked?
You're projecting so hard.
The website does not IMPLY anything. It says what it says.
Also when are you going to provide proof Van Der Sloot killed Natalee? I don't see that ANYWHERE.
Worse than old news is COMPLETELY MADE UP "news".
You don't see the proof anywhere cuz you're looking at really really old sources that are waaaay out of date.
Alsooooooo, are you going over to the "I found a book about the Illuminati written in 1798" post to let them know their source is too old?
lol
I smell a Ron Paul shill.
I'm asking YOU for proof of YOUR claims. You're playing dumb.
Baby, that's why we don't use old, old sources. It's embarrassing when you make big statements without all the data.
For instance, the data that I have that YOU have never heard of is video footage of Joran Van Der Sloot going in and out of his hotel room as he is murdering a woman in a hotel in South America.
When you look at his history of murdering women, it becomes clear what happened to Natalee Holloway. If you have a better explanation then YOU prove it. But you can't prove it if you're using old "evidence" that ignores all the things we have learned.
The bible is good, but it doesn't prove that, just because it stays good, everything else is eternally true, as well. I mean, we used to wonder who killed the Lindbergh baby, now we have enough proof to know. You gotta stay informed on things that are in the present and not argue when other anons try to correct you, dear.
You literally just did that.
Wasn't Natalee, it was the other woman that he was ACTUALLY found guilty of murdering.
You're trying to muddy the waters.
And provided NO PROOF that Van Deer Sloot murdered Natalee. Not even a conviction?
The source I used is fine. I notice you're trying to shy the conversation away from what it says about Ron Paul. Your original accusation that the website contains error is false.
Please try to understand: the guy who responded to you was trying to explain why your post wasn't being taken seriously. It was because you use outdated sources. Then I came in and pointed out that outdated sources are bad because they contain information that is no longer considered up to date. Now you are trying to get me to explain things to you--who knows nothing about what your're discussing--and you are telling me that I'm wrong. Eye roll emoji, right?
You're making this whole thing into a joke.
The point was that you are not aware of your sources and they make your argument look weak. It's just a very basic rule of writing and researching that they teach high school kids: evaluate your sources because they suggest things about the validity of your conclusions. Don't use out of date material.
But somehow you've turned that into you defending a serial killer.
See how you kinda garbled all this?
Facts cannot be outdated.
The website is a perfectly fine source of information. The information is not outdated. You tried to lie to prove it was outdated and you've yet to provide any evidence of your claim.
Hey speaking of, let me get a source that shows Van Der Sloot is the CONVICTED MURDERER of Natalee. Or were you lying?