More defensive quibbling over words. If you didn't understand what I meant about visibility, you never bothered to ask what I meant. And that would have made you look stupid, because then we would be struggling with the meaning of common words, like "visibility" (the ability to be seen). Feigning stupidity as a defense against producing a response is a low tactic, but I am not surprised.
We don't know anything about celebrities and Satanism. "Crumbs" in this context are only Rorschach blots into which we read meanings from our imagination. The fact is that there is no evidence for what you are saying about this, and the demands of logic and proof is that you have the burden of presenting a case that would convict---not just a collection of fancies and smears.
Why argue that something "fits the scenario" if there is no reason to think it is true? No, it is an attempt to impart credibility to a fancy. By the way, I don't believe that YOU know the difference among logical-plausible-possible-provable, or you would be enlightening me instead of using them as a club. Go to a dictionary. I'm good with those definitions. Prove me wrong.
We were talking about "kill switches" setting off a "vaccine"-based contamination in Navalny. Exactly analogous to black magic (i.e., entirely imaginary), yet you jump from "if it can be imagined" to "it must be real."
Your remark about electricity is tautological; light bulbs are designed to produce light from electricity. It is a definition of what a light bulb is. It's a question of logic only to the extent that it is a statement of truth; there is no syllogism involved with it. Some light sources produce incandescent light without electricity. Now we use quantum physics to produce light from electricity. I wouldn't expect you to know the details. I'm not the one saying "kill switches" exist or do anything; you are. And they are logically interchangeable with black magic, since there is nothing real to differentiate them. Your phrase about black magic and light bulbs is only from you, not from me. It is not semantically analogous. Why would you make that statement? Easy---to produce a straw man of your own making and put it in my mouth. Well, if the readers of this exchange think that makes sense, I can't help them.
Net result: Navalny died of a clot, which kills many people, often suddenly. Of which I have considerable personal experience. Paranoid fantasies are not required to accept his cause of death.
So basically you are only comfortable debating as long as you can keep it vague and never put down anything solid that you may have to actually argue, based on substance.
Pal, I was specific as hell about my own experiences with clots. You were absent from lunch on any substantiation of your fancies about a Navalny "kill switch." And even now, you dodge any substantiation. Are you as boring to yourself as you must be to others? I guess not.
Change of subject is always a sign of a failing argument.
When you are bold enough to get back to your numbered itemized list and articulate what exactly you mean by "visibility of celebrities to public" and "visibility of public to public" and why exactly one would be higher than another, I will be happy to engage in an intelligent discussion. I cant argue with meaningless assertions.
You can still engage in an intelligent discussion. Simply provide evidence for your fantasy claims.
So that is not a problem. Visibility of celebrities to the public (how well the public is aware of them and their lives) is high because their behavior is followed by the news media and advertised frequently to the masses of people. Visibility of any ordinary member of the public to any other member of the public (how well you are aware of your neighbors' identify and lives) is low because as they become more remote (live farther away), your information on them is increasingly sporadic and incomplete.
But that is incidental to the fact that you have provided no evidence to support your original assertions. You work on that, and we might have an intelligent discussion. You try to make this all about my mastery of English, then you have flopped and changed the subject. Who will you impress? Not me. Not you. And the more we go at this, the less likely it will impress anyone else, because the thread is too deep.
More defensive quibbling over words. If you didn't understand what I meant about visibility, you never bothered to ask what I meant. And that would have made you look stupid, because then we would be struggling with the meaning of common words, like "visibility" (the ability to be seen). Feigning stupidity as a defense against producing a response is a low tactic, but I am not surprised.
We don't know anything about celebrities and Satanism. "Crumbs" in this context are only Rorschach blots into which we read meanings from our imagination. The fact is that there is no evidence for what you are saying about this, and the demands of logic and proof is that you have the burden of presenting a case that would convict---not just a collection of fancies and smears.
Why argue that something "fits the scenario" if there is no reason to think it is true? No, it is an attempt to impart credibility to a fancy. By the way, I don't believe that YOU know the difference among logical-plausible-possible-provable, or you would be enlightening me instead of using them as a club. Go to a dictionary. I'm good with those definitions. Prove me wrong.
We were talking about "kill switches" setting off a "vaccine"-based contamination in Navalny. Exactly analogous to black magic (i.e., entirely imaginary), yet you jump from "if it can be imagined" to "it must be real."
Your remark about electricity is tautological; light bulbs are designed to produce light from electricity. It is a definition of what a light bulb is. It's a question of logic only to the extent that it is a statement of truth; there is no syllogism involved with it. Some light sources produce incandescent light without electricity. Now we use quantum physics to produce light from electricity. I wouldn't expect you to know the details. I'm not the one saying "kill switches" exist or do anything; you are. And they are logically interchangeable with black magic, since there is nothing real to differentiate them. Your phrase about black magic and light bulbs is only from you, not from me. It is not semantically analogous. Why would you make that statement? Easy---to produce a straw man of your own making and put it in my mouth. Well, if the readers of this exchange think that makes sense, I can't help them.
Net result: Navalny died of a clot, which kills many people, often suddenly. Of which I have considerable personal experience. Paranoid fantasies are not required to accept his cause of death.
So basically you are only comfortable debating as long as you can keep it vague and never put down anything solid that you may have to actually argue, based on substance.
Pal, I was specific as hell about my own experiences with clots. You were absent from lunch on any substantiation of your fancies about a Navalny "kill switch." And even now, you dodge any substantiation. Are you as boring to yourself as you must be to others? I guess not.
Lets recall what you said before
When you are bold enough to get back to your numbered itemized list and articulate what exactly you mean by "visibility of celebrities to public" and "visibility of public to public" and why exactly one would be higher than another, I will be happy to engage in an intelligent discussion. I cant argue with meaningless assertions.
You can still engage in an intelligent discussion. Simply provide evidence for your fantasy claims.
So that is not a problem. Visibility of celebrities to the public (how well the public is aware of them and their lives) is high because their behavior is followed by the news media and advertised frequently to the masses of people. Visibility of any ordinary member of the public to any other member of the public (how well you are aware of your neighbors' identify and lives) is low because as they become more remote (live farther away), your information on them is increasingly sporadic and incomplete.
But that is incidental to the fact that you have provided no evidence to support your original assertions. You work on that, and we might have an intelligent discussion. You try to make this all about my mastery of English, then you have flopped and changed the subject. Who will you impress? Not me. Not you. And the more we go at this, the less likely it will impress anyone else, because the thread is too deep.