Yas the master of double speak you are) overlooks the robustness of scholarly inquiry and the integrity of academic discourse.

/sigh

I was pointing out that your argument was based on him being "opposition" while "still agreeing with your belief." I wasn't saying I didn't agree (in fact I explicitly agreed). I was pointing out a flaw in your argument. That is not "double speak," nor do I engage in such. I strongly suggest you look up these phrases before you use them. You have mischaracterized me several times in this manner. If you do not desist with these mischaracterizations and ad hominems I will be forced to disengage.

Your argument relies on "the robustness of scholarly inquiry and the integrity of academic discourse."

My entire fucking report shows explicitly and in ridiculous detail that these things are fundamentally compromised. For as long as you rely on these things, you simply will not understand why I object to them as evidence. At the least, I implore you to recognize that they are appeals to authority, which is a fallacy in formal reasoning, and thus has no place in discourse that relies on the process of reason.

Your argument about historical revisionism and the selective omission of relevant facts overlooks the complexity of historical inquiry and the rigorous methodologies employed by historians.

Sure, but my report does not. It goes into painstaking detail of why these institutions are compromised and how they are compromised. Granted, that's not in the section on the website right now. I'm finishing it up and will publish it soon, but the evidence is overwhelming and will be shown. What is there shows the level of my investigation if you are interested. I am not making these claims in a dearth of evidence, but in an overabundance of it.

I'm going to disengage. You are incapable of looking outside of the trust you have in the academic box. I used to be a part of that box which is why I investigated it so thoroughly. It is totally fubar;' compromised on the most fundamental level. Indeed, it is the epicenter for the creation of The Matrix. Until you are willing to allow for that possibility, it is impossible to get past your argument because it is the premise you rely on and you cannot accept that it might be wrong.

Yas the master of double speak you are) overlooks the robustness of scholarly inquiry and the integrity of academic discourse.

/sigh

I was pointing out that your argument was based on him being "opposition" while "still agreeing with your belief." I wasn't saying I didn't agree (in fact I explicitly agreed). I was pointing out a flaw in your argument. That is not "double speak," nor do I engage in such. I strongly suggest you look up these phrases before you use them. You have mischaracterized me several times in this manner. If you do not desist with these mischaracterizations and ad hominems I will be forced to disengage.

Your argument relies on "the robustness of scholarly inquiry and the integrity of academic discourse."

My entire fucking report shows explicitly and in ridiculous detail that these things are fundamentally compromised. For as long as you rely on these things, you simply will not understand why I object to them as evidence. At the least, I implore you to recognize that they are appeals to authority, which is a fallacy in formal reasoning, and thus has no place in discourse that relies on the process of reason.

Your argument about historical revisionism and the selective omission of relevant facts overlooks the complexity of historical inquiry and the rigorous methodologies employed by historians.

Sure, but my report does not. It goes into painstaking detail of why these institutions are compromised and how they are compromised. Granted, that's not in the section on the website right now. I'm finishing it up and will publish it soon, but the evidence is overwhelming and will be shown. What is there shows the level of my investigation if you are interested. I am not making these claims in a dearth of evidence, but in an overabundance of it.

I'm going to disengage. You are incapable of looking outside of the trust you have in the academic box. I used to be a part of that box which is why I investigated it so thoroughly. It is totally fubar;' compromised on the most fundamental level. Indeed, it is the epicenter for the creation of The Matrix. Until you are willing to allow for that possibility, it is impossible to get past your argument (because it is the premise you rely on).

Yas the master of double speak you are) overlooks the robustness of scholarly inquiry and the integrity of academic discourse.

/sigh

I was pointing out that your argument was based on him being "opposition" while "still agreeing" with your belief. I wasn't saying I didn't agree (in fact I explicitly agreed). I was pointing out a flaw in your argument. That is not "double speak," nor do I engage in such. I strongly suggest you look up these phrases before you use them. You have mischaracterized me several times in this manner. If you do not desist with these mischaracterizations and ad hominems I will be forced to disengage.

Your argument relies on "the robustness of scholarly inquiry and the integrity of academic discourse."

My entire fucking report shows explicitly and in ridiculous detail that these things are fundamentally compromised. For as long as you rely on these things, you simply will not understand why I object to them as evidence. At the least, I implore you to recognize that they are appeals to authority, which is a fallacy in formal reasoning, and thus has no place in discourse that relies on the process of reason.

Your argument about historical revisionism and the selective omission of relevant facts overlooks the complexity of historical inquiry and the rigorous methodologies employed by historians.

Sure, but my report does not. It goes into painstaking detail of why these institutions are compromised and how they are compromised. Granted, that's not in the section on the website right now. I'm finishing it up and will publish it soon, but the evidence is overwhelming and will be shown. What is there shows the level of my investigation if you are interested. I am not making these claims in a dearth of evidence, but in an overabundance of it.

I'm going to disengage. You are incapable of looking outside of the trust you have in the academic box. I used to be a part of that box which is why I investigated it so thoroughly. It is totally fubar;' compromised on the most fundamental level. Indeed, it is the epicenter for the creation of The Matrix. Until you are willing to allow for that possibility, it is impossible to get past your argument (because it is the premise you rely on).