You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
0

[–] TestForScience ago 

I guess we'd have to ask him whether he was being sceptical or not. Sure seemed to me as though he was calling a specific source a lie, rather than attempting to convey any sort of scepticism to the validity of the claim.
You can't claim the height of a bar that doesn't exist - again, he didn't appear to be looking for any information at all, he just popped in to call his source/him a liar.
You're a big boy, you can make up your own mind.
I also think the claim is BS, but he clearly didn't even attempt to follow the source, else he'd know that the Geller Report's article was from an entirely different source, not something they made up themselves.
Which adds further credence to the notion that he didn't even attempt to dispute the claim, he just didn't like the source, so he went straight to an emotional approach, rather than anything resembling a request for 'proof to substantiate conjecture.'
As I look even deeper into this, he just comes out wrong on even more levels.

0
1

[–] fluhthreeex 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Because dcdirtylaundry.com quoting the fucking "Geller Report" told you so?

...

He cussed at him

He referred to it as "the fucking 'Geller Report'".

Because dcdirtylaundry.com quoting the "Geller Report" told you so, you fucking simp?

...is "cussing at" you (if we're going to use boomer speak).

His quote is on par with "Because an image of a Tweet allegedly citing fucking 'Buzzfeed News' told you so?" So many useful posts have come from him expressing skepticism. I wish people hadn't dog-piled it.