Originally posted by ThePittman
Yes the article is written by Dale Kaczmarek and he sites that the articles from the tabloids are "I believe the following cases are true examples of what could happen to those who continue to use the board or become obsessed or possessed!"And you sited that this also was proof, so yes you did and he did as well.
*Looks for my trusty hairsplitter, "ah, there it is."*
Those things can or as Dale puts it "could" happen to you from using the Ouija Board.
😄
Originally posted by JesusIsAliveSo you just proved again that you are a moron. Lets look at that again.
*Looks for my trusty hairsplitter, "ah, there it is."*Those things can or as Dale puts it [b]"could"
happen to you from using the Ouija Board.😄 [/B]
"I believe the following cases are true examples of what could happen to those who continue to use the board or become obsessed or possessed!"
Originally posted by ThePittman
So you just proved again that you are a moron. Lets look at that again."I believe the following cases are [b]true examples
of what could happen to those who continue to use the board or become obsessed or possessed!" [/B]
That is because they are true cases of what could happen.
Your name-calling is puerile.
Considering the fact that ThePittman gave verifiable examples of how the human subject's psyche appears to affect the actions of the ouija board, it would only be natural to be absolutely annoyed at your not realizing this. It seems rather hypocritical of you, JIA, to act so unscientifically on such a scientific matter.
Originally posted by AngryManatee
Considering the fact that ThePittman gave verifiable examples of how the human subject's psyche appears to affect the actions of the ouija board, it would only be natural to be absolutely annoyed at your not realizing this. It seems rather hypocritical of you, JIA, to act so unscientifically on such a scientific matter.
We have already been over this before.
😖leep:
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
It is simply a case of the emperor having no clothes.
No it is simply a case of your thick headedness limiting your sight on the world around you. You lack any scientific personality, which makes the fact that you try at times to back up your claims with shoddy scientific statements (like your constant use of the century-old, disproven-by-quantum-science law of cause and effect) to be very hypocritical when you don't even try to approach a subject scientifically if it disagrees with you.
Originally posted by AngryManatee
No it is simply a case of your thick headedness limiting your sight on the world around you. You lack any scientific personality, which makes the fact that you try at times to back up your claims with shoddy scientific statements (like your constant use of the century-old, disproven-by-quantum-science law of cause and effect) to be very hypocritical when you don't even try to approach a subject scientifically if it disagrees with you.
The emperor of evolution has no clothes. Tell me AngryManatee why aren't there any transitional fossils linking bats to whales?
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
You have sidestepped my original question. Why are there no transitional fossils linking bats to whales?
For starters, your idea of bats evolving into whales if plain moronic, indicating your lack of credibility on your understanding of the theory. Bats did not evolve from whales and vice versa. Most likely if you compare the two's DNA, you will find that they had a common ancestor some *insert number* million years ago. No I did not sidestep you question, I simply stated that it was a very stupid one, and apparently you didn't understand why., which is why I'm having to sit here and explain why your f u c k i n g question is so f u c k i n g stupid, and it's downright infuriating that you would even have the gall to ask such a question with such lack of own personal information.
Now, how would you explain Homo sapiens neandertalensis?