Re: Can we all agree to eliminate ALL DEBUNKERS once and for all/History of debunking

On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 21:46:52 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Sir Arthur CB
Wholeflaffers ASA <science@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>:

>On Jul 6, 2:18 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 00:22:08 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Sir Arthur CB
>> Wholeflaffers ASA <scie...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>:
>>
>> >Bob Casanova wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 04:52:25 -0700 (PDT), the following
>>
>> >> Inability to understand the post to which you thought you
>> >> were responding, noted.
>>
>> >To Casanobrain:

>> >Inability to debunk any facts

>> Confirmation of inability to understand English noted.

>... a
>pathetic debunker, but so aren't they all?

Even further confirmation of inability to understand English
noted.

For the comprehension-challenged (again, that's you), this
means that my post didn't attempt to "debunk any facts";
your snippage of it doesn't make it go away. That's twice
I've had to tell you this; maybe if you learned English
you'd be able to understand it and stop tilting at
windmills.

<snip even more conspiracy-theory idiocy>
-- 

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
                          - McNameless