Welcome Guest

I started reading that. In just the first couple paragraph

Posted on: November 9, 2020 at 14:51:04 CT
*M* KC
Posts:
31688
Member For:
24.12 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
0
the author cites to things that have been discredited since last wednesday or thursday. And explained many times on this board.

No disrespect, but that blows all credibility of the author.

And FWIW, Banford's "law" is not really a law. It's a theory. and to the extent it's valid, there are exceptions.
Report Message

Please explain why this message is being reported.

REPLY

Handle:
Password:
Subject:

MESSAGE THREAD

for those not understanding why there is doubt: - DesertTiger MU - 11/9 14:47:18
     why was 2004 high? - fatrat MU - 11/9 15:11:19
          Weekend at Bernies(nm) - Mormad MU - 11/9 15:27:24
     that's not evidence - Ferg MU - 11/9 14:55:57
          Thanks for your reading comprehension - DesertTiger MU - 11/9 15:02:07
     It's over (nm) - TigerJackSwartz MU - 11/9 14:54:54
     "mathematical evidence" - meatiger MU - 11/9 14:52:19
     oh, well, then you should be in good shape. - bornoncampus MU - 11/9 14:51:07
     I started reading that. In just the first couple paragraph - *M* KC - 11/9 14:51:04
          I'm shocked - DesertTiger MU - 11/9 14:54:08
               Seriously dude, the stuff he says is just unsupported - *M* KC - 11/9 14:55:33
     Oh man, "mathematical" - JG will never understand it. (nm) - Newcatbirdseat MU - 11/9 14:49:16




©2025 Fanboards L.L.C. — Our Privacy Policy   About Tigerboard