(11-09-2017, 07:03 AM)irukandji Wrote:Wow Iruk,(11-09-2017, 06:03 AM)New Guy Wrote: Iruk,
How many times must the members of this Forum present the facts that support what Juliette knew? You have not presented any evidence for your opinions. Instead you post inane comments like "I have yet to see any proof whatsoever from anyone." The "proof" we have presented is factual, and compelling. Yours is simply vapid opinion.
New Guy-
You're slipping. You keep repeating yourself. Might I suggest going back to your old posts and gaining insight from them? You used to do so much more than simply repeat yourself and throw in a couple of definitions from Merriam-Webster in a weak (but still ridiculous anyway) cause to justify yourself.
Also, I want to ask. What is the purpose of your post to me? I really don't see anything other than some useless critique. I do like how you include yourself in your statement, of which I am quoting a portion:
Quote: The "proof" we have presented is factual, and compelling.
That's very magnanimous of you, lumping yourself in with other posters who have actually given serious thought and consideration to their posts. What have you contributed? In a word, 'nada'.
IMO, you are slipping! You have thrown much more entertaining hissy fits. As usual your positions and opinions lack any supporting evidence.
Quote: You keep repeating yourself. Might I suggest going back to your old posts and gaining insight from them?I shall provide you with several of my posts. They may seem repetitive but no matter how many times you are presented verifiable evidence you simply ignore it and rant away your baseless opinions.
Quote:You used to do so much more than simply repeat yourself and throw in a couple of definitions from Merriam-Webster in a weak (but still ridiculous anyway) cause to justify yourself.Iruk, if you cannot read a M-W definition and understand what a word means, I cannot help you. You cannot prove your points by making up your own definitions, not even if you write your own jellyfish dictionary. I cannot help you if you cannot accept the reality that M-W is authoritative, but you are not. I have to pause and LOL!
Quote:Also, I want to ask. What is the purpose of your post to me?The purpose of my post is to encourage intelligent discussion on the Forum among members who respect the presentation of facts and can attain logical opinions from such facts.
Quote:I really don't see anything other than some useless critique.From my point of view, most of your posts are "useless critique" and have no basis in fact. The only valid comment I recall was how Nick was a doofus. He was blind to love and trust Juliette. His love and trust enabled Juliette to betray Kelly to her death.
Quote:I do like how you include yourself in your statement, of which I am quoting a portion:So Iruk, how much "serious thought and consideration" have you given to your claim:
Quote: The "proof" we have presented is factual, and compelling.
That's very magnanimous of you, lumping yourself in with other posters who have actually given serious thought and consideration to their posts.
Quote:What have you contributed? In a word, 'nada'.Have you forgotten?
From the thread "What Juliette 'Knew': Kelly's death" you need to examine:
My post #4, my post #56, my post #77, your failed attempted reply #78 and my post # 84 that critiques your denialist rants.
If you managed to read these posts you may continue in the thread "Does Nick hold Juliette to dfferent standard than everyone else? If so, why?"
My post #49 (a year ago I still believed Juliette once actually loved Nick, but my current position is she was a phony all along), note that #49 generated several replies including yours, my post #71, my post #73 (note premonition about Kelly's return with head intact), my post #81, my post #86, my post #97, my post #105, my post #107, my post #122, . . .
Sorry Iruk I have more interesting things to do than list my contributions to this Forum.
You have made it clear that you cannot accept factual evidence, so listing a few more of my 1,770 posts is useless. Shall I demonstrate that 1,770 is greater than "nada?" Better yet, can you prove 1,770 equals "nada?"
So please just throw anther conniption fit but give it your best.
N G