Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 2,095 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 1,028,403
Pageviews Today: 1,385,784Threads Today: 329Posts Today: 6,877
12:32 PM


Back to Forum
Back to Forum
Back to Thread
Back to Thread
REPORT ABUSIVE REPLY
Message Subject David dIcke Debunked in 19 Seconds
Poster Handle Anonymous Coward
Post Content
I posted a judgment based on a hypothetical situation:

"If you can debunk half of Icke's info then he's a con artist, case closed."

To explain what I said:

If, presuming a person could "debunk half of Icke's info" in that hypothetical situation, Icke would be a con man.

What's the definition of a con man?

someone who makes a living by swindling people.

noun

someone who makes a living by swindling people.


dictionary.reference.com/browse/con+artist?s=t&ld=1118

If half of Icke's info could be debunked then of course he'd be a con artist.

Do I have to say it's "By the normal definition of a con artist"?

Based on the above, the following accusation was made of me:

Now you are also going to deny implying he was a con artist when it's right there in your own words??? Case closed?

I said that in a hypothetical situation such as what is stated, Icke would be a con artist:

"If you can debunk half of Icke's info then he's a con artist, case closed."

I never implied that he was a con artist outside of that hypothetical situation and I stand by that 100%.
 
Please verify you're human:




Reason for reporting:



News