Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 2,171 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 157,082
Pageviews Today: 236,706Threads Today: 66Posts Today: 1,372
01:34 AM


Back to Forum
Back to Forum
Back to Thread
Back to Thread
REPORT COPYRIGHT VIOLATION IN 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 copyright violation:



News