It is not my postulate. It is theirs. And so it's part of what you are fighting.
We are 'fighting' no such thing. No one is claiming to disprove magic, or God, and that is the logical refuge you have fully retreated into.
You are a brat, braying like a 12-year-old that we can't disprove your magic, or a negative. How many times do I have to say it?
You're an obtuse, argumentative, raving lunatic. I pity all those who have to live/work around you.
Quoting: Menow 1003573Hey, I never wanted to discuss this. It was you guys who wanted to -- and didn't understand that
just proving all's normal doesn't disprove their root postulate: you are dealing with an unprovable postulate (at root), unless "they leave clues" and the only clue area left would be parallax.
I have no real interest in this side of the matter and have only been obliging you (and defending the rigour of reason here, as to what you can and can't do in the face of the tautological claim of Nancy/Zetas).
You have been dragging this out. It is the postulate by Nancy that's the problem, not me.
And it is HER postulates you are fighting. So, you are fighting what is, logically, only PROVABLE if the "Zetas let you see it" and not DISPROVABLE, because all of your tests are of PHENOMENA not ZETAS. So don't blame me here. It's Nancy's claim that's weird.
