My issue is your words not matching the committee’s words. Your words are the problem, and your words are what you need to defend. This careful pivot to “but the committee!!!” isn’t fooling anyone op. Defend your words. Where did the committee discuss radiological? Did I miss it somewhere perhaps?
Varyk@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
my words are accurate and sourced.
your confusion, feigned or otherwise, is your own problem.
you missed many things. or are pretending to anyway, in an effort to find a leg to stand on.
you aren’t going to be able to fabricate any valid rejection against the abundance of sourced evidence, but imagine away.
Carrolade@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
I don’t have to imagine jack shit. When I challenge you to say where you got even one single line about “radiological” and you just say “it is accurate and sourced” instead of saying where exactly we can find it, you do my work for me.
It’s not hard to go “Senate subcommittee report, page xyz, go look.” Would be a lot better than “trust me bro, accurate and sourced, it’s somewhere in there I promise.”
These niche tech communities like Lemmy are not exactly full of stupid people, we know how arguments and citations work. You’ve still got a chance here to prove me wrong, you know. Just need to put the work in, assuming you’re not some random, lazy troll. Just gotta copy/paste one single piece that confirms radiological something and say where you got it, that simple.
Varyk@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
“I don’t have to imagine…”
you don’t have to, and yet you insist that your fabrications make a lick of difference in face of the abundant documented evidence of chemtrails and weapons testing.
your imagination has no bearing on the evidence.
i see now, you’ve conflated outside unethical radiological tests with the Church committee evidence here about biological and chemical testing.
Carrolade@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
No, I’m referring to when you said
in the original main body of your post. By the way, we can all see the edit marker from you editing it 22 minutes ago. My first reply to you remains unedited, though, it’s exactly how I originally wrote it, where I directly quoted you three times.
Trying to pull a ghost edit on us betrays you as malicious, though. You’re not just wrong, you’re actively trying to do harm. Otherwise you could just admit you made a mistake like a normal person can.
Regardless, now that your credibility is shattered by your own actions, my work here is done. Toodles~! It’s been fun, I do miss rhetorically fencing with trolls sometimes.