This is in reply to Ironwood's post replying to my last one. I sent it to him by PM right after he made it, as I had lost posting privileges. Posting exactly as it was sent.
And it can indeed be considered belligerent when someone commits liable or slander, and when commiting perjury, which would be the case if you were under oath and this information was proven true.
Honestly, it was not a sincere comment. We havn't debated before, so naturally you couldn't have known this. I'm a reactive person... the thread interested me, but there wasn't enough meat in it yet to get me going, so I posted two words which sort ofindicated my initial reactions to what I perceived to be a considerably radical and illogical speech from Stan Jones. My intention was not to slander, or even to provoke, but merely to comment as deeply as my nature allows me to.
And yet it is true, interesting pattern you are developing in your base assumptions.
Do you mean to say that you actually believe there is an "Islamic Fascist World Government"? Or that you actually believe that I do? Just seeking clarification.
And you would have right to scold if I had claimed belief in that as truth, as I do you as you claim this man and or his information to be "batshit insane" (i'm guessing you also mean false).
I didn't necessarily mean that I disbelieve what Stan Jones was saying. It's obvious by his inflection that he is passionate about what he is saying, and since what he is saying is undeniably radical, I consider him to be an extremist. Extremists make warning bells go off within my internal bias-filter, and really slow down the process of objectively filtering information.
I would be chagrin if you were basing everything you've said up to this point off of your interpretation of two, insincere little words.