Skeptic Project

@VTV Cool. Can you link these numerous studies?

That's a nice attempt to deflect my sound point here, but it doesn't get you off the hook. The point being that no one edited your blog post. You didn't even try to refute that. (Big surprise, because you can't.) Not that your point even holds water as again you cannot account for everything.

Did you review the material that's in this thread? I am interested to hear you refute the proof that Agentmatt, a very knowledgeable person put together.

Yes, in the three posts you explained the model you follow. And in those posts you stated somehow that it was perfectly fine to have a agenda about blogs and yet your not bias. Insulted everyone's intellect by expecting us to believe that someone edited your blog post and yet you were the one that kept changing how they were edited. Then went on to say that someone edited your blog post.

I do not believe you when you say you have reviewed all of the material because if you had you wouldn't be asking most of these questions and reposting this material again. We have also linked you to some research articles on various facets of this subject in previous posts throughout this thread. I will compile them again here, and add a few.

(Go back and and read over AgentMatt threads in this post, to see the hard data about why your wrong)
http://i55.tinypic.com/2jy3he.png' />
http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/forums/topic/vtv-goes-where-even-cs-wont-he-exposes-merolas-parents/page/2#post-39225</p>

But review what I have shown you for the moment.

Poor VTV, he can never win. He's like Charlie Brown if Charlie Brown lived in a trailer park.

@2012 because now this is becoming funny again:

"@VTV No I won't. I suggest you look at the material I just suggested. It is a very clear that no one edited your blog post, and that people who suggest otherwise are often individuals with the intent on pushing their own agenda which in this case is "Someone edited your blog posts"."

It is not very clear. Kaiser stated the cache does not go back far enough to be sure. James Kush could of edited those posts immediately. There is no cache to find out if he did or not.

And as Paul Jones said:

"As much as I hate to do this, out of intellectual integrity and being an honest person I have to inform you that I have just carried out a series of tests on post editing on my blog.

I have concluded that the posts do not do any of the following when edited:

1: They do not mark themselves as having being edited
2: They do not change the date or the time after you edit them

Therefore VTV does has a fair point that we still can not 100% verify James Kush did not edit those comments."

Maybe you should do your own research before you start making comments like "It is very clear" that something happened. :)

VTV you are too stupid to understand so I will post this here for you, when you get it you should be fucking embarassed for yourself:

Now he's just spamming that post.

@VTV OK, now your just in denial, or you honestly your going to convince me you don't have a agenda? And I would dare say that means there is not much we are going to accomplish here. I gave you more then one example of proof as to why no one edited your blog post.

VTV the conversation topic is this:

He came here claiming he could demonstrate emphatically that what we propose about no one edited his blog post is in fact wrong. He then demonstrated he doesn't even have a strong grasp of what we propose in the first place. Then VTV tried to state that I am in a position where I have to explain it to him, insisting that I must re-type out all the material for him that he should of studied before he made a bold statement like that in the first place.

As the conversation progressed, he made up some proof based out of thin air, including numbers that he drew up about what he believed were going to help him in his agenda which that someone edited his blog post. I pointed out that there were many variables he was not taking into account.

I also had to explain to VTV that we don't have agenda's like he does. (Further proof that he did not in fact review the material.). Now he is asking me to provide the science behind all of this claiming that he has reviewed all of the material, which he obviously has not. I have rounded up some of the scientific proof to help make our points. He has offered no actual proof that we have failed. And is all the while repeating that it is we who have not provided any proof.

You didn't really provide any evidence that anyone edited your post and I said I knew most of what he keeps reposting up I knew already. I don't refuse to accept basic information. I just know VTV's proof's are obviously flawed. I pointed out where he failed. And he quite intentionally is ignoring all of those faults.

VTV you have been projecting a lot into what you feel is going on here. Right along with the claim that all of our arguments were emotionally based when I have provided common sense and proof for you to look at as well.

Clearly VTV has removed himself from the conversation and stopped caring, like he said he would do several pages ago.

I wonder if he'll use his Liz account to to try to defend himself later.

VTV has lost the debate with 2012. This is why he keeps reposting the same material.

I still want to know if he can lick his own nipples.

"@VTV OK, now your just in denial, or you honestly your going to convince me you don't have a agenda? And I would dare say that means there is not much we are going to accomplish here. I gave you more then one example of proof as to why no one edited your blog post."

You cannot prove emphatically that he did not edit the post. Period. That's the point.

VTV has a habit of editing posts:

I hesitate to get too involved in this, because this entire topic is asinine, but I do have to comment that this:

You cannot prove emphatically that he did not edit the post. Period. That's the point.

is classic conspiracy theorist thinking. Because desired result X cannot be proven not to have happened, then it must have happened, even though the preponderance of evidence clearly indicated that it was Y, not X, that actually happened.

That's not how logic, evidence and provability work at all. Not even close.

As far as I'm concerned the case is absolutely conclusive that VTV leaked the information about Merola's parents and that Kush didn't. I'm sure I'll be accused of "pulling rank" by invoking my legal training, but in law school we actually studied a case that involved an evidence/logic problem analogous to this one, and there's just no other rational conclusion you can arrive at.

I want to know what VTV thnks of 2012's debate points, to me it seems like he was outmatched by him completely. The logic used by 2012 just beat him hands down.