re: #306 Buck

Now you can try and say that I just said that it is definitive evidence. I didn’t, but this is what you did earlier…

No, it’s not, Buck. If before you had written:

Of course for you and I they fail. BUT for a lot of people… huge amount of (delusional, pitiful, naive) people, it is definitive evidence.

I’d have agreed. That is, in fact, what I was saying.

Take some personal responsibility, dude. In your urge to smear me as as crazy as a 9/11 truther, you wrote some incoherent and stupid stuff. I accept you didn’t mean it. But you still did say that loose change showed that it was possible. You didn’t say— that first time— that loose change showed by lying and leaving stuff out that it was possible. You didn’t say that they alleged it was possible. You just said that it showed that it was possible.

Don’t be upset with me for taking what you say at face value. Be upset with yourself.

And again:

However, I’d still like you to realize that when you say that the theory that “Some frat brother of Weiner’s could have taken a pic and uploaded it to embarass him” is just as crazy as 9/11 trutherism, you’re still doing a grave disservice to 9/11 trutherism.

Basically, don’t bring up 9/11 when you don’t have to. It’s wildly tasteless.