I said this in post #419.
You said this in post #420.
In post #421 I said this.
Then you said this.
Here's what you said in post #51.
You did not address the point that I made in post #419.
(from post #431)
I'm not sure which part of my post you're responding to as your post is a little vague. Anyway, your argument in post #427 seems to assume that the Olympic could have been insured for the same amount that for which it could have been if the accident hadn't happened. If that's not the case, your whole argument falls apart. If I'm missing something, tell me. Sometimes I drink too much coffee.
Your refusal to address this is very telling.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/consp...e-titanic-sunk-purpose-43.html#post1064918002
If you speak frankly and say that Fledermous's post was lame, you'll be hurting the credibility of your cause. If you say it wasn't lame, you'll be hurting the credibility of your cause and your own credibility. If you're not a sophist trying to control the damage done by truthers, you'll simply give a frank answer. The frank answer is obviously that Fledermous's post was very lame. His credibility is destroyed as is gamolon's for trying to play it down instead of speaking frankly. I'm still waiting for zyzygy to answer but I think he'll just keep tap dancing around it too.
There doesn't seem to be anything conclusive that proves the case either way right now but the fact that there are so many people who behave like sophists attacking the conspiracy scenario suggests that it reflects reality. If a conspiracy theory is false, the government won't assign so many sophists to try to discredit it.
