 Part 23 was getting long and slow to respond, so I have split the thread to this new part 24. As usual the split point was arbitrary, and posters are free to copy and paste from previous iterations of the thread. |
|
Posted By:Agatha
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ergon (Post 11689796)
Try to stay on topic, which is the Meredith Kercher case. You responded to my communique from the Court Press Office that the case hadn't been ruled admissible with a claim it 'wasn't accurate'. Would you care to substantiate that, or do you want to open a new thread where you can make all the ad hominems you wish?
|
I was totally on topic. I was commenting on the credibility of sources for the case. I would never consider the guy who tells everyone he's God as a credible source. This is not where I get my information. It's not that this person might not be right. After all a broken watch is right twice a day. However it's also wrong more than 99 percent of the time. Not exactly a quality track record.
via International Skeptics Forum http://ift.tt/2kF0qKK
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire