9-11 was a false flag attack

[rothschild]

Hahahahaha!

Fourth and long . . . nice punt! Was that so hard?

You are ambiguous and careless with your use of terms. And your need to be . . . to be . . . hailed as brilliant, gets you pissy and frothy when it doesn't happen.

Too bad, kid.

You don't comprehend what you read, do you?

What? You thought Ari and I had no idea about empirical research or the scientific method? Hahahahaha!

If you only had great tits . . . this fuckwit "boy" would hang on your every word! Really!

Thanks for your response, though. It was pathetic; but sweet.

The only reason you think the original statement was ambiguous is because you assumed that I didn't know what I was talking about -- and still do.

Empirical Evidence in Scientific Research

Scientific evidence is considered empirical when it can be observed by many people and all will agree as to what they observed. An example would be reading a thermometer. No matter who observes the thermometer, it still displays the same temperature. The counterexample to this is physically sensing warmth or coolness. Observer A might sense that a room is warm, while observer B senses that the same room is cool. These observations differ depending on the observer, and are therefore considered subjective. Evidence that is not dependent on the observer (i.e., is objective), that appears the same no matter who observes the evidence, is considered to be empirical evidence.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_empirical_evidence

Thus "all that is observed is not empirical" is a true statement.

Didn't catch the "I quit caring about your opinion . . " in the previous post, did you?

Shouldn't I be asking you that question?