Cryogenically treated cables

Quotes from 12 Angry Men 😡 😡 😡 😡

Juror #12: Oh, come on. Nobody can know a thing like that. This isn’t an exact science.

Juror #2: You said we could throw out all the other evidence!

Juror #8: Prejudice always obscures the truth.

Juror #8: Nobody has to prove otherwise. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. The defendant doesn’t even have to open his mouth.

Juror #7: I don’t know about the rest of ’em but I’m gettin’ a little tired of this yakity-yack and back-and-forth, it’s gettin’ us nowhere. So I guess *I’ll* have to break it up; I change my vote to "not guilty."

🤡

That wasn’t a dogmatic, silly. It was a Rolodex.

atdavid
If you cannot collect your thoughts before attempting to put them down into words, maybe it is the thoughts that are at issue? Pseudo science is making claims, that you are not able to back up with anything approaching typical standards for evidence, then claiming everyone who disagrees with you is lying, stubborn, "does not understand", etc., and yet never actually addressing any argument presented against your case.

>>>>You must be looking in the mirror. Those are actually YOUR tactics, not mine. You just quoted yourself! Besides, it’s not true I haven’t addressed your arguments. You either haven’t been paying attention or are straight up lying.

Standards for evidence. What on earth are you going on about? Do you really think this is some sort of peer review forum for Scientific American? Or a court of law? And who is going to be the arbiter of evidence and facts - you? Get real! Three hallmarks of the scientific method are curiosity observation and investigation. You are missing all three, Mr. Smarty Pants 👖

I reserve the right to edit my posts, it’s the protocol here. There is a fluid situation on the ground and I have many reasons why I might wish to edit a post within the allotted time. What you want or demand doesn’t actually count.

So not only are you lying but you're going to start using my jokes, too?