15-01-2017, 10:45 PM
Jim:
This is the problem. Because you have ignored our evidence you don't realize that Davidson was the source for the image of which you speak. The Michael Cross-types howled for Davidson's metadata. Davidson called their bluff and provided it. Every single one of those pro-Murphy posters were dead silent in reaction to Davidson's posted metadata. You see Jim the pro-Murphy mob was using the metadata claim as an excuse. They didn't expect Davidson to produce it. When he did they were silent to a man. They have swayed moderators in their favor but they still haven't answered what the metadata shows. That's intellectually dishonest.
You're not being honest Jim. The real point here, as shown in the material, is that YOU are being allowed to ignore good evidence which is not only against the rules of this site but is seriously against the research ethics you have espoused and made a living off of.
I have two cases of proof I am not being allowed to show on the Education Forum for reasons Gordon refuses to explain. There's no excuse for disallowing credible evidence and that is the problem here. If you look in the Bear Pit I caught Stancak avoiding proof that I was right in his overlay image on the EF. No one has the backbone to point it out over there while I remain unfairly censored.
I expect another classic DiEugenio 23 Skidoo in front of the FACTS I just posted.
This is the problem. Because you have ignored our evidence you don't realize that Davidson was the source for the image of which you speak. The Michael Cross-types howled for Davidson's metadata. Davidson called their bluff and provided it. Every single one of those pro-Murphy posters were dead silent in reaction to Davidson's posted metadata. You see Jim the pro-Murphy mob was using the metadata claim as an excuse. They didn't expect Davidson to produce it. When he did they were silent to a man. They have swayed moderators in their favor but they still haven't answered what the metadata shows. That's intellectually dishonest.
You're not being honest Jim. The real point here, as shown in the material, is that YOU are being allowed to ignore good evidence which is not only against the rules of this site but is seriously against the research ethics you have espoused and made a living off of.
I have two cases of proof I am not being allowed to show on the Education Forum for reasons Gordon refuses to explain. There's no excuse for disallowing credible evidence and that is the problem here. If you look in the Bear Pit I caught Stancak avoiding proof that I was right in his overlay image on the EF. No one has the backbone to point it out over there while I remain unfairly censored.
I expect another classic DiEugenio 23 Skidoo in front of the FACTS I just posted.