just for fun, lets summarise the BS FD made up in his last post alone:

1. That at some point I 'retracted' my claim that none of the known misinformation came from any muslim

2. At some point I firstly retracted - then subsequently reclaimed as true - some of the misinformation from the original news report

3. I agreed at some point that FD's list of "lies" were in fact lies.

Rather than learning from his previous mistakes, FD seems to think that careless, thoughtless mistakes should be topped by even more careless and thoughtless mistakes. Otherwise, why would he come up with not one, or two but three more howlers right after he had been exposed for falsely accusing me of 1. trying to distance myself from the 'line' claim and 2. posting a photo of only muslim women?

I just feel this behaviour is worth noting in a thread where the culprit is trying so hard to make a case against muslims as chronic purveyors of misinformation. For anyone else, it would be hilarious - but this is FD we're talking about - this sort of crap is his trademark 

oh just look at FD - he's on *FIRE* today!

According to FD, saying:

yes - what I should have said is there is no *REASON* to believe that any of the fabrications came from any muslim - because there is no evidence. I think I made it pretty clear thats what I meant. Would you agree with this at least?

- is actually me "retracting" my claim that none of the misinformation came from any muslim. Yup - the words 'there is no reason to believe that any of the fabrications came from any muslim' - in fact means 'I was mistaken - those fabrications *TOTALLY* came from muslims'. FD logic par excellence.


freediver wrote on Apr 8^th, 2015 at 12:35pm:


Not when you use the false logic that this therefore means it is part of a sinister muslim conspiracy ploy to conceal the true threat of Islam. You are still running with that right FD? So how does that work exactly? You simply use the absense of evidence to say "well you can't prove it wasn't from muslims - therefore it WAS from muslims - tada!

Help me understand FD - or are you now going to acknowledge - actually no, that logic is fallacious, and it is full of crap - there is no reason to assume a sinister muslim consp.. err ruse to conceal the true threat of Islam, because there is no evidence for one. 

freediver wrote on Apr 8^th, 2015 at 12:35pm:


It is lying to say it came from any muslim. I literally can't believe we're nearly 30 pages in and you're still citing it as a muslim lie.

freediver wrote on Apr 8^th, 2015 at 12:35pm:


He was there, he organised the freaking thing - it stands to reason he would have *SOME* idea how many of his fellow muslims would turn up to the jig that he himself organised. For one thing, they had a register on facebook before. He was the one by the way who rejected the "1000+ muslims" claim, stating there were still hundreds. Not exactly precise - yet there is no reason to disbelieve him.

freediver wrote on Apr 8^th, 2015 at 5:53pm:


No, and no I didn't. Very sneaky FD - but credit for trying it on. Here's what I conceded: "that it is wrong to insist that this absence of evidence is evidence that none of those Muslims were responsible". Now you are trying to claim this is the same as insisting that "none of the muslims were responsible for the lies". I continue to insist that none of the muslims were responsible - because I believe in the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. That is a mile of difference to insisting that the absense of evidence is evidence that none of the muslims were responsible. Maybe its too subtle a difference for you - but I don't think so. Most likely you're just once again trying to bullshit your way out of an absurdly untennable position of your own making.

Now can we get back to those awful muslims and their sinister lies that somehow created the basis of this story? Are you going to answer the question yet - are you in fact using the false logic that an inability to prove muslims didn't create the lies - is somehow proof of muslim lies? I'm dying to get to the bottom of this FD - you described this story as one that was "based on lies" and a demonstration of "muslims doing what they do" to conceal the threat of Islam. Still, after nearly 30 pages, literally all we have is "you can't prove the muslims didn't do this" and "Gandalf is the muslims (plural - I am apparently some sort of Gestalt super-being) lying - but I'll deny the list of lies I made to defend this claim - were ever meant as lies."

freediver wrote on Apr 8^th, 2015 at 5:53pm:


And once again your "recollections" are sourced directly from your rectum.

Oh dear - the entire basis for FD's case against this muslim is a long list of bs that he never said.

freediver wrote on Apr 8^th, 2015 at 5:53pm:


FD why are you even asking? You just finished composing an entire paragraph of pure fantasy regarding what this guy said and did - why on earth would you stop now and ask for some actual facts?

freediver wrote on Apr 8^th, 2015 at 5:53pm:


Yup. And here we see FD's two-pronged method of proving muslim lies - firstly reject reported facts and make sh*t up to incriminate them, and secondly take other reported facts - accept them as gospel truth, and say "this doesn't make sense to me" (and of course refusing to read any of the actual reports to get an understanding of the facts) - and declare that its conclusive proof of sinister muslim lies - made to conceal the true threat of Islam.

Of course, for anyone else who employs the use of more than a single brain cell (and actually reads the reports on it), the idea that logistical and security contingency arrangements would be required in a highly sensitive and high profile event such as this - is not at all outrageous.

Meanwhile, FD will continue mocking the very idea of limiting the number of people forming the first line - while at the same time curiously acknowledging the presense of a police barrier to create that limitation

Gawd.

Yer wasting your time Gandalf.  I've been there, done that on other topics, even elsewhere.

If this was not his Board....by now.....he would have been banned as a waste of space troll as he has been.

freediver wrote on Apr 8^th, 2015 at 7:18pm:


So to cut a long story short - I never "conceded" that "it is wrong to insist that none of the Muslims were responsible for the lies" - like you claimed. And you dishonestly took my completely different acknowledgement about absense of evidence not being proof of anything to make this ridiculous claim. Just so we're clear on that.

freediver wrote on Apr 8^th, 2015 at 7:18pm:


No, it was a Jew from the Synagogue actually. But you would have known that if you actually bothered to read the TOI article I kept reminding you about. Then you wouldn't have to constantly extrapolate from your rectum this endless list of fantasies that weren't in the story - and make yourself look foolish in the process.

freediver wrote on Apr 8^th, 2015 at 7:18pm:


Quite. Or in other words, if the endless stream of BS you pull from your rectum was actually true - yes he absolutely would be a untrustworthy devious little muslim. Excellent point there FD.

Quote:


Fancy that. I took you conceding that you had no evidence to back up your claim to be you retracting the claim. I stand corrected. You merely admitted that your claim is purely assumption. Of course you still stand by it. The jury isn't in yet.

Quote:


So how do you think this organiser determined the number of Muslims present? Presumably he is allowed to identify Muslims visually, unlike you and the Jew whose argument you have been parroting. Or did he just go by the number of people who signed on to his facebook event? Do you think he had any trouble due to the sudden eclipse that prevented any photos being taken that might lend weight to the assertion of hundreds of Muslims present? Perhaps he could identify them by their unusual progressiveness? And why do you think he picked out all the tinted ones for a photo op and left all the white ones to form a second line? Perhaps he was worried there might be an attack and was concerned for the security of the white Muslims. Or do you prefer not to think about these things in case you discover a reason not to believe it?

Gandalf would it be fair to say that you have been misrepresenting your presumption of innocence as the fact of innocence? Or did you only come up with that little excuse yesterday?

Soren wrote on Apr 8^th, 2015 at 8:13pm:


Nope, no Islamophobia there at all, your honour!