NO i did not pull any quote "out of content' nor was i "deceptive' in anything I stated.

YOu claimed to be an investigator.. Irrelevant here to the evidence at hand but you rpeeatedly see fit to claim it.

I stated that your evidence and raitonale were poor and it seemed you are a poor investigator.

Beyond that I find your tone.. objectionable in the extreme..and even more objectionable because you state the same thing repeatedly.

Here is one example in yoru post objectionably titled "No Proof Needed", you wrote:
"As I said before, I do not need to prove what is already obvious. "

This is just.. obnoxious to believe that you believe "what is already obvious" If you know what is obvious,why do you post here? if you already know it..then it is no "discussion" as you claim and it has indeed been no discussion.

It has solely been you objecionably stating your beliefs as if they were "reasonably" supported by "Evidence" and indicated by what is known. THis is circular "logic" and it is a very objectionable manner. Despite my many posts here you have refused to engage in substant.

I have not given you "hatred" and most certainly have not been the one "spewing". I have given you repeated requests for substance to match your objeconable claims ..but you cite only poersonal intangibvles and non siquitous irrelevancies, as yoru bieng an "investigator" -- yet this never follows with anything relevant except reading some others recountings, which you only allude to. "I am a state employed investigator. I make my living by establishing cases envolving fraudulant reception of state aid." This may be news to you..but investigation of fraud in state aid has no foundation in the scientific principal nor real "research" nor does it have anything to do with the logical thought of reasonable assumptions from evidence, being Occam's Razor.

What you have purveyed is not investigation of any sort and this is, again, no "discussion. It is solely you here blowing your horn and ego in an objectionable fashion and __REFUSING__ the exchange of ideas.

After your statement about "already obvious" you go on to make another throughly irrelevant and even ignrant statement

"No hard evidence exists for the case of UFO's. "

This is just .. illogical given that "UFO" means "UNIDIENTIFIED Flying Object" and even beyond that the statement on its own ..asuming you DO KNOW what you are trying to say.. is just ignorance and obnxious. What you mean to say is "You PERSONALLY know of hard evidence of the existince of Alien craft" or somehting to that effect. ANd again here the relevant point is... "Absence of evidence (on our part especially" is not evidence of absence.

You however fail to recognize that WHAT you know aint all that there is..and in fact your every utterance is done to "spew" that what you know is all there is --- "already obvious".

Your whole patter is nothing but curcular empty logic and devoid of any *REAL* discussion..but then... you have no disire to address any of the REAL EVIDENCE .. and your QUITE CLEARLY come here to only affirm your beliefs --- What you know is all there is.

This is objectionable and becomes ever more so objectionable with each time and fashion you do utter it.

THen you intend to make it a "personal" discussion as if my focus on facts and detail and ASKING for a semblance of a discusson were a personal "ATTACK". It is not personal. .It has not been a "discussion" This is only a discussion of yor u"BELIEVFS" and these have no foundation other than what you choose to cling to..as I said.. like some religeous missionary seeking converts and accolades for his "wisdom". Sorry.. try opening your eyes. or.as i said in my own post Topic ..

............. "Substance -- Find Some"