Theo, sounds like you have a bunch of pent up stress. You've mentioned "fake news" at least twice. Don't take your social and political frustrations out on me and this thread.
You failed to recognize that I agreed that Iryna is fake from the outset. I said it multiple times, and different ways. You still don't get it. You missed the entire sarcastic point I made.
Go back and read the first 4 posts of this thread. It was an ID thread, until someone someone got pushy. I've posted many here. Members like them and appreciate them. You'll also notice it takes time for proof to come about.
Have you both posted any ID threads? I looked at both of your histories and didn't notice any. It would be great if you can teach us all how! Also when doing it provide all the references and proof that you both seem to need at initial posting. Obviously I don't know what I'm doing and really need both yours and loveboob's help. Maybe you both can write a detailed guide for our forum and how this is best done?
Hope can educate us all and help us all out!
Lets try to educate Axis on how to internet then:
He probably didn't get what "Pigeon Chess" means: Lets look that up for him.
"Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory." -- Scott D. Weitzenhoffer (From an Amazon.com
I mentioned "fake news" as it was exactly what you were attempting to push. A completely false allegation as the truth. Basically LYING! When other posters called you out on it. You kept doubling down and attempted to justify your position by saying there wasn't any "proof". So when others presented your damned proof, you then claimed to have held the same position all along, but on faith alone.
So now you claim we must read your posts again to posit you were right all along.
Here is your post in full:
Not a mistake Theo...
This is exactly my point. I agree, it's obvious to most people that she is enhanced, which I think she is. However, there is not any proof besides her change in look that this is the case.
It seems that there is some sense of reason that needs to be used when applying this rule. I understand why they mods set it, it was because there was post after post after post of girls that were obviously natural (think Score Voluptuous).
So to quote yourself, You "think" Iryna's enhanced. But you didn't know of any proof of her change besides her "look".
So, was what I presented as proof, new? Nope. A year old at least.
Was the debate on Iryna's boobs resolved years ago? Yup, in 2014 on this very forum which Axis has 1800+ posts in.
So what is Axis's "comeback" after being told, get back on topic on your own ID topic and provide ancillary information?
He goes to my post history to bash on my lack of asking for ID threads.
There is a reason why Pigeon chess was brought up. It fits this thread to a T.
First, I want to say I'm surprised we're on the opposite side of this debate. Early on, I thought we arguing the same point. I guess not.
For someone comparing the Creationist debate to Iryna's boobs (she must be flattered, but you may want to look at the forum rules on that one, friendly advice), I'm still am surprised you don't get this Devil's Advocate argument (I'll let you look up the definition on that one, but I'll give you a hint, it not "lying".).
To put your Iryna heartburn to rest, again:
- I "know" (you like the word "know", so I'll use it instead of "think") given the evidence, her boobs are fake; I "knew" this also when I originally made this argument without the evidence, simply by mere reasonable observation of her "look".
- I picked her for my example (I'll pick someone else next time, had no idea it would get anyone hot and bothered to this degree), for these reasons, and because for having implants that what many here think has a natural look, compared to others. Also like I said already, I did not know there was verifiable proof when I made this argument originally. Also there was a time when the proof did not exist. What then?
- I am not out on a limb here on this one, others in her thread asked this question, in her thread and about other models as well..
Maybe this is where we don't agree, casual observation being proof vs detail from the subject being proof.
The question remains what is the level of proof this forum really needs at the outset of an ID thread, or any model thread here for that matter. If we are going follow the rule as it's written, prepare to kiss goodbye a lot of threads, you, me and others enjoy here.