You Zionist extremist are so massively hypocritical it is amusing :)
I offer you a peaceful debate on Skype or Qallout @contextualize for others to witness and you won't but instead rely on diversion (no doubt because you know you don't have a leg to stand on)
Also if you don't like proven Talmudic quotes I also have lots of Israeli minister quotes that are along the same line :)
Why would I divert away from here, this debate, right now, which you are already ignoring, to humour your desires which are clearly diversionary?
Is Berkeley wrong?
Why can't you bring you're Berkeley stance to a peaceful online debate for others to see @contextualize???
Off topic it's also pretty sad you have to vote up your own comments (but not surprising since you've shown you have no morals)
I can, but the question/your "interpretation" about the new law arose here. Therefore it should be addressed here. Why won't you answer me here?
I upvote my comments 'cause I used to see you flagging people who disagreed with you, effectively censoring their rebuttals. But assume anything you want, as you hypocritically upvote the BS comments you're spamming my channel with. (At least mine aren't BS though.) Love getting lectured about morals by hypocritical people who can't read, spell, or debate properly too.
Is Berkeley wrong?
Who have I flagged @contextualize???? There is a place to check such things you know! I'll let that lie pass because it's unimportant
Stay hypocritical while claiming the person challenging you to a public debate can't "debate properly" or "read" or "spell" while you're the one scared!
I thank you in advance for making a future post, that much better :)
You flagged and spammed @inphiknit and I believe someone else whom I do not recall, or which post it was on. Perhaps then, I shouldn't have used the word "people." Though I'm as certain as I feel I can be, if I'm wrong, then I apologize, as it was about 3 months ago.
You're also right, I shouldn't call observation to your spelling, or reading. It was rude. Otherwise, in a debate I feel it fair to criticize your tactics, choices of evidence, or lack thereof, as well as the fallacies, like the name calling, which I too have approached the use of. I will try to refrain from frustration if you will try to not divert and name call. Is this agreeable?
I have expressed no fear. I have answered virtually every point you've made.
Let's see if you include everything in that future post.
Is Berkeley wrong?
BLAH BLAH BLAH it's just rinse and repeat with you isn't it @contextualize! You say okay to public online debate, I share how to get in touch and say you can bring your Berkeley argument and you're right back to diversion tactic again being a massive (scared) hypocrite in the process LOL
Just keep making idiotic comments while voting yourself up and I'll keep taking screen shots to prove it all!
Funny how I'm the one challenging YOU to a public debate that you refuse but you're still making blatant idiotic comments about me LMAO (such a ZIO-NAZI trait)
And yes I've been up-voting my comments on your posts to counter act what you started :)
Thanks for sharing your true colors and you may look forward to my Steemit exclusive on you tomorrow
BTW takes a person with no morals and no shame to tell others they can't "debate properly" while avoiding a debate! (not moronic at all :)
LOL! You evidently don't intend a proper debate... You started a discussion about a law. I used data to prove your interpretation wrong. So you ignore the data and rampage about other subjects, but I'm diverting... You're funny.
If I've made a couple mistakes in this "talk" with you; it's that I replied to your ego "I eat paid zionist trolls" by unveiling all your techniques in the comment, techniques like, ignore, divert, slander, and we hadn't even begun this talk yet. As well as what little sarcasm has come across.
How does upvoting your silly comments on my posts; "nice one" etc, counteract the upvoting of my comments here?
I accepted your debate and gave terms, why after the fact, insist twice now, that I've refused? Is that some form of lie? What purpose does the claim now serve? So in fact it is you who has refused to debate, both here by avoiding virtually every point I've made, and live, by avoiding responding to my offer...
You still won't answer the original question either, and have diverted away from;
Is Berkeley wrong?
AGAIN you can reach me at [email protected] like YOU previously agreed @contextualize for an unedited video debate in which you can also bring your Berkeley argument!
Oh that's right you don't want to! GEEEE I wonder why lol (I'm sure others won't)
Why wont you answer my 1st question 1st? All this text, all these comments, now talk of a debate, yet you won't acknowledge the 1st argument, in the forum it was posed, relating to the article you posted, right here. It makes no sense, unless you're just trolling...
Go read my acceptance again. I offered terms, I have not reneged on anything. You refuse to counter offer though.
Terms can be discussed here. I've already proposed the 1st round, what is your counter offer?