Russian Satellite Hit by Debris from Chinese Anti-Satellite Test

[kawaraj]

it's such a huge argument when the Russians and (if)Chinese are having a encounter in space, the US is jumping and shouting, see, you should fight, please, hunkies! it would be could....what a sissy....

 

[Developereo]

You do not have to say so. Your deliberate omission -- dare we say deliberate -- that circumstantial evidences can convict misled the readers into believing otherwise.

Wrong again.

The claim was this this particular piece of evidence was proof enough. I explained that, with circumstantial evidence -- especially a weak one like this -- just one piece of evidence is not enough. You need additional evidence to corroborate your claim.

With direct evidence, a single piece of evidence can be sufficient for conviction, but not with circumstantial evidence.

You, in your perennial ignorance of all things not cut-and-paste, missed the whole point.

Of course there were. The debris field for one. Every piece of evidences, logical inferences from them, experience, and theories of natural laws, are legitimate admissions.

Once again, all your running round the barn boils down to the ONE piece of circumstantial evidence. It doesn't matter how many times you restate it, it won't create additional evidence where there is none.

I already advised them it was not worth it.

In other words, you admit that you are just blowing hot air fueled by your visceral racist hatred of Chinese.

Actual evidences?

Circumstantial evidences are actual evidences, just like direct evidences are also actual evidences.

Yes, You claimed that you have unearthed a host of "evidences" -- PLURAL. I demanded for you to prove what additional evidences (plural) you had uncovered, in addition to the ONE that we already know.

Answer: ZILCH

The satellite did not 'go haywire'.

go haywire - Idioms - by the Free Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Rur. to go wrong; to malfunction; to break down.
Haywire means to stop functioning in the designed manner.

It doesn't matter what caused it to "stop functioning", the point is that it stopped functioning in the designed manner.

Why do you insist on exposing your pathetic grasp of English at every opportunity?

You said that it was not possible for any Shariah law to be imposed upon non-believers in the US. I countered that it can be -- through the US Congress. You said that it was wrong and that it had to be through a Constitutional amendment.

Your entire revisionist bullshit can be ignored by simply reading the thread itself. Here's the link so people can read the whole thread for themselves and see your desperate flights of fancy around the world.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-affairs/238870-anti-sharia-law-back-10.html

Bottom line: Despite the fact that I explained to you that US Constitutional safeguards preclude the need for individual state laws against religious laws, you kept insisting -- in your pathetic hatred of Muslims -- that Muslims could somehow impose such laws on US citizens.

For several pages, you kept making a fool of yourself blabbering about DUAL LEGAL SYSTEMS and whatnot. You kept comparing British and Pakistani laws, as if they have any relevance to the US model. Finally, when you got your as$ whooped ten ways to Sunday, you came up with a dumbas$ claim that the US Congress could enact religious laws.

That's when I informed you that even the Congress can't do jack as long as the Constitutional safeguards are in place, and that such safeguards will be VERY hard to neutralize. I told YOU how a Constitutional amendment works and why it is a prerequisite for any laws by Congress. Decades of Christian lawyers and lobbyists have failed to make a dent. Now, you are doing your usual pathetic cut-and-paste routine to convince people as if you know jack about US Constitutional law.

Just restrict yourself to cutting-and-pasting radar specs.

Every time you venture outside that narrow realm, you embarrass yourself.

 

[Audio]

And my point was that we only have one piece of circumstantial evidence: that Joe (Chinese satellite) was near the Russian craft.

Joe was the only known person around the crime scene in a time window of 10 seconds of when the crime happened......make a logical deduction.

Speculating whether a rotating, reflective ball with no engine on board went "haywire" is also very ........it could not have changed trajectory for 120m and changed it's spin velocity on it's own.

 

[armchairPrivate]

Audio, use your same logic, So if your sister saw me walked out of your mother's bedroom, I am unquestionably your father.

 

[Audio]

Audio, use your same logic, So if your sister saw me walked out of your mother's bedroom, I am unquestionably your father.

Impossible.

My father displays much more intelligence then you have displayed so far in any thread you posted in.

This will probably be the only conversation we will ever have due to the above reason.

 

[terranMarine]

Impossible.

My father displays much more intelligence then you have displayed so far in any thread you posted in.

This will probably be the only conversation we will ever have due to the above reason.

I'm afraid you have been mixing up who your real father is since birth. Now is the time for a reunion with your real biological dad here on PDF.

 

[gambit]

Wrong again.

The claim was this this particular piece of evidence was proof enough. I explained that, with circumstantial evidence -- especially a weak one like this -- just one piece of evidence is not enough. You need additional evidence to corroborate your claim.

With direct evidence, a single piece of evidence can be sufficient for conviction, but not with circumstantial evidence.

You, in your perennial ignorance of all things not cut-and-paste, missed the whole point.



Once again, all your running round the barn boils down to the ONE piece of circumstantial evidence. It doesn't matter how many times you restate it, it won't create additional evidence where there is none.

One piece of circumstantial evidence? So now you are so desperate that you resort to redefining what is circumstantial evidence.

Circumstantial evidence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

...a witness who says that she saw the defendant enter a house, that she heard screaming, and that she saw the defendant leave with a bloody knife gives circumstantial evidence. It is the necessity for inference, and not the obviousness of a conclusion, that determines whether or not evidence is circumstantial.

The defendant entering the house is one piece of circumstantial evidence. The screaming is another, even though there is no recording of it. The defendant leaving the house is another. The bloody knife is another. If all of these can be logically tied together, the eyewitness testimony can be considered one aggregate piece of circumstantial evidence, from many discrete pieces.

So here goes...

AGI Blog

NORAD Catalog Number: 30670
Min Range: 3.109 km
Relative Velocity: 9.676 km/s
TCA: 2013 Jan 22 07:56:51.629

Although the predicted distance would seem to preclude a collision, the fact that the close approach occurred within 10 seconds of the estimated change in orbit made it appear likely that this piece of FENGYUN 1C debris actually collided with BLITS.

Take note of the highlighted. It says 'predicted'. It means item 30670 was not tracked in real time. Unless directly observed, any of its orbital location can only be guessed at.

So it seems 30670 is large enough to have a NORAD catalog ID and tracked...

CelesTrak: Search of SOCRATES

Item 30670 is about midway down the chart and twice came very close to two other objects: 28051 and 27845.

BLITS is also in there and also came very close to other FENGYUN 1C debris.

So what Kelso is saying is that 30670 was predicted to be at so-and-so coordinates but then BLITS had a sudden change in orbit at roughly the same time of that estimated location for 30670.

According to celestrak, 'Min Range' is: The distance between the two conjuncting objects at the time of closest approach., which in this case is about 3km.

What is a conjunction in astronomy?

Conjunction (astronomy) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A conjunction is an apparent phenomenon caused by perspective only: there is no close physical approach in space between the two objects involved.

When viewed from Earth, 3 km is essentially a close shave between objects in orbit. ISS astronauts had to take shelter at further distance than that.

Space Junk Forces Station Astronauts to Take Shelter in Lifeboats | Space Station Debris Threat | Space.com

A leftover piece of an old Russian satellite forced six astronauts on the International Space Station to take shelter...

The piece of space junk was spotted too late to move the orbiting laboratory out of the way and flew as close as 6.8 miles (11 kilometers) when it zoomed by at about 2:38 a.m. EDT (0638 GMT), NASA officials said.

But why was that debris spotted too late? Probably because it was not tracked in real time and that its orbital path is predicted, just like 30670.

The fact that China's ASAT test created an orbital debris field is one piece of circumstantial evidence. The fact that said debris field can and are being periodically monitored is another piece of circumstantial evidence. Our knowledge of orbital sciences is another piece of circumstantial evidence. And so on...

Everything fits in a chain of reasonable inferences.

At the risk of appealing to authority, here is Kelso's resume...

Dr. T.S. Kelso, CelesTrak WWW

Basically, we have a PhD with an impeccable technical background, have resources that five-9s of us do not have, and tracks orbital junk for a living. If...Once Kelso read your 'not sure' defense of China here, if he could physically laugh you off this planet and into orbit -- he would. Could he be wrong? Absolutely. But against people of his technical background and current experience, it is best to prove them possibly in error via equally impressive technical counterpoints, not by some weak-@ss lawyerly arguments about circumstantial evidences.

Some 'man of science' you are......You been had by your own ego.

In other words, you admit that you are just blowing hot air fueled by your visceral racist hatred of Chinese.

Visceral?

Find that discussion about the little Chinese girl who got ran over and then ignored by her own countrymen. Find how much I participate. And report back here. After all, if my 'racist hatred' for Chinese is so 'visceral', as you hyperbolized, that discussion should be prime for me, right?

There are two subjects that I engaged the Chinese: Military and political affairs. Not once have I been noted for using anything remotely resembling a racist slur. Not even through implication or inference.

Bottom line is this: You are full of sh1t.

Yes, You claimed that you have unearthed a host of "evidences" -- PLURAL. I demanded for you to prove what additional evidences (plural) you had uncovered, in addition to the ONE that we already know.

Answer: ZILCH

See above...

go haywire - Idioms - by the Free Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Rur. to go wrong; to malfunction; to break down.
Haywire means to stop functioning in the designed manner.

It doesn't matter what caused it to "stop functioning", the point is that it stopped functioning in the designed manner.

Why do you insist on exposing your pathetic grasp of English at every opportunity?

Of course it matters. Further, for a claimed 'man of science' you have a hilariously false understanding of 'function'.

The BLITS satellite have only one function: To reflect.

Verb
Work or operate in a proper or particular way.

It can do that on the ground, endo-atmospheric, or orbital. It has no moving parts and no electronics. So when 'haywire' is used to describe an out of control object, the implication here is that said out of control behavior is INTERNALLY COMPELLED such as a broken mechanical lever, or a malfunctioning electrical component.

If the BLITS satellite is knocked out of its orbit, assuming its surface remains intact, then its function has not been compromised in any way. It will continue to reflect at a different orbit, albeit whether that orbit is useful or not is determined by its customers. But even if its surface is scratched, its ability to reflect is still there, just at an inferior level.

So who is really looking pathetic now...???

Your entire revisionist bullshit can be ignored by simply reading the thread itself. Here's the link so people can read the whole thread for themselves and see your desperate flights of fancy around the world.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-affairs/238870-anti-sharia-law-back-10.html

Bottom line: Despite the fact that I explained to you that US Constitutional safeguards preclude the need for individual state laws against religious laws, you kept insisting -- in your pathetic hatred of Muslims -- that Muslims could somehow impose such laws on US citizens.

For several pages, you kept making a fool of yourself blabbering about DUAL LEGAL SYSTEMS and whatnot. You kept comparing British and Pakistani laws, as if they have any relevance to the US model. Finally, when you got your as$ whooped ten ways to Sunday, you came up with a dumbas$ claim that the US Congress could enact religious laws.

That's when I informed you that even the Congress can't do jack as long as the Constitutional safeguards are in place, and that such safeguards will be VERY hard to neutralize. I told YOU how a Constitutional amendment works and why it is a prerequisite for any laws by Congress. Decades of Christian lawyers and lobbyists have failed to make a dent. Now, you are doing your usual pathetic cut-and-paste routine to convince people as if you know jack about US Constitutional law.

Just restrict yourself to cutting-and-pasting radar specs.

Every time you venture outside that narrow realm, you embarrass yourself.

Absolutely I encouraged the readers to go there. They will see for themselves your false understanding and cowardice.

Florida SB 58 is not only about preventing Shariah laws from being imposed upon non-Muslims. It is about preventing government officials from using non-Constitutional sources as factors in any legal disputes, civil or criminal. The result of that allowance could and would be a dual legal system and you did not know that such exists. You did not know that Pakistan have a dual legal system where religious laws have supremacy and when confronted with your own self righteousness about not supporting religious laws, you act as any coward would -- run away.

You are still wrong about the US Constitution. Its amendments are not prerequisites but rather prophylactic against governmental oppression.

This is the proper definition of a 'prerequisite'...

Noun
A thing required as a prior condition for something else to happen.

Prior condition...!!! See that...???

A law created by a legislature, state or US Congress, does not need to have an existing Constitutional allowance to come to existence. A legislature can make any law it want. Whether that law is 'Constitutional' or not is different issue.

So not only did you failed as a 'man of science', you stink as an attempted lawyer as well...

 

[Developereo]

One piece of circumstantial evidence? So now you are so desperate that you resort to redefining what is circumstantial evidence.

From your own link: On its own, it is the nature of circumstantial evidence for more than one explanation to still be possible.

A piece of circumstantial evidence is something which can have alternative explanations. So, one piece of circumstantial evidence is not enough for conviction. It is only when multiple evidences form a corroborative chain that they lead to conviction.

Try reading your own links before posting.

Take note of the highlighted. It says 'predicted'. It means item 30670 was not tracked in real time. Unless directly observed, any of its orbital location can only be guessed at.

Yes, I was being charitable and accepting the predicted location as a given. Even with that charitable leeway, you still only have ONE piece of evidence. Doesn't matter how many times you keep repeating it, this will not create new evidence where none exists.

The fact that China's ASAT test created an orbital debris field is one piece of circumstantial evidence. The fact that said debris field can and are being periodically monitored is another piece of circumstantial evidence. Our knowledge of orbital sciences is another piece of circumstantial evidence. And so on...

You are truly digging your grave here and I LOVE it. For your information, evidence must relate to the suspect in question -- just saying debris causes collision is meaningless. Of course it does; the question is, did it do so in this case? Prove it.

Basically, we have a PhD with an impeccable technical background, [...] by some weak-@ss lawyerly arguments about circumstantial evidences.

The only thing courts care about is EVIDENCE. Courts hear expert testimony from Phd's all the time; if the claims or opinions are not backed by supportive evidence, the expert will be chewed up by lawyers and thrown out.

Happens all the time.

Not once have I been noted for using anything remotely resembling a racist slur. Not even through implication or inference.

We have been through this. You routinely address Chinese posters as "boys" which is considered racist in US culture. In your pathetic delusions, you probably fancy yourself as shrewd and getting away with it, but it ain't fooling anyone.

the implication here is that said out of control behavior is INTERNALLY COMPELLED such as a broken mechanical lever, or a malfunctioning electrical component.

The implication is only in your mind. In the English language, as spoken by everyone else on the planet, the term "go haywire" only describes the symptoms, not the cause.

http://www.douglascoulter.com/Personal/_stop_the_spinning_.html

The doctor [...] explained that the whack to my head had caused my innerear balance system to go haywire.

Once again, English, as well as logic, fail you miserably.

So who is really looking pathetic now...???

That would be YOU, as always.

Absolutely I encouraged the readers to go there.

I also encourage readers to check the thread first-hand and verify who is telling the truth and who is peddling revisionist bullshit to cover his tracks.

Florida SB 58 is [...] about preventing government officials from using non-Constitutional sources as factors in any legal disputes,

Anyone who actually understands the US legal system -- which precludes YOU -- will know that such laws are superfluous demagoguery. In case you don't have your dictionary handy, it means unnecessary tub thumping to score cheap political points by appealing to bigotry of people like you.

All legal rulings on US soil must abide by the Constitution, and it already contains iron clad guarantees against religious laws on US soil; it does not need any help from penny ante State laws with dubious motives.

You are still wrong about the US Constitution. Its amendments are not prerequisites but rather prophylactic against governmental oppression.

The 'prerequisite' comment was in the context of this discussion about religious laws, as in "Constitutional amendments are a prerequisite before Congress can pass any religious laws".

Of course, any legislative body can pass any law it wants; for the purposes of a focused discussion, it is understood in this debate that we will only consider laws which are Constitutionally valid.

The discussion, summarized, was as below (again, I encourage people to follow the link above and verify for themselves):

Premise: American Muslims will enforce Sharia law upon non-Muslims.

gambit: ... Britain ... Pakistan ... dual legal system ...

me: If I can interrupt your globe-trotting foray and bring the discussion back to the US, any Sharia/Halakha/cannon laws within the US are purely voluntary; there is no way any US governmental entity can enforce religious laws on US soil.

gambit: US Congress can.

me: No. Congress can not pass laws violating the Constitution and Constitutional safeguards against religious laws are very strict and time-tested. Before Congress can introduce religious laws, proper Constitutional amendments would need to be ratified by the requisite number of States. To ratify an amendment means that the people have voluntarily accepted its implications, so there's no question of enforcing anything.

You can cut-and-paste entire encyclopedias, it won't change the fact that you are CLUELESS about the rationale and process behind US Constitutional law, the role of the US Congress, and the safeguards against religious laws on US soil.

 

[Audio]

"boys" which is considered racist in US culture.

so, boys has only the racist meaning? Just stop man, you are getting pathetic.

And since you cherish high standards that hold their own in court, despite yourself never offering rock solid evidence for any allegation you make:

How racist is "boy"?

THAT was the question facing a federal appeals court in Atlanta, Georgia, which struck down a $1.3m award to a black employee of Tyson Foods. The employee, John Hithon, applied for a promotion. The boss, Tom Hatley, instead brought in two white outsiders, saying that the money-losing plant needed new blood. Mr Hithon sued, saying that Mr Hatley's use of "boy" to him proved racial animus, and was awarded $1.75m. An appeals court overturned the ruling. The federal Supreme Court then sent the case back to trial, saying

The speaker's meaning may depend on various factors including context, tone of voice, local custom and historical usage.

The case was then re-tried, and two witnesses (including Mr Hithon) once again testified that Mr Hatley had called each of them "boy". Mr Hithon again won at the lowest court, but at the appeals level, a three-judge panel reversed the verdict. The case could still be appealed further.

So, in your eager defense of everything Chinese, you are prepared to degrade yourself first by not acknowledging the explanation that is most likely, coincidentally given by people that work in the field of astronomy in 2 (!) different institutions and secondly by not even knowing simple words' meaning and extrapolating wildly on the account of what you maybe heard one day. Kinda even lower then the guy that at least gets 50c out of it.

 

[liyan_11104]

very funny stories. The Russian victim keep silent and west medias speaking for Russian.

 

[Developereo]

So, in your eager defense of everything Chinese, you are prepared to degrade yourself first by not acknowledging the explanation that is most likely, coincidentally given by people that work in the field of astronomy in 2 (!) different institutions and secondly by not even knowing simple words' meaning and extrapolating wildly on the account of what you maybe heard one day. Kinda even lower then the guy that at least gets 50c out of it.

The fool is YOU since you failed to read your own link.

The speaker's meaning may depend on various factors including context, tone of voice, local custom and historical usage.

The context with gambit and Chinese people is ALWAYS negative.
Tone of voice is not applicable here.
Local custom is to address others with courtesy -- the word boy is explicitly meant to demean the other person.
Historical usage is that the term "boy" is widely recognized in American culture as having racial overtones, except when used towards an actual boy.

Once again, we come back to the concept that multiple factors dovetailing reinforce a claim. In the case you mentioned, there was no evidence of the speaker's animosity towards black people. In this case with gambit, the forum is full of his histrionic tantrums against China and Chinese people.

Context matters.

What is it with bigoted fools that they don't read their own links before posting?

very funny stories. The Russian victim keep silent and west medias speaking for Russian.

Note that the experts merely said a cautious "appears to be" without assigning definite blame.

It is the anti-Chinese racists here who are jumping all over the place, imagining legally solid proof where none exists.

 

[Audio]

The fool is YOU since you failed to read your own link.

The speaker's meaning may depend on various factors including context, tone of voice, local custom and historical usage.

The context with gambit and Chinese people is ALWAYS negative.
Tone of voice is not applicable here.
Local custom is to address others with courtesy -- the word boy is explicitly meant to demean the other person.
Historical usage is that the term "boy" is widely recognized in American culture as having racial overtones, except when used towards an actual boy.

Once again, we come back to the concept that multiple factors dovetailing reinforce a claim. In the case you mentioned, there was no evidence of the speaker's animosity towards black people. In this case with gambit, the forum is full of his histrionic tantrums against China and Chinese people.

Context matters.

What is it with bigoted fools that they don't read their own links before posting?



Note that the experts merely said a cautious "appears to be" without assigning definite blame.

It is the anti-Chinese racists here who are jumping all over the place, imagining legally solid proof where none exists.

I knew this was the part where you would hang. Context would mean definitive insults of the racial kind, demeaning of said persons and using actual racist words together with "boy" as in the example like "yellow boy".
Even the phrase "50 cent boys" could not be taken as racist, only as "insulting" to a certain demographic group who make money doing you know what.

If i say my boy is getting on my nerves and i talk about my son, is that racist? No , it isn't. Therefore when you will be able to connect "boy" with a derrogatory term used to describe the inhabitants of middle kingdom, then you "might" have a case.

"Neither of two stories mentions any evidence of racial bias by Mr Hatley except for two uses of "boy".

Everything i wrote above is in total compliance with what the decision of the Supreme Court was. Now, i suggest before you call anyone fool or bigot, you think what you will write. Time and again it gets proved you are clueless. And stop clutching at straws, this is just the latest of your "straws" to get burned down. And it makes you look silly. (understatement)

So, what you gonna do now boy? Report me for racism?

The prevaling spirit of the post is "use common sense" when you talk about the meaning of "boy" in racist debate or just about anything.
But as we already observed in this thread and a good few before it, common sense for you is hardly attainable. You have rare moments of lucidity but this is not one of them. And you are no stranger to jumping to conclusions either.

 

[Developereo]

I knew this was the part where you would hang. Context would mean definitive insults of the racial kind, demeaning of said persons and using actual racist words together with "boy" as in the example like "yellow boy".
Even the phrase "50 cent boys" could not be taken as racist, only as "insulting" to a certain demographic group who make money doing you know what.

If i say my boy is getting on my nerves and i talk about my son, is that racist? No , it isn't. Therefore when you will be able to connect "boy" with a derrogatory term used to describe the inhabitants of middle kingdom, then you "might" have a case.



Everything i wrote above is in total compliance with what the decision of the Supreme Court was. Now, i suggest before you call anyone fool or bigot, you think what you will write. Time and again it gets proved you are clueless. And stop clutching at straws, this is just the latest of your "straws" to get burned down. And it makes you look silly. (understatement)

So, what you gonna do now boy? Report me for racism?

The prevaling spirit of the post is "use common sense" when you talk about the meaning of "boy" in racist debate or just about anything.
But as we already observed in this thread and a good few before it, common sense for you is hardly attainable. You have rare moments of lucidity but this is not one of them. And you are no stranger to jumping to conclusions either.

You truly are a clueless clown -- no wonder you are in the same camp as gambit.

When racists use the word "boy", they do not need to prefix it with any adjective as in "black boy" or "yellow boy". Their behavioral patterns provide the necessary context to interpret their words. Just one word, "boy" can convey all the racism needed.

No one has ever claimed that the word "boy" by itself, without contextual clues, is racist. When I say, "boy, it's hot today", there's no racial connotation. Lots of people here use the words "boy", "kid", and "12 year old" freely. Without a pattern of usage against a particular ethnicity, or other evidence of racial bias, such usages are dismissed as the usual silliness on internet forums.

The context always determines the intent, and your understanding of context is as pitiful as your understanding of English and logic. Context means much more than the immediate syntactic neighborhood of a particular usage; in a broader sense, context includes all additional clues as to the intended usage -- especially, as I mentioned, the speaker's behavioral patterns.

The whole issue is "does the person have a consistent pattern of animosity towards the target group?"

When such context is abundantly on display, then the language becomes subject to greater scrutiny.

 

[Audio]

You truly are a clueless clown -- no wonder you are in the same camp as gambit.

When racists use the word "boy", they do not need to prefix it with any adjective as in "black boy" or "yellow boy". Their behavioral patterns provide the necessary context to interpret their words. Just one word, "boy" can convey all the racism needed.

No one has ever claimed that the word "boy" by itself, without contextual clues, is racist. When I say, "boy, it's hot today", there's no racial connotation. Lots of people here use the words "boy", "kid", and "12 year old" freely. Without a pattern of usage against a particular ethnicity, or other evidence of racial bias, such usages are dismissed as the usual silliness on internet forums.

The context always determines the intent, and your understanding of context is as pitiful as your understanding of English and logic. Context means much more than the immediate syntactic neighborhood of a particular usage; in a broader sense, context includes all additional clues as to the intended usage -- especially, as I mentioned, the speaker's behavioral patterns.

The whole issue is "does the person have a consistent pattern of animosity towards the target group?"

When such context is abundantly on display, then the language becomes subject to greater scrutiny.

What pattern of usage?

Calling young Chi-bots "boy"? Most of them are rather young, it can be gleaned from the formulation and content of their posts. How is that racist? I will call you boy from now on due to your erm... juvenile standards, and ill never be banned for racism on the account of it.

And btw, for accusing someone of racism, you sure haven't provided any piece of evidence, you know what evidence is, the thing you was seeking so feverishly a few posts ago while the thread was still on topic and you hadnt managed to deflect it with lawyerly stuff.

So, what gives boy? You eating your words or trouble finding conclusive evidence? And hiding behind high flying words cursing again? You're so transparent dude, it's hilarious. The mental gymnastics you need to do.....
----------------------------------------------------

To summarize, bring some (conclusive-that stands in court-not your blabber)proof "boy" was used in racist term or gtfo.

 

[Developereo]

What pattern of usage?

his posting history.