• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Question for Ryan Mackey

Miragememories said:
Edited by Lisa Simpson: 
Edited to remove quoted remark.
Click to expand...

Edited by Lisa Simpson: 
Edited to remove inappropriate remark.
Griffin did not renege on his agreement for aesthetic reasons. He cannot hope to defend his farrago of lies and nonsense, and he doesn't intend to try. The fantasists who have been spanked by Mark on 'Hardfire' don't require showers so much as ointment for their glowing backsides. Before you do your world-famous Roadrunner impersonation, tell us what "truths" your evil movement has revealed in six years of screaming.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jonnyclueless said:
And what were your proven credentials again?
Click to expand...

Ah credentials.

I've worked in the broadcast business for almost 4 decades.

I met John Dean shortly after Watergate and countless politicians and celebs ever since.

Does that give me credibility?

Not a bit.

Does working for NASA make Ryan a credible NIST defender?

You decide.

Having met so many people that are famous but started out as ordinary folk who need to use the crapper just like I do, I'm not in awe of their labels.

If what they say has quality than they do.

If they are so trapped by their arrogant belief in the validity of the worship from the rank-in-file, than I have no respect or faith in them what so ever.

MM
 
Miragememories said:
Ah credentials.

I've worked in the broadcast business for almost 4 decades.

I met John Dean shortly after Watergate and countless politicians and celebs ever since.

Does that give me credibility?

Not a bit.

Does working for NASA make Ryan a credible NIST defender?

You decide.

Having met so many people that are famous but started out as ordinary folk who need to use the crapper just like I do, I'm not in awe of their labels.

If what they say has quality than they do.

If they are so trapped by their arrogant belief in the validity of the worship from the rank-in-file, than I have no respect or faith in them what so ever.

MM
Click to expand...


Show us the errors you--or other conspiracy liars--have discovered in Mackey's paper. Get specific, or stop prattling.
 
Last edited:
Miragememories said:
Ah credentials.

I've worked in the broadcast business for almost 4 decades.

I met John Dean shortly after Watergate and countless politicians and celebs ever since.

Does that give me credibility?

Not a bit.
Click to expand...
Well, it could give you credibility when it comes to broadcasting and a certain amount of credibility regarding celeb behavior you have observed.


Does working for NASA make Ryan a credible NIST defender?

You decide.
Click to expand...
That alone does not make him credible.

I think he's credible because he has an excellent education in physics and math, writes and speaks well, doesn't appear to make many mistakes, wrote an excellent paper that he put out for all to criticize, etc.

The fact that he works for NASA is just a bit of added credibility, since they aren't known for hiring stupid people to fill positions like his.

Having met so many people that are famous but started out as ordinary folk who need to use the crapper just like I do, I'm not in awe of their labels.

If what they say has quality than they do.

If they are so trapped by their arrogant belief in the validity of the worship from the rank-in-file, than I have no respect or faith in them what so ever.

MM
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Miragememories said:
Getting it?

Or just tired of arguing NIST rhetoric with someone who feels his employer graces him with credibility that is unproven.

MM
Click to expand...


I'm still waiting for an answer, Miragememories.

You answered one of my posts, and made the insinuation that (1) realcddeal merely "got tired of arguing." Well, that's not true. Perhaps you missed where he wrote the following:
realcddeal said:
You are right, I did ask you. I am satisfied with your answer. NIST did their angle refinement to match the damage and went away from the video analysis. That was a judgement call.
Click to expand...


You (2) further insinuate that I feel my "employer graces
with credibility that is unproven."

Substantiate this accusation. Do it now.
 
Last edited:
Miragememories said:
Does working for NASA make Ryan a credible NIST defender?

You decide.
Click to expand...

Show us where he's wrong.
 
Last edited:
R.Mackey said:
I'm still waiting for an answer, Miragememories.

You answered one of my posts, and made the insinuation that (1) realcddeal merely "got tired of arguing." Well, that's not true. Perhaps you missed where he wrote the following:



You (2) further insinuate that I feel my "employer graces
with credibility that is unproven."

Substantiate this accusation. Do it now.
Click to expand...


Substantiate???

Need I point to all the references from your adoring group of sycophants here in JREF Ryan?

Come on man, I don't question your intelligence so please don't waste your time playing me for a fool!

MM
 
Is it too much to ask that a post be coherent and grammatically correct?**
I mean, geez, Miragememories, do you bother to proofread your posts?**

I usually ignore typos and grammatical errors because, generally speaking, as long as one's message is coherent, there is no real need to be overly pedantic. However, since you made a point of criticizing a minor typo by another poster while completely ignoring the content of his post, your numerous grammatical and typographical errors are fair game in order to illustrate your hypocrisy.

Miragememories said:
Having met so many people that who are famous but started out as ordinary folk who need to use the crapper just like I do, I'm not in awe of their labels.

If what they say has quality, than then they do.

If they are so trapped by their arrogant belief in the validity of the worship from the rank-in-file rank and file, than then I have no respect or faith in them what so ever whatsoever.

MM
Click to expand...


** This is a Miragememories post from yesterday.
 
Last edited:
Miragememories said:
History might argue that point.
Click to expand...
Certainly, NASA has made mistakes. I doubt R.Mackey would argue that.

However, please show me evidence of "history" arguing that NASA regularly hired uncredentialed, not credible people.
 
LashL said:
Is it too much to ask that a post be coherent and grammatically correct?**
I mean, geez, Miragememories, do you bother to proofread your posts?**

I usually ignore typos and grammatical errors because, generally speaking, as long as one's message is coherent, there is no real need to be overly pedantic. However, since you made a point of criticizing a minor typo by another poster while completely ignoring the content of his post, your numerous grammatical and typographical errors are fair game in order to illustrate your hypocrisy.




** This is a Miragememories post from yesterday.
Click to expand...

Thank you for that important correction C.

I'm sure you eliminated a great deal of confusion and have made the world a better place as a result.

MM
 
Mr. Skinny said:
The fact that he works for NASA is just a bit of added credibility, since they aren't known for hiring stupid people to fill positions like his.
Click to expand...
Miragememories said:
History might argue that point. The moon landings happened a long time ago.
Click to expand...


So, one of NASA’s most notable successes happened many years ago. Now, in what way does that fact refute the notion that NASA aren't known for hiring stupid people to fill positions like Mr. Mackey’s?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom