My Beastly Ebola Speculations: Please Discuss

[Amaterasu]

More interpretation than information.

Sure, ArMaP.  If Ya say so.

[ArMaP]

I say so because I see things like this:

Why and how did the United Nations switch the FIRST epicentre – from Gueckedou, Guinea – to Sierra Leone's northeastern district of Kailahun, the SECOND and new epicenter?

Where's the evidence that the UN switched the first epicentre from Guinea to Sierra Leone? The WHO site still points to a 2-year-old boy from Meliandou, Guéckédou, Guinea.

And when he/she compares what some person from the BBC said with the official statements from the WHO, why does he/she acts as if the BBS must be right? Just because it suits his/her opinion?

Give me facts, not opinions.

[Amaterasu]

I will not say that it lacks some facts, but My point is that there are plenty of facts there.  Throwing the baby out with the bathwater is...  Less than honest?

[ArMaP]

I will not say that it lacks some facts, but My point is that there are plenty of facts there.  Throwing the baby out with the bathwater is...  Less than honest?

Can you give me a list of the facts present there that aren't available anywhere else? Thanks in advance.

[Amaterasu]

Hahaha!  No, because the facts, gathered in one place, are linked there.  It is the whole of the picture that can be seen with the bringing together of those facts that is the point, speculation aside,

What are You after, here, ArMaP?

[ArMaP]

What are You after, here, ArMaP?

An intelligent discussion, but I'm starting to think that's not possible here. 

[Amaterasu]

An intelligent discussion, but I'm starting to think that's not possible here. 

That is why You are demanding facts that are not provided with links from that site?  You may indeed be right.

[Amaterasu]

You have said worse things.
What's this "Agenda 21" you keep on talking about? Is it the same as the UN's "Agenda 21" or is it something else?

Missed this... 

The UN Agenda 21, yes.  It calls for a reduction of population by 90%...

http://guardianlv.com/2013/09/agenda-21-revealed-you-need-to-know-this/

http://www.dcclothesline.com/2013/11/17/agenda-21-population-control-map-usa/

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/11/19/what-is-agenda-21-after-watching-this-you-may-not-want-to-know/

http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/north-america/item/10661-un-pushes-population-control-agenda

http://truthstreammedia.com/future-earth-agenda-21s-forbidden-zones/

https://plus.google.com/116750428878812204328/posts/gbyJKv3U5Qv

http://www.occupycorporatism.com/agenda-21-eco-cities-built-for-permanent-population-control/

http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/al-gore-agenda-21-and-population-control




And on and on.

[ArMaP]

That is why You are demanding facts that are not provided with links from that site?  You may indeed be right.

I am not demanding anything, I was asking, and what I was asking for was a list of facts that were only presented there, because that would be (at least to me) the only way that site would be something to keep an eye on, if it's just another site repeating what anyone can find on the Internet it's irrelevant.

And I asked because I saw two things presented as facts and didn't see any of those supported by any evidence that wasn't from their site.

PS: I don't understand your first sentence, "facts that are not provided with links from that site", I'm misunderstand something or it doesn't make sense.

[Amaterasu]

So...  Putting together puzzle pieces has no value?  You're saying You had all that info (supported with links) before You visited?  All People who pull together data, construct pictures, and speculate are wasting Their time?  Ok...  I guess, ArMaP.

EDIT to add:  As for that line You didn't grasp...  Let Me rephrase:

That is why You are demanding facts from that page that are not supported with links?

[ArMaP]

Missed this... 

The UN Agenda 21, yes.  It calls for a reduction of population by 90%...

I suppose it will be too much if ask in which page(s) of the Agenda 21 document do they talk about population reduction, but I will ask (not demand) anyway, I may be lucky.

PS: thanks for the links.

[ArMaP]

So...  Putting together puzzle pieces has no value?

I didn't say that.

You're saying You had all that info (supported with links) before You visited?

No.

All People who pull together data, construct pictures, and speculate are wasting Their time?

Only if they base their speculation on the wrong data. Anyway, people can waste their time the way they want, but don't expect me to waste my time the way you want it.

That is why You are demanding facts from that page that are not supported with links?

OK, that way I understand it. And no, that wasn't what I was asking for (not demanding).

[Amaterasu]

Only if they base their speculation on the wrong data.

And what wrong data was there?  Or rather...  What of the info in the links was wrong?

[ArMaP]

And what wrong data was there?  Or rather...  What of the info in the links was wrong?

I was complaining of not having links to the data and you ask me about the info in the links. 

[Amaterasu]

I was complaining of not having links to the data and you ask me about the info in the links. 

Huh?  You said, "Only if they base their speculation on the wrong data."  I asked what that wrong data was.  And it was from the linked data They made speculation.  So...  I asked what linked data was wrong.  But at this point, ArMaP...  I'm dropping this thread.  You are seemingly being intentionally obtuse, and I tire of dealing with it (whether intentional or not).

Thanks for playing.