You know full well what it means.
No. Please tell us what a "proper engagement" consists of and how you arrived at that meaning.
You have little clue if you honestly believe we're the same person.
Insults will not avail you. Every sock puppet who has posted at this and similar forums -- and there have been a legion of them -- has shown an inflated opinion of his skill at pretending to be different people. As I said, your inability to create distinct characters in your book merely underscores your inability to create distinct characters here.
I am impressed how well you seem to know Burns from just a few of his posts.
Glad to see I've impressed you.
'Almost together' is a bit wishy washy isn't it?
No.
How long a gap between our posts would be required for you to not think I'm actually a 70 year old accountant?
Straw man. The six-days-after-two-years interval is only one element in a consilience of proof. Besides, you have an established history on this forum of lying about your identity. Why would we conclude you've suddenly reformed and seen the error of your ways? Why wouldn't we suspect you're trying a trick you've tried before?
You also keep referring to me as Burns even though I constantly say I am not.
You can constantly say anything you want. The consilience of evidence does not depend on your protestations.
I am not defending him.
Yes, you really are. Before the sock-puppet issue arose, you couldn't praise him enough for writing a "nicely-presented," "entertaining" book, despite our rejection of its putative claims, and trying to take all the critics here to task for rejecting him based on what you surmised were improper grounds.
I am defending my right to like something without having to defend myself from childish accusations...
You may dismiss the accusation all you want, but the offense you are accused of committing is one of the more strictly enforced rules here. I assure you it is not viewed as childish or trivial by the forum management.
No one is questioning your right to like a book. The question is why its entertainment value is a relevant criterion to a book that purports to be fact but gets so much wrong. Everyone here but you
does care whether the claims made in the book are factual or not, and if your plan is to avoid that discussion assiduously in favor of warm-fuzzy affection for it, then you're quite definitely in the wrong forum.
...and amateur sleuthing which is so far wide of the mark it's laughable.
That's for you to prove to the moderator. It's abundantly apparent that Skeptic_UK and Jockndoris are both Andrew Neil Barns, the author of Haunted by Neil Armstrong. No real sleuthing is required -- your attempts to pretend to be a multitude of people are really very ham-fisted. I don't care under what name you post. But if the core of your argument is going to insist we treat your various
noms du rete as separate people, you will not make headway here.
