The facial tic is so dominant it even shows up in her typing. I'm sure Mr and Mrs Duggar know all about bodily gratification, in fact isn't that very bodily gratification the impetus for mini Duggar number twenty-something's impending arrival.
9/1/2009 10:11:27 AM
Slater: That would be too good to be true. Please provide evidence for this fascinating assertion.
Then I might be able to have a modicum of faith in humankind again. Maybe.
9/1/2009 3:00:44 PM
I remembered the name wrong, though. Wasn't Doug but Dunc. Dunc289 to be exact.
"Carico is an alter ego I created as a straw man upon which you can all rally in group condemnation.
Obviously it's a lot of work for me to keep up this level of vitriol, but I'm sure you'll agree I've done a great job of uniting atheists and christians alike around a common purpose.
I AM CARICO!"
9/1/2009 3:21:58 PM
@ Lainey: There ought to be more definitive proof than that. On the internet, I can easily say something like this -
"I am Weird Al Yankovic. I actually come to this website quite often, because it gives me ideas for new, more ridiculous parodies of songs."
Obviously this assertion is untrue and doesn't make me Weird Al Yankovic, or make me any less of a girl at all. The only way to come close to proving or disproving my statement (barring an official police investigation) would be for the REAL Weird Al Yankovic to post and for the powers that be to compare our IP addresses.
TL;DR: I guess what I'm saying is that providing a post in which someone says "I AM CARICO" does not exactly qualify as evidence that the poster is, in fact, Carico.
9/2/2009 6:08:04 AM
@Pookie: Who ever said anything about evidence? This isn't a scientific theory, you don't need conclusive evidence, just something like reasonable doubt.
Given the circumstances, and the fact that Carico does not deny being Dunc, I'd say you have just lost any reason to believe that Carico is a real Christian.
You are of course welcome to keep believing that, but without any reason to, that's... faith.
9/3/2009 5:51:52 AM
@ Slater: Examining the veracity of a claim is a HIGHLY scientific concept, and as such one has every right to request evidence that substantiates or debunks said claim. Be careful also when invoking the term faith in a disagreement of this type: by blindly accepting Dunc289's statement as fact, it is you and not I who is operating on faith.
But I digress. You mentioned that Carico did not deny Dunc289's claim, which I concede could be interpreted as evidence toward them being the same person. However, failure to DENY a claim doesn't make the claim true (this is a false dichotomy). If I say "The sky is most certainly neon green," and nobody refutes me, that just means everyone thinks I'm batshit crazy - not that they agree the sky is green.
Carico may not have denied Dunc289's assertion because to her it was irrelevant, and in a way it was.
Remembering the thread, I'm pretty sure that Carico and Dunc289 were simultaneously holding two divergent conversations with different posters - AFTER Dunc289 claimed that he was Carico. Why, if Dunc289 was Carico, would he continue to not only use the alias but remain in character after revealing it as a troll? This is a heavy strike against Dunc289's claim and your belief in it.
One establishes or dispels reasonable doubt by presenting and refuting evidence. Given the evidence at hand, I have reason to doubt that Dunc289 is making a legitimate claim, and I will stand by that assertion until compelling evidence can be presented that proves otherwise.
9/4/2009 11:32:38 AM