If Kirsch were smart, he would admit he lost the bet and pay you. $25,000 is going to be a lot less in the long run than ruining his reputation beyond repair. No one will (and no one should) take him up on any challenge he issues (or any he has issued) until he shows he pays up when he loses. If he doesn't, what's the point of engaging him in a challenge when he's going to weasel out of it. The first step he needs to take is to either pay you (since he clearly lost) or to explain in writing why he thinks he didn't lose. Of course, he won't be able to come up with any convincing argument on that front, but it would be funny to see him try.
I used to read Kirsch’s newsletter because his name kept popping up as someone pushing back against the COVID hysteria, but his incessant “urgent” and “I’ll bet anyone” posts quickly grew tiresome. So sure of himself, yet contributing nothing of substance. He’s a clown and l love that he’s shown up on your radar. Get your MONEY!
There's a reason Justice Clarence Thomas, in 30 years on the bench, has rarely bothered to engage in oral questioning and argument in cases: He knows that the written submissions contain all the points, arguments and support necessary to weigh the case. Oral debate is where the weasels and snakes can emit smoke, obfuscation and confusion, and walk away claiming "Victory!".
Not here to defend Kirsch, but I followed him long enough to know that for every challenge he put out, he wanted a public debate. I think this is why you got the response you did.
Personally speaking, if the information you want to share is important (which it sures appears to be), then publicly debating him is going to reach the larger audience you seek to stop being harmed. And I look forward to it.
I have immediately left his Substacks, and will follow the struggle. I am not holding my breath on you ever seeing the money.
How a man responds to being called out for falsehood shows his true character. Let's see what happens...
If Kirsch were smart, he would admit he lost the bet and pay you. $25,000 is going to be a lot less in the long run than ruining his reputation beyond repair. No one will (and no one should) take him up on any challenge he issues (or any he has issued) until he shows he pays up when he loses. If he doesn't, what's the point of engaging him in a challenge when he's going to weasel out of it. The first step he needs to take is to either pay you (since he clearly lost) or to explain in writing why he thinks he didn't lose. Of course, he won't be able to come up with any convincing argument on that front, but it would be funny to see him try.
Beautiful, Anthony.
I used to read Kirsch’s newsletter because his name kept popping up as someone pushing back against the COVID hysteria, but his incessant “urgent” and “I’ll bet anyone” posts quickly grew tiresome. So sure of himself, yet contributing nothing of substance. He’s a clown and l love that he’s shown up on your radar. Get your MONEY!
There's a reason Justice Clarence Thomas, in 30 years on the bench, has rarely bothered to engage in oral questioning and argument in cases: He knows that the written submissions contain all the points, arguments and support necessary to weigh the case. Oral debate is where the weasels and snakes can emit smoke, obfuscation and confusion, and walk away claiming "Victory!".
He won’t debate no virus though because he’d get slaughtered.
KEEP GOING. 🍿🍿🍿
Color me unsurprised.
I do look forward to SK responses...
He always does ..
Not here to defend Kirsch, but I followed him long enough to know that for every challenge he put out, he wanted a public debate. I think this is why you got the response you did.
Personally speaking, if the information you want to share is important (which it sures appears to be), then publicly debating him is going to reach the larger audience you seek to stop being harmed. And I look forward to it.
I'm enjoying you taking him to task on this. :-)
I started having second thoughts about him when he was endorsing Kennedy and Elon. I stopped my paid subscription pretty quickly.