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!".
while I was happy to call Kirsch's "no-one wants to debate me!" bluff, I must confess I don't think much of debates either.
A debate is basically having an argument, only with a moderator to hopefully stop things getting too heated and histrionic.
I've seen too many debates where the 'winner' was decided, not by the superior veracity of what they said, but their ability to win favour with the moderator, charm the audience and/or out-yell their opponent.
There's also the shifty Gary Taubes tactic of catching your opponent off-guard with an obscure study that, when checked later (after everyone's gone home), doesn't show what you claimed it did.
Written argument is far more important. It is preserved in print and allows time for the reader to contemplate and methodically double-check what has been stated. That's why scientific research is printed and published.
Science is the quest to advance human knowledge; a debate is far more about entertainment.
I completely agree, and I have seen it multiple times. Public rhetoric is a skill and I'm more than capable of appreciating that skill when it is displayed well, but that doesn't mean it isn't rife with risks of emotional manipulation, obfuscation, half-truths, etc.
And, as you stated in your post, the debate is a red herring and goalpost-shifting on his part. It's an entirely separate question from the original offer he made.
You are playing this perfectly, and with your usual good humor ("I .... asked him to contact me so we could sort out the payment." lol)
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.
as stated, I'm more than happy to debate Kirsch on fluvoxamine. But that's a separate issue. At issue here is the fact that he made a monetary challenge, I met that challenge, and so he now owes me $25,000.
That challenge, by the way, did not request a debate but hard evidence. I have supplied that hard evidence.
Kirsch is now changing the goalposts. He is acting in bad faith. That's not OK.
The fact that he is proposing a debate with you speaks volumes to the depth of his arrogance and narcissism, as he has clearly already lost (although I would love to watch this debate).
The manner in which he conducts himself in a simple interview is appalling. It's like watching an enormous, entitled toddler perseverating over whatever he's deemed important.
In the unlikely event that Steve pays you the money he owes you, and debate ensues...I imagine he will move the goalposts once again. If I had to guess, debating Steve will become you debating Steve and some number of Steve-approved "experts".
Who knows...maybe he will surprise us all with a stroke of humility and integrity, and you'll be up $25,000.
And maybe I'll win the lottery that I'm not playing tonight.
I'm stealing those memes and using them on my upcoming Kirsch post. Someone has asked me to provide receipts for claims I've made about him. It ain't gonna be pretty. I'll be linking to your posts as well, please don't block me.
Good for you. Either he has been bad faith all along, turned bad faith when his chips were down, or has been and still is good faith all along and is just woefully misunderstood. Inquiring minds and conscientious wallets would like to know.
Anthony, you are well aware, there is no sense to show fluvoxamine will or will not treat Covid because there is no such thing as a Covid virus to treat.
Steve already lost a written "debate" with me when he banned me after asking him for a paper proving Sars-CoV-2 which resulted in him saying, "paper debates take years". Screen shot in here
It's an obvious pattern of behavior in bad faith and thus you will never see that money IMO. Has he EVER paid ANYONE out on any of his little "challenges"? He behaves exactly like those he professes to be opposing, by misrepresenting shit, moving goalposts and blocking those that call him out. How interesting eh.
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!".
Hi Daniel,
while I was happy to call Kirsch's "no-one wants to debate me!" bluff, I must confess I don't think much of debates either.
A debate is basically having an argument, only with a moderator to hopefully stop things getting too heated and histrionic.
I've seen too many debates where the 'winner' was decided, not by the superior veracity of what they said, but their ability to win favour with the moderator, charm the audience and/or out-yell their opponent.
There's also the shifty Gary Taubes tactic of catching your opponent off-guard with an obscure study that, when checked later (after everyone's gone home), doesn't show what you claimed it did.
Written argument is far more important. It is preserved in print and allows time for the reader to contemplate and methodically double-check what has been stated. That's why scientific research is printed and published.
Science is the quest to advance human knowledge; a debate is far more about entertainment.
I completely agree, and I have seen it multiple times. Public rhetoric is a skill and I'm more than capable of appreciating that skill when it is displayed well, but that doesn't mean it isn't rife with risks of emotional manipulation, obfuscation, half-truths, etc.
And, as you stated in your post, the debate is a red herring and goalpost-shifting on his part. It's an entirely separate question from the original offer he made.
You are playing this perfectly, and with your usual good humor ("I .... asked him to contact me so we could sort out the payment." lol)
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.
Hi PBinAB,
as stated, I'm more than happy to debate Kirsch on fluvoxamine. But that's a separate issue. At issue here is the fact that he made a monetary challenge, I met that challenge, and so he now owes me $25,000.
That challenge, by the way, did not request a debate but hard evidence. I have supplied that hard evidence.
Kirsch is now changing the goalposts. He is acting in bad faith. That's not OK.
The fact that he is proposing a debate with you speaks volumes to the depth of his arrogance and narcissism, as he has clearly already lost (although I would love to watch this debate).
The manner in which he conducts himself in a simple interview is appalling. It's like watching an enormous, entitled toddler perseverating over whatever he's deemed important.
In the unlikely event that Steve pays you the money he owes you, and debate ensues...I imagine he will move the goalposts once again. If I had to guess, debating Steve will become you debating Steve and some number of Steve-approved "experts".
Who knows...maybe he will surprise us all with a stroke of humility and integrity, and you'll be up $25,000.
And maybe I'll win the lottery that I'm not playing tonight.
Hi Conspiracy Sarah,
I used to think the shape-shifting reptile thing was complete nonsense, but after observing Kirsch ... :)
Oh, and regarding Steve's integrity:
https://imgflip.com/i/8k7x0m
and
https://imgflip.com/i/8k7uw1
Also:
https://imgflip.com/i/8k8694
No idea who's creating these memes ;)
I'm stealing those memes and using them on my upcoming Kirsch post. Someone has asked me to provide receipts for claims I've made about him. It ain't gonna be pretty. I'll be linking to your posts as well, please don't block me.
Hi LGP,
no blocking you here, go for it!
Can’t wait La Gata 🔥
Light him up.
🤣✅
Oh man…I’m sorry I didn’t get these before the meme post today! That’s ok…going in next week’s memes…🙌🏼
I get 99% of my memes from you 🙏❤️🤣
🥰😘
Has he EVER paid anything to anyone for such challenges?
As you've said, judged by "Steve-approved experts".
He's a time-waster extraordinaire, but I'd sure like to see what he does with Mr. Colpo.
Good for you. Either he has been bad faith all along, turned bad faith when his chips were down, or has been and still is good faith all along and is just woefully misunderstood. Inquiring minds and conscientious wallets would like to know.
He’s a tier 2 gatekeeper telling half truths & lies
Who are the Tier 1's?
MSM
Good. thanks for clarifying that. I was just wondering, because I haven't yet tiered the buggers.
I suspect that, even THEY are tiered below some "others"... 🤔
Like all good infiltrators...
Fair enough. I look forward to your getting what's rightfully yours!
Anthony, you are well aware, there is no sense to show fluvoxamine will or will not treat Covid because there is no such thing as a Covid virus to treat.
Steve already lost a written "debate" with me when he banned me after asking him for a paper proving Sars-CoV-2 which resulted in him saying, "paper debates take years". Screen shot in here
https://protonmagic.substack.com/p/steve-kirsch-substack-banned-me-for
Pay you or not, Steve should just be handcuffed and sent to prison.
I'm enjoying you taking him to task on this. :-)
It's an obvious pattern of behavior in bad faith and thus you will never see that money IMO. Has he EVER paid ANYONE out on any of his little "challenges"? He behaves exactly like those he professes to be opposing, by misrepresenting shit, moving goalposts and blocking those that call him out. How interesting eh.