A few years back, me here at S&MD demonstrated that Jonathan Krohn is hoax. See the studies posted here and here. Well, according to both Politco and Huffingtonpost, Krohn yielded to the moral pressure exerted by my campaign. Granted, he is saving face by referring to his hoax as a matter of “naive[ness]“. But I’m still pleased.
This also verifies my conditional claim, expounded in the second study above: If Jonathan is not a hoax, then he has Chatterbox Syndrome. Since Krohn is a hoax, the anti-cedent of my conditional is false. Now, it is an axiom of human rationality that if the anti-cedent of a conditional statement is false, then the conditional as a whole is true. So: my statement has now been empirically verified.
Nice work NS, I’m surprised it took Krohn this long to come around..
BTW, I’m get a “This page has insecure content” warning, but it’s not clear what is causing it. It doesn’t look any different either way.
me … demonstrated? Is you trying to defeat grammar now, too?
And the Huffington story merely refers to the Politico one, so me doesn’t think that counts as two different “studies.” And your logic is as obscure as ever.
So yes, nice work, NS. Both farcical and illiterate.
Angel if there was a prize for substance-free comments, you would get silver place.
Bye,
NS