A Highway 2000 Question

[Don1]

yuh ave sense yute?? come betta da dat
yuh ah get desperate when yuh start talk bout artwork fading... ah wha...it fade from blue to orange?? LOL!!


while yuh work out yuh color scheme blunder... check wid Ben an verify yuh overpass cause im nuh ave none

woooiie mi bag ah contradictions!! di opposition inna tizzy

[Don1]

ahmm.. and what is your proof ?

A flying horse 7 miles away from the camera ?

Mi neva seh dat ah proof... mi seh dat support mi argument

[Muadib]

ahm.. you have no argument.. the photo is inconclusive by itself.. you need to provide corroborating data.. you know.. like in a scientific manner.. I suggest you employ something like Google Earth as a start..

Your 'argument' of something that looks like a high rise building in the distance is.. well.. silly..

Go with clearly distinguishable features.. such as the actually 6 lane highway, the Mountain Range, the vegetation, a concentration of buildings implying an urban area....

This is Critical Thinking 101..

[Bricktop]

ahm...who said anything about artwork fading...artworks on billboards are refreshed annually you moron...you cannot be this dense?

[Muadib]

Why can't the picture be one taken from the Port Henderson overpass with the camera pointing NW ?

You have two options of a 6 lane highway heading towards an urban area.. the option of the Portmore leg is the only one that matches the photographs distinguishable elements..

The Kingston leg does not match the photographs distinguishable elements..

Now.. stop being a twit... just tell Historian yuh sarry.. and move on..

[Don1]

Sorry Ben... your sayso on this cannot be relied upon... you have a credibility deficit which you've labored to create & solidify over your 27K posts

I'm open to your theory but the data presented should be reliable. No unsubstantiated statements, color changes on billboards, disappearing overpasses etc

Until good data is presented... your contention is just a reasonable conjecture that may be correct..or not

Ah nuh nutten

[Don1]

I said I'm open to your theory. With the theory being yours...the burden of proof is also yours

Unfortunately I haven't seen any that you presented that's compelling

[Muadib]

Fortunately the information I provided was not for you it was for someone seeking knowledge..

I as a good citizen squashed the folly you were presenting to Historian and gave him some credible data..

Now.. where do you fit into this picture ?

You don't.. however I enjoy the kamedy you do provide as a sideshow..

[Don1]

So if the artwork changed imbecile...how is it to be familiar as you foolishly asked?? How is it to be relied upon??

While you're at it...Where is the overpass in Historian's image??

Feel free to reapply when you've resolved the discrepancies cause NRO nuh ave patience fi amateurs... or imbeciles

[Muadib]

Your idiocy is only surpassed by your self-importance...

The person seeking knowledge has been given such... you have inserted your clown act into an edification process..

He who knows not and knows not is a fool and must be shunned.. you are not qualified to be educated on this matter... I do however enjoy debunking your ridiculous assertions...

[Muadib]

I think you missed the conclusion arrived at by knowledgeable people of the forum that the picture was probably taken from the overpass.. now even you with your limited capacity should deduce what this would mean from a photographic standpoint..

[Don1]

That is indeed quite possible... unfortunately it's also not proof of the camera direction

Too bad

No sense in my returning to this topic absent some new and compelling data

Unnu give it a credible try doh... mi give unnu A fi effert

[Don1]

lol

[Muadib]

You should not have returned to the topic after you brain fart about New Kingston was exposed as such...

I give you A++ for a high pain threshold.. yuh face ah get a severe battering..

[Don1]

lol