Critical Analysis of What The Bleep Do We Know Part 4 @NoToPseudoscience
Critical Analysis of What The Bleep Do We Know Part 4  @NoToPseudoscience
Uploaded February 2011 | Updated September 2026, 2 weeks ago
Update: Comment approval now removed. You are free to comment as you wish. This will be revisited if anyone else tries to circumvent a channel ban in future.

PLEASE READ CAREFULLY:

I'm citing "Fair Use" under US Copyright Act, Title 17 512 (g)(f), specifically those clauses covering Comment and Criticism, as well as the DMCA.
aclunc.org/issues/technology/blog/asset_upload_file939_6218.pdf

Also "Fair Dealing" under UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 c.48, Part 1(Copyright) Section 79.4a
opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/ukpga_19880048_en_4

Censorship is NOT a valid argument.

This is the fourth part of my critical analysis of "What The Bleep Do We Know?! Down The Rabbit Hole".

Note: Re-upload - Encoding errors and a problem with the tally count at the end required another re-render. As a consequence, I took the time to re-word a few of my responses here and there.
Critical Analysis of What The Bleep Do We Know Part 4Fail Quote-MINE for August (2011)Talking Points: You parasites want to take our belongings at gunpoint!Talking Points: The NIOF Principle is the ultimate principle in libertarianismThe insanity of some judges is staggering...Talking Points: A frivolous collection...On the subject of Indoctrination (Abridged version)A brief tribute to the HitchTalking Points: Regulations exist to restrict supply and/or demand...I am Vogter!Creationist Name & Shame Series - HISTRUTHBEKNOWN 1 of 2Creationist Name & Shame Series - shonasplace revisited (1/4)
No To Pseudoscience |

Critical Analysis of "What The Bleep Do We Know" Part 4

SHARE TO X SHARE TO REDDIT SHARE TO FACEBOOK WALLPAPER