I may
>not have given "concrete proof"
>that AIDS is man-made,

nope...you haven't even shown that it is POSSIBLE. Remember, your theory requires the genetic engineering of a disease in the 1920's...not possible. Furthermore, it requires the existance of parent viri...none exist. If you want to propose a possible theory, you are going to have to meet some minimum requirements. There are some huge gaps here.

but
>my response on #15 shows
>that there is enough evidence
>and doubt to warrant an
>AIDS is man-made theory. There
>was substancial evidence in that
>post and its funny how
>you just pushed it aside
>sayin i was just "regurgitating"
>whut i stated in my
>previous post, but #15 presents
>it much better than i
>did in my first post.

Yes, #15 is much more eloquent...but that theory has been responded to by proxy. If it will make you feel better, I'll go kill it now.

>You can reply with any
>bullshit you want, but if
>you say my case prooves
>nuthin, you can say the
>same thing about your argument,
>becus you also have NO
>"concrete proof" it occured naturally,
>meaning, it is not a
>prooven FACT.

aight, even if I grant this (which I won't }>), I'll rest on Occam's razor for a while. Where is the logical inconsistency in my position? Where is the GAP of information in my explanation? The fact of the matter is what I've presented is PLAUSIBLE while what you've presented is merely entertaining.