6) Selective editing of all contrary points to the original claims and focusing on the previously changed subject.

>>You made the claims once. I offered evidence in refutation. The ball is still in your court if you wish to return volley.
>
>I already provided the evidence. Because you choose to ignore it doesn't make it any less true.

The claims you've made are not backed up by documented proof.

Let's review :
Please provide documented proof that shale mining readily pollutes groundwater.

You provided 3 wiki links. A) These do not constitute documented proof and B) as I previously mentioned I understand that shale mining may cause contamination without proper controls. I am not seeing justification for the statement that it readily pollutes.

You then respond with You're reading the statements without reading between the lines.

This is not documented proof but rather an implication of some special understanding that you have.

Next, you provide further statements which I question the validity of I find the bolded statements above to be factually incorrect. , offer contrary information and ask for further evidence:

Please provide proof that any of these 3 claimed that their activities would have no "incidents". (Referring to Anadarko, Chevron and Shell)

Following this you repeat your original statement claiming, still without evidence, that it still holds true.

I then accept the subject change and offer contrary evidence to your statements and then ask you to provide documented proof to back up the claim that "oil and corexit" will be "entering our food chain for decades to come."

You give me the following links, regarding the possible lingering effects of the spill in the Gulf which contain no documented proof to back up your statements that I'm questioning.

>Here's some reading for you, chief:
>
>http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2011/03/201138152955897442.html

This does not pertain to what I asked and anecdotal evidence is not documented proof.

>http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/08/100819-gulf-oil-spill-bp-underwater-plume-science-environment/

This is documented proof from August of last year of an oil plume, however, it does not pertain to what I asked.

>http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2011-05-30/business/os-gulf-spill-research-weekender-20110528_1_gulf-oil-spill-bp-disaster-crude-oil

This does not pertain to what I asked and also does not constitute documented proof.

By the article's own words The researchers don't know yet how harmful or extensive the layer of gunk from the dirty blizzard is in the Gulf.

You have not provided any evidence for the statements I have questioned.