I do not know if Time Driver is who he says he is or not, but I do find it amusing that one of your reaons for doubting him is his poor spelling and grammer.
I didn't say that I doubted his credentials as a time-traveller because of his spelling and grammar. I merely pointed out the irony of a paragraph where he is discussing using simplified (but nonetheless correct) grammar and how he is being careful with regards to what he is saying and how should have nearly 30 grammatical mistakes in it. I doubt his credentials as a time-traveller for many reasons, not least of which being that I'm more than convinced that Titor was a fake (and I believe that most people who have given it serious, or semi-serious thought have, too). Another would be the fact that Time_Driver is speaking of him as if "Titor" was his real name, which not even Titor claimed.
The point with the language, though, is that Time_Driver is misusing all these long words. The use of these words is clearly an affectation, as he can't put them into a sentence in a convincing manner. He is obviously trying to make himself seem intelligent by using them - with the assumption that intelligent people use long words all the time. But if you use the words in an incorrect manner, then you simply show that that's not how you usually speak, rather that you're trying to come accross as something that you're not.
Seriously, look at this from the first post:
Due to the nature of a factual event that had resulted in the mis-calculation of a time segment from a technology piece in the use of Titor, it appeared the gravitational distortion produced by the machine had a WL divergence factor of 5.4%, as opposed to a predicted 2.3-2.4% WL Divergence.
"Factual event"? Why is the word "factual" in there? "A technology peice"? That's "a peice of technology". I'm not even going to get into the last sentence of the second paragraph. Suffice to say that "thus" is misused, and I can only guess what "discussed to a minimum" is supposed to mean. and nobody has an excuse for using the nonsense word "become's".
You would like for real travellers to contact and talk to you, yet try to "debunk" them at every oppertunity.
Well, first off, who said that I wanted time-travellers to contact me?
Secondly, trust me, I don['t try to debunk tham at every oppourtunity. I'd post a lot more frequently if I was. I let a lot slide. I simply point out things that grab me, for various reasons. Often it's amusement. The irony of the grammar thing I found particularly tickling, so I felt it would be quite funny to comment on it.
Finally, I've asked this before, but what's bad about debunking? Surely, just because this is a time travel forum doesn't mean that nobody's claims should be examined for valitidy, does it? Debunking is ineffective against something which is true. If someone's claims are true, then I cannot debunk them, no matter how hard I try. Surely anyone who is interested in talking to a real time-traveller should be concerned with weeding out those who are lying, whether those lies be blatantly obvious for all to see, or if they are more subtle and convincing to most?
It seems as if "debunker" is almost a diry word around here, which I find very puzzling. Surely the antonym of "debunker" or "skeptic" is more or less "credulous" or "gullible"? I know which label I'd rather have applied.
What should I do? Simply accept and believe anything anyone tells me on this forum, simply because of it's subject matter? Or should I do what I always do and try to ensure that, as much as possible, what I know and believe is based on solid facts and evidence?
Glad to be of service.