Encountered my first "Truther" today

[deep]

He could have been held a nice long time. I had a client who was held for a week w/out bail being set.

Or you could also have a reallllly simple case of misunderstanding on TRI's part, he may have had bail set, but been UNABLE TO MEET IT. (mom in prision, dad dead/gone... who is going to pay his bail? oh no one)


Well, as I mentioned earlier - juveniles in Florida are not even eligible for bail, so that rules out the possibility of bail being set too high.

triforcharity: any news?

[WildCat]

there is none
but red's pride would rather him look like a moron than be honest (par for the course in the TM i suppose)
It doesn't have to be pride. Generally, morons don't realize that they're morons. Because they're morons.

[triforcharity]

Well, as I mentioned earlier - juveniles in Florida are not even eligible for bail, so that rules out the possibility of bail being set too high.

triforcharity: any news?

Deep, I am so sorry. He did not grant him a release. Sorry. My mistake. You are correct though. Juvies in Floridaa do not need a bond. BUT, if they have been adjuicaated as ADULTS with felonies, then a jusge caan require a "surity bond" wich is simmilar.

[TheDaver]

At least 3 out of 3 debunkers have low evidence of their stories.
“At least”? How can there be any more than 3 out of 3?

Nevermind – you’re a truther… your math must be about as strong as your physics.

[Orphia Nay]

My deepest apologies ma'am. Please, allow me to grovel at your feet and beg your forgiveness.

:) That won't be necessary. :) I'll just make fun of you for your next post:


Deep, I am so sorry. He did not grant him a release. Sorry. My mistake. You are correct though. Juvies in Floridaa do not need a bond. BUT, if they have been adjuicaated as ADULTS with felonies, then a jusge caan require a "surity bond" wich is simmilar.

I guess that was a 6 beer & 2 bourbons post. :D :)

[Mr.Herbert]

Deep, I am so sorry. He did not grant him a release. Sorry. My mistake. You are correct though. Juvies in Floridaa do not need a bond. BUT, if they have been adjuicaated as ADULTS with felonies, then a jusge caan require a "surity bond" wich is simmilar.

There, all better. :)

[RedIbis]

It doesn't have to be pride. Generally, morons don't realize that they're morons. Because they're morons.

Can we stay on the topic of this thread please? Namecalling, misappropriating quotes and general foolishness is distracting from the point, which is for Tri to support his story with some type of proof.

[Justin39640]

Can we stay on the topic of this thread please? Namecalling, misappropriating quotes and general foolishness is distracting from the point, which is for Tri to support his story with some type of proof.

you were proven a liar here in this thread, thats what was being discussed

would you like us to start a new thread on how much you lie and whether or not its because youre dishonest, too proud, or just a moron?

[TheDaver]

Can we stay on the topic of this thread please? Namecalling, misappropriating quotes and general foolishness is distracting from the point, which is for Tri to support his story with some type of proof.
Excuse me? Who made put you in charge of this thread?

Tri was the OP and he posted just to tell a story. He doesn’t need to prove it. But I see a handful of people have already tried to explain that to you, with no success.

you were proven a liar here in this thread, thats what was being discussed

would you like us to start a new thread on how much you lie and whether or not its because youre dishonest, too proud, or just a moron?
How about all of the above?

[triforcharity]

:) That won't be necessary. :) I'll just make fun of you for your next post:




I guess that was a 6 beer & 2 bourbons post. :D :)

No, more like 5-6 Crown and cokes, and a shot of Patron.

[RedIbis]

you were proven a liar here in this thread, thats what was being discussed

would you like us to start a new thread on how much you lie and whether or not its because youre dishonest, too proud, or just a moron?

Go for it. It should be a real hoot.

[tsig]

Go for it. It should be a real hoot.

Red, you know that would be a call-out thread. Are you trying to lead TheDaver down the garden path?

[RedIbis]

Red, you know that would be a call-out thread. Are you trying to lead TheDaver down the garden path?

It was his idea. I could not care less. I'll ignore him over there or over here if he stays off topic.

[funk de fino]

It was his idea. I could not care less. I'll ignore him over there or over here if he stays off topic.

Liar.

[TheDaver]

Liar.
No kidding. I’d rather not take credit for Justin’s idea (no offense).

[Hokulele]

...

Anyway - I'm looking forward to seeing that sanitized report. May I suggest that you send the original to Hokulele for verification?


Just to clarify, I had recommended that triforcharity send the original to one of the Admins (Darat or Lisa Simpson) as they and only they have access to tri's registration information and can verify that the names match. Tri can send it to one of the mods, who can then have one of the admins check for verification.

I have no access to the name behind tri's screen nick and would be able to confirm the report, but not that it matches tri. I know T.A.M. did something similar with his credentials way back when, and he can confirm how that process worked.

It may be that my custom blue title ("TLA Dictatrix") confuses the issue. All that really means is that I am in charge of the monthly language award, sort of the anti-Stundies, but that is it. I cannot edit posts, move posts, and I know as little about the posters here as anyone else, and you (the generic you, not you personally) should trust my word no more or no less than any other poster here.

By the way, if you want to know more about the Language Awards, please see the Nomination thread in Community:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2821875#post2821875

You can also click on the links in my signature to see the current polls.

[/Public Service Announcement, shameless shilling for votes in the polls]

[triforcharity]

I was speaking to a friend of mine, who happens to be a lawyer, and he said it would be ill-advised to release the unsanitized report to anyone, as juvie cases are not subject to FOIA, and I could end up in some legal trouble if this was released. Especially because he will have a "withhold adjudication" and the judge has already agreed to a sealed record.

I will have to ask him if a sanitized report could be presented without problems. So far, it doesn't seem that this would be a problem.

Maybe LashL could help a little.

*Bows 3 times in the direction of Toronto*

[LashL]

I was speaking to a friend of mine, who happens to be a lawyer, and he said it would be ill-advised to release the unsanitized report to anyone, as juvie cases are not subject to FOIA, and I could end up in some legal trouble if this was released. Especially because he will have a "withhold adjudication" and the judge has already agreed to a sealed record.

I will have to ask him if a sanitized report could be presented without problems. So far, it doesn't seem that this would be a problem.

Maybe LashL could help a little.

*Bows 3 times in the direction of Toronto*


There are several issues that arise, but the short answer is no, no, absolutely no, you should not under any circumstances provide an unredacted report involving a juvenile to anyone who is not directly involved in the case.

Generally speaking, a redacted version with any and all potentially identifying information pertaining to the juvenile removed (i.e., name, date of birth, address, school, next of kin, and potentially much more) may be okay to disseminate, but you should not do so without having the redacted version vetted by a lawyer first. Particularly since you have alluded to a "sealed record" - it is important to ensure that you know what the terms of any sealing order actually are before you can know if even redacting the documents will comply with the terms of any such order.

This is a matter that is probably not best dealt with in public on a discussion forum, but we can talk about it further via PM if you like.

[TruthersLie]

See this has been exposed as yet another fabrication... after all when debunkers want to smear twoofs they need to make up fake legal cases with indepth background and understanding of legal matters and they will make up fake State of florida papers that will be so redacted they are useless.

Because we know how debunkers make up stuff to make truthers look like idiots (see National Geographic special or Van Jones)

[WUBRINY63]

Still nothing. How surprising. Nice play Red.

[triforcharity]

See wubby, this is where you and I differ. I think things through, and look at all the possible scenarios. You on the other hand look for the LEAST possible scenario, and go with that one.

Its the critical thinking that sets you and I apart.

[WUBRINY63]

So you support a liar, good for you.

Red hasn't lied about anything that I can see. He definitely hasn't told any whoppers. What is your standard for believing in a whopper without any proof?

[dtugg]

Red hasn't lied about anything that I can see. He definitely hasn't told any whoppers. What is your standard for believing in a whopper without any proof?

Then you can point out where tri's story has been "exposed as a fabrication." If you can't, admit that RedIbis is a liar.

Just in case you don't understand this, you personally doubting the story does not mean that it was "exposed as a fabrication."

[triforcharity]

Dtugg,

To them, it most certainly does. But, we know thata is typical for the TM.

[WUBRINY63]

Then you can point out where tri's story has been "exposed as a fabrication." If you can't, admit that RedIbis is a liar.

Just in case you don't understand this, you personally doubting the story does not mean that it was "exposed as a fabrication."

Nope. Tri can validate his whopper. I love this thread. Do you not get what Red has setup? You believe a story with no evidence. Even if it is proven to be true later on it is obvious that you and others have already committed to believing it because of who has presented it. He is one of you. That's all you needed. Are you a skeptic? Because that story was a whopper.

[Justin39640]

Nope. Tri can validate his whopper. I love this thread. Do you not get what Red has setup? You believe a story with no evidence. Even if it is proven to be true later on it is obvious that you and others have already committed to believing it because of who has presented it. He is one of you. That's all you needed. Are you a skeptic? Because that story was a whopper.
thats your opinion
which makes your post here absolutely stupid

red has set himself up to look like an idiot
thats it

[triforcharity]

Wubby,

My story fits in quite nicely with the sterotypical if not a-typical MO of the TM.

Now, with that in mind, most people tend to believe something if it has happened in the past. Ie: If a group of people are known for their hatred, saay, the KKK, and someone here (or anywhere for that matter) had told me a story that some KKK members called him the "N" word and threatened to hurt him, I would believe his story. Its commonly called "the per ponderous of evidence" in the legal field.

Now, can you prove that my experience, as has been provided, is a lie or false?

[Justin39640]

wait hold on i think i see a pattern

truther - "9/11 was undeniably an INSIDE JOB"
debunker - "please prove that"
truther - "cause we need a NEW INVESTIGATION!!!"

[tuc0]

Its commonly called "the per ponderous of evidence" in the legal field.

I'm no expert but you probably mean "preponderance of evidence". :)

[RedIbis]

Wubby,

My story fits in quite nicely with the sterotypical if not a-typical MO of the TM.

Now, with that in mind, most people tend to believe something if it has happened in the past. Ie: If a group of people are known for their hatred, saay, the KKK, and someone here (or anywhere for that matter) had told me a story that some KKK members called him the "N" word and threatened to hurt him, I would believe his story. Its commonly called "the per ponderous of evidence" in the legal field.

Now, can you prove that my experience, as has been provided, is a lie or false?

I think this is the most revealing post yet. Your story fits in nicely with what you think is stereotypical behavior, so you expected it to be accepted as fact.

The problem of course is that the details were not consistent, and as soon as you were asked to provide proof of your story, you were unable to do so. You even appeared to be contradicting yourself and basic judicial procedures here in Florida.

You were hoping that because something like this (although I've never heard of a story like this) happened before, it would be believed again. Where I would agree with you is that what you call evidence is indeed "ponderous", to say the least.

[funk de fino]

I think this is the most revealing post yet. Your story fits in nicely with what you think is stereotypical behavior, so you expected it to be accepted as fact.

The problem of course is that the details were not consistent, and as soon as you were asked to provide proof of your story, you were unable to do so. You even appeared to be contradicting yourself and basic judicial procedures here in Florida.

You were hoping that because something like this (although I've never heard of a story like this) happened before, it would be believed again. Where I would agree with you is that what you call evidence is indeed "ponderous", to say the least.


Regardless, you still lied.

[triforcharity]

I'm no expert but you probably mean "preponderance of evidence". :)

Yes, it was late, and I was drinking. Seems I alsways make stupid mistakes like that when I am drinking.

[triforcharity]

I think this is the most revealing post yet. Your story fits in nicely with what you think is stereotypical behavior, so you expected it to be accepted as fact.

The problem of course is that the details were not consistent, and as soon as you were asked to provide proof of your story, you were unable to do so. You even appeared to be contradicting yourself and basic judicial procedures here in Florida.

You were hoping that because something like this (although I've never heard of a story like this) happened before, it would be believed again. Where I would agree with you is that what you call evidence is indeed "ponderous", to say the least.

So, Red, lets look at this very carefully.

It is VERY much like th truthers to be rude and disgusting. Just see some of Mark Roberts' videos. How about the one where the idiots ambush the lone firefighter DURING THE ******* memorial!!! How much more RUDE AND DISGUSTING can you get?? I guess they haven't (To my knowledge anyway) urinated on any of the memorials yet. That would be about as disgusting as one could possibly get.

Now, will you please point to anywhere in my posts where I havae directly contradicted myself?? Now, don't start on this BS about his age, because even when asked how old he was, I stated that I THOUGHT he was in his early 20's. This is not to be confused with I KNOW HE IS.

Now, as far as the whole bail thing goes. You are correct. I did make that mistake, and when called on it, I fully admitted that I was wrong on that. Something YOU cannot POSSIBLY do. EVER. Its beyond you.

You will NEVER admit that you are wrong. EVEN THOUGH everyone on here, minus HI aka Wubby, and of course your little crossdressing friend, ALL agree that you are a LIAR and its ben PROVEN!!

Sorry, I won't just post something on the internet that could get me in trouble. I have spoken to a lawyer, and to some other people here about my legal repercussions if I post his JUVIE arrest report on here. I won't just go and post it for all to see, then find out I am being sued in court. Sorry Sir, won't do it. It would be unethical and stupid, and could end up costing me alot of money, possibly even my job.

[TexasJack]

.

The problem of course is that the details were not consistent, and as soon as you were asked to provide proof of your story, you were unable to do so. You even appeared to be contradicting yourself and basic judicial procedures here in Florida.

You don't understand the judicial process, so this entire statement is worthless.

Plus, you should worry about your own credibility, stating his story was exposed as a fabrication without proof says it all.

[Justin39640]

"tri's story has been exposed as a fabrication" - nope it hasnt sorry
"red has been exposed as a liar and wubby apparently has no morals or common sense" - proven

thank you for playing

[RedIbis]

So, Red, lets look at this very carefully.

It is VERY much like th truthers to be rude and disgusting. Just see some of Mark Roberts' videos. How about the one where the idiots ambush the lone firefighter DURING THE ******* memorial!!! How much more RUDE AND DISGUSTING can you get?? I guess they haven't (To my knowledge anyway) urinated on any of the memorials yet. That would be about as disgusting as one could possibly get.

Now, will you please point to anywhere in my posts where I havae directly contradicted myself?? Now, don't start on this BS about his age, because even when asked how old he was, I stated that I THOUGHT he was in his early 20's. This is not to be confused with I KNOW HE IS.

Now, as far as the whole bail thing goes. You are correct. I did make that mistake, and when called on it, I fully admitted that I was wrong on that. Something YOU cannot POSSIBLY do. EVER. Its beyond you.

You will NEVER admit that you are wrong. EVEN THOUGH everyone on here, minus HI aka Wubby, and of course your little crossdressing friend, ALL agree that you are a LIAR and its ben PROVEN!!

Sorry, I won't just post something on the internet that could get me in trouble. I have spoken to a lawyer, and to some other people here about my legal repercussions if I post his JUVIE arrest report on here. I won't just go and post it for all to see, then find out I am being sued in court. Sorry Sir, won't do it. It would be unethical and stupid, and could end up costing me alot of money, possibly even my job.

Well, I think it's obvious, for one reason or another, that no support will ever be forthcoming. Like I said from my very first posts, I respect your desire for privacy, but I think this might prove a valuable lesson, that if you're not willing or able to provide proof of your initial story and all of its claims, you might not want to rabble up the crowd.

It might seem a trivial matter to most here, but this demonization of these fantasy twoofers in a fantasy twoof movement could prove somewhat dangerous eventually, and its best to stick with provable, documented cases of harassment. False imprisonment and other crimes are nothing to be taken lightly, and we needn't feed into violence fantasies unless you're working with something we can all see for ourselves is true and documented.

Seeing how the debunkers love semantic arguments so much, since there was no proof for the story, it was fabricated, constructed, manufactured. It was never substantiated, so it's nothing more than a fabrication posted on the internet. You'd think there would be a higher standard on a skeptic's forum.

Unless something specific develops, I'm done with this thread. The bottomfeeders can fight over the chum.

[TruthersLie]

Roflmao.

Yes just like a twoof.

You make a claim through ignorance and then dance around when it is pointed out to you. You have repeatedly IGNORED requests to support your assertion and your assumption.

Where has it been "exposed as a fabrication?" It is a real simple question red.

The fact that YOU don't believe it is rather evident, but it does not "expose" the story as a "fabrication."

So all you really did was to further prove that you are an intellecutally dishonest individual. JUST LIKE A TWOOF.

Thank you so much for all of your BS and handwaving... now run away.

[Grizzly Bear]

other than that
its a story not a scientific argument
you dont seem able to comprehend the difference

My whole thing is... encounters like these aren't just limited to people in the truth movement. Anyone is capable of harassing another person, and this case happens to include a member or supporter of conspiracy theories or the troof movement. Red seems to question if an encounter like this could happen at all. Not to mention he's started msking up his own unofficial standards for how the legal system works... apparently updates in an ongoing tril are inconsistencies.

Red's free to give any opinion he wants, but as far as what he says in this thread that's all it is -- opinion

[Gaspode]

Some posts moved to AAH (http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=58).

Keep it civil from now on please.

And do not make sock puppet accusations in threads.

[deep]

I was speaking to a friend of mine, who happens to be a lawyer, and he said it would be ill-advised to release the unsanitized report to anyone, as juvie cases are not subject to FOIA, and I could end up in some legal trouble if this was released. Especially because he will have a "withhold adjudication" and the judge has already agreed to a sealed record.


When you say "agreed to a sealed record", what exactly do you mean? In Florida, juvenile records are not automatically sealed. More importantly, this kid is still on probation - if I'm not mistaken, he can't even apply to have his record sealed right now.

Either way - sealed record or not - if you don't feel comfortable sharing a redacted court document, I completely understand & respect your decision.

Thankfully, we have an alternative to the court document: since this kid was initially arrested for a third-degree felony (as a juvenile), his original arrest report should already be available to the public, along with his name, address, and photo (see section 985.04(2), Florida Statutes).

Would you be willing to share a copy of the arrest report, with names/addresses/photos redacted (for your own privacy)?

[RedIbis]

When you say "agreed to a sealed record", what exactly do you mean? In Florida, juvenile records are not automatically sealed. More importantly, this kid is still on probation - if I'm not mistaken, he can't even apply to have his record sealed right now.

Either way - sealed record or not - if you don't feel comfortable sharing a redacted court document, I completely understand & respect your decision.

Thankfully, we have an alternative to the court document: since this kid was initially arrested for a third-degree felony (as a juvenile), his original arrest report should already be available to the public, along with his name, address, and photo (see section 985.04(2), Florida Statutes).

Would you be willing to share a copy of the arrest report, with names/addresses/photos redacted (for your own privacy)?

What do you think, deep? I'm thinking no.

[triforcharity]

When you say "agreed to a sealed record", what exactly do you mean? In Florida, juvenile records are not automatically sealed. More importantly, this kid is still on probation - if I'm not mistaken, he can't even apply to have his record sealed right now.

Either way - sealed record or not - if you don't feel comfortable sharing a redacted court document, I completely understand & respect your decision.

Thankfully, we have an alternative to the court document: since this kid was initially arrested for a third-degree felony (as a juvenile), his original arrest report should already be available to the public, along with his name, address, and photo (see section 985.04(2), Florida Statutes).

Would you be willing to share a copy of the arrest report, with names/addresses/photos redacted (for your own privacy)?

Sure, just as soon as my attorney gives me the redacted paperwork. I have a VERY good attorney!!


Juvie records ARE in fact regularly sealed in juvie cases in Florida. I say sealed in the fact that if a child is brought up on charges as an adult, his juvie record usually cannot be brought into evidence.
A juvie doesn't have to apply, you are thinking of expunged. (sp?)

Now, about this quotemine job that you have done, quite nice. Problem is, if you would have reaad the REST of the statue, you would have noticed this.

(7)(a) Records in the custody of the department regarding children are not open to inspection by the public. Such records may be inspected only upon order of the Secretary of Juvenile Justice or his or her authorized agent by persons who have sufficient reason and upon such conditions for their use and disposition as the secretary or his or her authorized agent deems proper. The information in such records may be disclosed only to other employees of the department who have a need therefor in order to perform their official duties; to other persons as authorized by rule of the department; and, upon request, to the Department of Corrections. The secretary or his or her authorized agent may permit properly qualified persons to inspect and make abstracts from records for statistical purposes under whatever conditions upon their use and disposition the secretary or his or her authorized agent deems proper, provided adequate assurances are given that children's names and other identifying information will not be disclosed by the applicant.

And here is another one you missed.

3) A law enforcement agency may release a copy of the juvenile offense report to the victim of the offense. However, information gained by the victim under this chapter, including the next of kin of a homicide victim, regarding any case handled in juvenile court, must not be revealed to any outside party, except as is reasonably necessary in pursuit of legal remedies.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0985/Sec04.HTM

So, you see here deep?? This is where you missed some things. If you just read the first paragraph of a law, it will not be clear as to certain stipulations. This is why you must ALWAYS read the WHOLE THING, not just one section.

[TruthersLie]

Again a twoof shows poor reading comprehension skills while investigoogling. It always amazes me how badly most of their reading for comprehension skills are.

[triforcharity]

Isn't it though?? There for a minute, I thought he might be on to something, but then I read the rest of it.

FAIL!!

[deep]

Juvie records ARE in fact regularly sealed in juvie cases in Florida. I say sealed in the fact that if a child is brought up on charges as an adult, his juvie record usually cannot be brought into evidence.
A juvie doesn't have to apply, you are thinking of expunged. (sp?)


Like I said, juvenile records are not automatically sealed. Please see: http://www.djj.state.fl.us/AboutDJJ/faq.html (emphasis mine)
"(...) While juvenile records are considered confidential they are not automatically sealed and in many instances can be accessed by the general public. (...) Because the youth must petition the court to have records sealed or expunged and to ensure you meet qualifying criteria it is important that you seek legal counsel prior to beginning this process."
Now, about this quotemine job that you have done, quite nice. Problem is, if you would have reaad the REST of the statue, you would have noticed this.

(.. snip.. )

So, you see here deep?? This is where you missed some things. If you just read the first paragraph of a law, it will not be clear as to certain stipulations. This is why you must ALWAYS read the WHOLE THING, not just one section.


Tri - just to be clear, I've read that entire section, plus all of the direct references (the importance of doing so has been impressed upon me by LashL). That doesn't mean I'm always right - admittedly, I'm a relative beginner when it comes to statutory interpretation, but that has nothing to do with laziness.

Anyway - here's the relevant portion of 985.04(2), which is what I referenced in my previous message (emphasis mine):

(2) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter, the name, photograph, address, and crime or arrest report of a child:

(a) Taken into custody if the child has been taken into custody by a law enforcement officer for a violation of law which, if committed by an adult, would be a felony; (...)

shall not be considered confidential and exempt from s. 119.07(1) solely because of the child's age.
Since you cited several "other provisions from this chapter", I'm assuming you overlooked the bolded text?

You can also find the same information in various other documents (e.g., FAQs), such as: http://www.swfljac.org/Consequences.pdf (see #7 in the middle column of page two)

[funk de fino]

that if you're not willing or able to provide proof of your initial story and all of its claims, you might not want to rabble up the crowd.

Ultimate irony meter destroyer.

[Baby Nemesis]

I think this is the most revealing post yet. Your story fits in nicely with what you think is stereotypical behavior, so you expected it to be accepted as fact.

The problem of course is that the details were not consistent, and as soon as you were asked to provide proof of your story, you were unable to do so. You even appeared to be contradicting yourself and basic judicial procedures here in Florida.

You were hoping that because something like this (although I've never heard of a story like this) happened before, it would be believed again. Where I would agree with you is that what you call evidence is indeed "ponderous", to say the least.

Has it not occurred to you in all this time that you're picking on the wrong person, and in the wrong way?

I read the bit of this thread that got thrown into AAH, and there you justified your constant badgering of triforcharity by saying you objected to the fantasies of violence the story had generated, because they could be dangerous if they encouraged people to act on such things, so it would show up the violent sentiments that were expressed as based on faulty information if the story was proven false.

It's fair enough to have a concern like that, but apart from the fact that you're objecting to the story not because you have good grounds for suspecting it to be untrue, but simply because you have a dislike of the way people reacted to it, don't you realise you're fighting a lost cause? Even if the story is eventually proven false, it won't stop the people who fantasized about violence against Truthers doing it again the next time they hear about a Truther doing something objectionable. I mean, what will you have achieved if the story is eventually proven false, but a day or two later, someone links to a post on the Loose Change forum where a Truther's enjoying proclaiming death to all active debunkers after the revolution, and a string of people respond by saying they'd like to commit violence against that person? You'll realise you needn't have bothered making all those efforts to prove triforcharity's story false, because it turned out not to change the way people thought. If anything, your tactics are at risk of antagonising people and making them feel worse about Truthers.

I've been lurking on this thread a bit, and the more I do, the more it seems to me that you're coming across as a bully. Instead of continually badgering triforcharity to prove his story, it would have been far better tactics if you'd focused your attention on criticizing the responses the story got, like,

Spanning wrench. Occipital lobe. End of story.

I would have run him down, and blamed it on the "joos"

It was hardly triforcharity's fault that people responded to his story by saying things like that. You could legitimately have criticised him for joining in though when he said things like,

I like the idea of the spanning wrench, but I had my kids there. If it wasn't for them, things might be different.

I think he lives in the next neighborhood over. Might have to have a crusie by there sometime when we are out at 3 am. Nothing says good morning like 120 db. of airhorn.

Truse me, I wanted him to try and take first swing. But, he, like most "truthers" are all talk, and no braun.

You'd have been taking a more respectable approach, and several fair-minded people might have actually agreed with you, if rather than badgering him for evidence of his story, your response to both him and the others had been more like:

I object to the violent sentiments being expressed in response to this story. For one thing, you don't know all the facts. What if this man was high on some kind of drug at the time? What if he was mentally ill so his judgment was impaired? What if through no fault of his own he'd been taken in by reading inflammatory rhetoric that gave him a false impression of what had happened?

And don't forget that the Truther didn't actually get violent himself. Can you really wish violence on him, and still see yourselves as better than he is? When the "good guys" are the ones who want violence, what does that say about the "good guys"? Are they really better? Fiercely criticizing what he said is one thing. You could hardly be blamed for that. It sounds as if he deserves it. But really, how do you think wishing violence on this person who wasn't violent himself makes you look?

[Dave Rogers]

Seeing how the debunkers love semantic arguments so much, since there was no proof for the story, it was fabricated, constructed, manufactured.

Two points:

(a) This is a classic example of the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent. There is no proof of fabricated stories, therefore the absence of proof is proof that the story was fabricated. All A are B, therefore all B are A. This ends up in you simply repeating your original lie.

To take a similar example, I've never provided proof to the forum that I have a doctorate in physics, despite having mentioned the fact. Would you like to make the claim that, because I've never provided any such proof, my doctorate in physics has been "exposed as a fabrication"?

(b) If anything advanced without proof is automatically "exposed as a fabrication", then you have repeatedly stated without proof on this forum that Silverstein lied about his phone call from the FDNY concerning the collapse of WTC7. Since you've never provided proof of this, can I now say that your claim that Silverstein lied is "exposed as a fabrication"?

Or could it be that there are not two, but three categories: proven true, proven false and unproven, and that the second and third are different?

RedIbis, you simply do not know how to think.

Dave

[EnJaySee]

Seeing how the debunkers love semantic arguments so much, since there was no proof for the story, it was fabricated, constructed, manufactured. It was never substantiated, so it's nothing more than a fabrication posted on the internet. You'd think there would be a higher standard on a skeptic's forum.

Unless something specific develops, I'm done with this thread. The bottomfeeders can fight over the chum.

See Red, this is where you're wrong and what's got everyone's attention. You're accusing Tri of being a liar for not being able to provide proof of the incident, yet here you are doing exactly what you accuse him of doing. You have no proof that the story is a lie and here you are stating that the story is, without a doubt, a fabrication. You are the one stating facts when you have no evidence to back it up.

Again, had you simply said "I think Tri's story is cow faeces" then I'm quite sure no one would have jumped on you like they have in this thread.

What I find amusing is that this is exactly how I see the people who believe in this conspiracy operate. They make claims that they cannot or will not provide evidence for and conclude that as evidence that they are correct. The unfortunate (and sometimes hilarious) thing is that they can't or won't see that isn't the way the real world works and why no one will ever take them seriously.