Gravy used "exact Silverstein quote."

[Gravy]

...Of course, it was from a CT site, so I should have checked it more carefully. When I was going to GZ on 9/11, I printed this out from teamliberty.net so I couldn't be accused of using a version of my own invention. I checked it against the audio, but in my haste I overlooked that word. As has been pointed out, it in no way affects the meaning of the quote. If I was going to deliberately alter the quote, it certainly wouldn't be by removing that word. The only thing I "cleansed" from that version is Silverstein's pause, which is printed as "ER," and which I found that people stumbled over when reading it, thinking it was an abbreviation.

Thanks for pointing that out, TS1234. I'll make the correction. I'm glad you're reading my paper.


Here is the exact Silverstein quote from the 2002 PBS documentary.

“I remember getting a call from the ER, Fire Department Commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, ‘We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is ‘pull it.’ And they made the decision to ‘pull’ and we watched the building collapse.”

http://teamliberty.net/id235.html

[Pardalis]

BTW, is Truthseeker Terrocell?

[Gravy]

BTW, is Truthseeker Terrocell?
I doubt it. I don't think Terrorcell would say anything as nasty and ignorant as comparing us to Holocaust deniers.

[Lisa Simpson]

I read it as E.R. too. You could change it to lower case and use commas to separate the pause:

“I remember getting a call from the, er, Fire Department Commander,"

[Gravy]

I read it as E.R. too. You could change it to lower case and use commas to separate the pause:

“I remember getting a call from the, er, Fire Department Commander,"
It doesn't quite sound like "er" on the audio anyway. I changed it to "uh." And after the quote I inserted "D'oh!," which the PBS crew must have edited out.

[Lisa Simpson]

"Uh" works better anyway. It can't be mistaken for anything else.

[TruthSeeker1234]

I'm not terrocell. I am confused. Are you saying the word "then" is not in there, or it is in there? Yes, to exactly copy the audio there are a few stumbles and ahhhhs. Those may be deleted without changing the meaning. The word "then", however, is utterly essential. It shows causal connection.

Yes, I stand by my opinion that 9/11 deniers are like the original holocaust deniers, that is, they simply cannot, will not believe "their" government would ever do something horrible to its own citizens, whatever the evidence.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Team Liberty, Muckraker needs to fix the quote.

[Hellbound]

I'm not terrocell. I am confused. Are you saying the word "then" is not in there, or it is in there? Yes, to exactly copy the audio there are a few stumbles and ahhhhs. Those may be deleted without changing the meaning. The word "then", however, is utterly essential. It shows causal connection.

Yes, I stand by my opinion that 9/11 deniers are like the original holocaust deniers, that is, they simply cannot, will not believe "their" government would ever do something horrible to its own citizens, whatever the evidence.

You are an idiot.

I called you an idiot, then I went back to work.

No casual connection, dumba$$.

I asked before if English was your second language, now I feel I must ask if you even know Enligh at all?

Do you have trouble with doors? DO your friends most often describe you as "barely there"?

[Pardalis]

I am confused.

Yes.

[Lisa Simpson]

I'm not terrocell. I am confused. Are you saying the word "then" is not in there, or it is in there? Yes, to exactly copy the audio there are a few stumbles and ahhhhs. Those may be deleted without changing the meaning. The word "then", however, is utterly essential. It shows causal connection.

It didn't show causal connection in the other thread and it doesn't show it in this one either.

Ya cannae change the laws of grammar!

[TK0001]

Yes, I stand by my opinion that 9/11 deniers are like the original holocaust deniers, that is, they simply cannot, will not believe "their" government would ever do something horrible to its own citizens, whatever the evidence.

That's our word for you guys. Come up with your own word.

That one's ours.

[CurtC]

I'm not terrocell. I am confused. Are you saying the word "then" is not in there, or it is in there?
Your comprehension is abysmal. The word "then" was in the original quote, but many pro-conspiracy sites left it out. Gravy, in wanting to get a quote that CTers couldn't complain about bias, took a version that he found on the conspiracy sites, so he could rub the CTers' noses in their own ignorance, over the "we/they" difference.

Again, in the context of "if... then" there is implied causality. Silverstein's quote does not have "if" so is not this kind of usage. The word "then" in that context simply means that it happened in that order.

[Pardalis]

That's our word for you guys. Come up with your own word.

That one's ours.

Isn't this funny when the CTists try to call logical fallacies on us? Like TS trying to use the post hoc fallacy without knowing what it means, or Alex Jones yelling "strawman!" just to avoid answering questions... Pathetic.

[Lisa Simpson]

Yes. Here we go. Grammar 101:

THEN:
a time other than now: He was younger then. She will start her new job then.
next in time, space, or order: First we must study; then we can play.
suggesting a logical conclusion: If you've studied hard, then the exam should be no problem.

Notice that in suggestion a logical conclusion, the word IF is used. Hence, in Mr. Silverstein's comment, he is not suggesting a logical conclusion, but suggesting next in time.

[einsteen]

TS1234, don't worry about that quote man.

[Bell]

TS1234, don't worry about that quote man.

But but... it's the only evidence of 'confession' the nutters have.

[einsteen]

:)

[Pardalis]

But but... it's the only evidence of 'confession' the nutters have.

I think he meant: "don't worry about that quote man, we'll find another way to twist it around to our advantage."

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I'm not terrocell. I am confused. Are you saying the word "then" is not in there, or it is in there? Yes, to exactly copy the audio there are a few stumbles and ahhhhs. Those may be deleted without changing the meaning. The word "then", however, is utterly essential. It shows causal connection.

Yes, I stand by my opinion that 9/11 deniers are like the original holocaust deniers, that is, they simply cannot, will not believe "their" government would ever do something horrible to its own citizens, whatever the evidence.

Other posters, more proficient in formal grammar than I have already addressed the "then" issue; I shall not be addressing it.

You are either displaying a (willful) ignorance of what characteristics holocaust deniers/revisionist exhibit, or you are making a malicious attempt at poisoning the well of your opponents.

Holocaust deniers/revisionist use a number of tactics, many of which are outlined in this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=65626). Of them, actions such as cherry-picking of quotes, and information; using "god of the gaps" arguments in attempts to disprove their opponents; and attempting to negate the guilt of those (that the evidenced based conclusion has) found guilty are characteristics which they share in common with 9/11 CTists.

The foundation of holocaust denial/revisionism is not that, "they simply cannot, will not believe "their" government would ever do something horrible to its own citizens, whatever the evidence". The foundation of holocaust denial/revisionism is to deflect ire away from the guilty parties (be they Nazis or al Qaeda), to make the victims look like anything but (be they Jews or people like Mark Bingham and Bernard Brown) and to minimize the immensity of the event (be it the number of Jews killed or that there were no passengers on the planes).

Now put your conspiracy theory laden thought processes on the back burner for a minute and RETRACT THAT DAMNED STATEMENT!

[Pardalis]

Nicely said Arkan.

[Zygar]

"And they made that decision to pull and so we watched the building collapse."

That implies causality in a much stronger sense than "then". If he had meant it was a causal relationship, he would have used a word that means a causal relationship in the grammatical context of the sentence.

Just admit that it doesn't matter. Gravy happily added the word back in as per your request. And it doesn't change anything.

Or should I have said "If Gravy happily added the word back in as per your request, then it doesn't change anything." No. Because Gravy would accept the facts whether or not they are inconvenient. Which is more than can be said for CTers.

[Zygar]

Nicely said Arkan.

Seconded.

[Stellafane]

...Yes, I stand by my opinion that 9/11 deniers are like the original holocaust deniers...

And the opinion of a lying coward such as yourself should affect me...how?

[Regnad Kcin]

Yes, I stand by my opinion that 9/11 deniers are like the original holocaust deniers...It's "Holocaust" with a capital 'h', my 20-watt friend.

...that is, they simply cannot, will not believe "their" government would ever do something horrible to its own citizens, whatever the evidence.That's richer than double chocolate cake with fudge icing served up by Donald Trump.

Name one person who believes what you suggest. C'mon, you say "they" do not and can not believe, so there must be numerous names from which to choose. Let's have one.

As for "evidence," it must kill you that you have none. Good.

[uruk]

Yes, I stand by my opinion that 9/11 deniers are like the original holocaust deniers, that is, they simply cannot, will not believe "their" government would ever do something horrible to its own citizens, whatever the evidence.

The problem is that Holocaust deniers are anti-semetic. CT'rs are usually the anti-semmetic ones.

I personly believe that our government has done horrible things to its own people in the past because I have seen physical evidence. I have not been convinced by 9/11 CTr's because they only have circumstancial evidence. Just coincidences, and "don't you think it odd" type remarks. Just conjecture. And when pressed, CT'r always come up with excuses for not having "hard" evidence.