Hustler woo

[~enigma~]

We supported UBL and now he does not like us?You know I never really understood why woowoos think this is an impossibility or even an improbability. I mean Sadat supported militant islam against the pending Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Wasn't it those he fed (radical islam) that bit the hand that fed them? The US should have learned from that but we supported OBL (and through him radical islam) and after the Soviets left Afghanistan why should we be surprised that he turned on us?

[SezMe]

It makes no sense <snip>
Nominated. As I stated, "A clear, passionate statement at the very heart of the purpose of the JREF."

[SezMe]

An enormous international corporation has literally hundreds of little companies under its umbrella in a wide variety of areas. It's simply not possible for the "owners" of the company to actually micromanage every single company and make sure EVERY thing they do is precisely what they want it to do.
gumboot, I think this is a strawman. The owners do not have to "micromange every single company". All they have to do is set policy at the executive level and promote or fire managers/executives for their ability to implement "corporate policy". No micromangement is necessary.

In contrast, in a little independent media outlet, it's very easy for the owner to directly control everything that comes out of it - for exampe the owner could also be the company's ONLY editor.
True, but self-defeating. How much influence does "a little independent media outlet" have in the face of a multi-media conglomorate?

Do you honestly believe Murdoch personally approves (or is even aware of) every single article run by any of these newspapers?
No. But see above. You've never heard of corporate policy before?

If News Corp isn't big enough for you, how about General Electric with over 300,000 employees?
Excellent example. Now, find me ONE example of NBC (which is owned by GE) publishing one story critical of nuclear power.

So, who do you think has more direct real control over the content released by their company? People like Rupert Murdoch and Jeff Immelt (CEO of GE), or people like Alex Jones?
It is a strawman: Do you really think Jones has the same media reach as NewsCorp and GE?

[gumboot]

gumboot, I think this is a strawman. The owners do not have to "micromange every single company". All they have to do is set policy at the executive level and promote or fire managers/executives for their ability to implement "corporate policy". No micromangement is necessary.


I disagree. I believe micromanagement IS necessary for the sort of scenario CTers suggest - that being that media outlets are nothing more than giant propaganda generating machines for the sole benefit of those that own them.

Bias, not touching specific topics, etc... okay, I can see that being a normal part of a conglomerate (though I'd disagree on how far up the chain of command such guidelines originate) but that's not what CTers are talking about.




True, but self-defeating. How much influence does "a little independent media outlet" have in the face of a multi-media conglomorate?


I don't see how that's relevant.



No. But see above. You've never heard of corporate policy before?

As above. Corporate policy doesn't account for the scenario proposed by CTers. That's like a CTer claiming no govt. employees would blow the whistle on 9/11 because of "government policy".




Excellent example. Now, find me ONE example of NBC (which is owned by GE) publishing one story critical of nuclear power.

Well I did a quick look, and I found a couple of articles that are very balanced, but I think, weighted AGAINST the nuclear industry. One recounts the Yucca Mountain dumping site, the other some weasily tactics by a Senator and lobbyist for the nuclear industry.

Nuclear Waste: No Way Out? (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3072031/) and From Senate Job to Nuclear Lobbyist - twice (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11845981/page/2/).



It is a strawman: Do you really think Jones has the same media reach as NewsCorp and GE?

As before, I don't see how this is relevant.

-Gumboot

[Oliver]

By the way: Does someone know if this one is true? :

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/111074543b902d0828.jpg

[gumboot]

By the way: Does someone know if this one is true? :

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/111074543b902d0828.jpg


Why would Newsweek be published in English in Europe, Asia, or Latin America?

-Gumboot

[Oliver]

Why would Newsweek be published in English in Europe, Asia, or Latin America?

-Gumboot

http://www.newsweekasia.com/
http://www.nwsub.com/
http://www.newsweeklatinamerica.com/
http://www.newsweekeurope.com/

[WildCat]

I would have (still might) reply to the post where it was brought up. Maybe I'll spare you all. But I was told (lectured?) that the NIST, FEMA, and Warren Commission reports are the status quo. What did all of you use as your basis for argument before those reports came out?
This is your problem scg. You, and every other truther* who has come here, has a complete inability to pick one topic and stick to it.

You haven't yet posted one fact that supports your 9/11 CT, and now you want to start talking about the JFK assasination?

Do you have any evidence at all to support your claim of a CT? Do you have a plausible theory for what happened on 9/11? I'm guessing "no" on both counts.

* I guess I'll except Christophera and his dogged pursuit of the concrete core.

[JimBenArm]

I'm sorry. Did scg post anything resembling evidence yet? All I hear is echos from past posters. (Or is it posers?)

[JonnyFive]

Nice way to welcome somebody to your club!

It's not a club.

Or has every single aspect of the official story been proven to be true here at this forum? And every single alternate theory fully debunked?

I'll put it this way, skepticalcriticalguy, we have yet to see convincing evidence for any of the "inside job" theories. Every time someone comes on to change our minds, they invariably either post nothing at all in the way of evidence, or rely on the same circular track of CT claims, misquotes, and a faulty understanding of technical topics such as physics and engineering.

If you have not read the NIST report on the collapse, you need to do so. It will allow you to understand where the "official story" is coming from, and what kind of support there is for it from the investigation. Really read it, don't just skim through it thinking "this is BS".

If you want to convince us of any of your theories, you'll need to provide evidence. Asking "what if it's true?" or making vague implications will not sway anyone here to your views. You will need to present real, verifiable evidence of what you claim.

If you happen to be an expert in any relevant field, feel free to use that experience to provide some substance, but be aware that there are experts in a number of relevant fields here. Calculations will be checked, and you will be called on any kind of claims you make.

You have come here to make a claim about the events of 9/11, so please don't spend your whole time asking us to provide evidence for the official theory. That evidence is compiled, analyzed, and widely available. If you aren't convinced by it, too bad. It doesn't make you right by default; you still need to provide evidence for your theory.

Apparently that concept is hard for many of the pro-CT posters here to understand. Perhaps you are different.

[jhunter1163]

It makes no sense that you would bother to come here to deliver that little message, no. As long as you twoofers spout BS to people, we will be here to counter your BS. If you've come here to tell those of us who rely upon facts and evidence - instead of woo - to leave you poor little misguided twoofers alone, I fear you're on a fool's errand as it appears you have no idea about why we do what we do.

Skeptics here do what we do for a myriad of reasons, some of which follow. I do not purport to speak for others, and I'm not likely to touch upon all of the reasons of all of the members here, but you'll get the idea and others will correct me or add to what I say if I've left something out or misrepresnted anything. (Because around here, that's what we do. We don't just jump on a bandwagon and cheerlead like the vast majority of the twoof movement adherents are wont to do.)

We do this because we don't like to see people misled by BS, which is all that the twoof "movement" feeds people. We do this because we don't like seeing twoofers disparage the family members of those who died that day. We do this because we will not leave unchallenged the attempts of the twoof "movement" to label everyone who doesn't buy into their unsubstantiated nonsense as "disinfo", "agents", "government shills", etc. We do this because critical thinking is important, so vitally important, and the twoof movement encourages the exact opposite - mindless followers who do not think at all.

We do this because thinking, research, facts, and evidence are important - vitally important - and the twoof movement waves away facts and reality and science and critical thinking as though they matter not a whit.

We do this because we don't like seeing woowoos trying to convince people that they should blindly follow morons like those that are embraced by you twoofers as demi-gods. We do this because lurkers and fence sitters need to see twoofers exposed for what they are, and because we want lurkers and fence sitters to see that facts, evidence, science, proof, expertise, knowledge and experience not only matter but are orders of magnitude above the alternative espoused by the twoof movement (blind belief, blind following, lack of ability or incentive to think, lack of ability or incentive to research, lack of ability or incentive to consult experts, lack of ability or incentive to become experts, etc.)

And mostly, we do this because we find the behaviour of twoofers utterly despicable when they accuse innocent people of mass murder; because we find it utterly despicable that twoofers suggest that firefighters and other first responders were "in on it" or that they are too scared to speak up for their deceased brothers and sisters; because we find the lies of the twoof movement morally repugnant; because we find it reprehensible that twoofers laugh - literally - at the heroic efforts of thoroughly decent people who died that day, in order to further the twoofers' own goals, financial and otherwise; because we never lose sight of the fact that real people died that day. Not cartoon characters, not abstract non-entities, not just a number on a piece of paper, but real people. And because the deceased left behind other real people, also victims - not cartoon characters, not abstract non-entities, but real people. Twoofers disparage these innocent victims and their families every day.

That last paragraph is reason enough all on its own for skeptics and critical thinkers to take it upon themselves to rail against twoofers. I'm surprised you had to ask.

There is much more, of course, but it's late and that will have to do for now.

Nominated. Couldn't have said it better myself.. :)

[chipmunk stew]

Wow, what if skepticalcriticalguy is right, and we're wrong? Wouldn't that be, like, mind-blowing? I'm going to go ponder that for a while...

[notheist]

OK, here's a chance to educate me without taking rude and obnoxious pot-shots.

So, past that; wouldn't pancaking floors leave the core beams standing? Has that been scientifically analyzed? If the NIST only hypothesized up to the collapse initiation, then they don't cover the science of the collapsed core. So doesn't the collapsed core raise some skepticism?

I'm just asking.

And as for whether it disappeared or not: of course it did! It was sold as scrap. It is no longer here to analyze. But I do think I saw some video of nice neat angle cuts. Must have been in a documentary I watched. I've seen pictures too. So have all of you. So tell me, nicely, if you have it in ya, what caused the angle cuts? Need the pictures?

Your error is thinking the core could have continued to stand after the outer walls and floor trusses failed. And Remember the core suffered damage too.

The only was to build the WTC so tall was to also build the light, there were in fact floor for floor some of the lightest buildings in NY. The construction depended on distribution of load between the three main building components Perimeter wall, floor trusses and center core. No two alone could hold the weight of the structure. I doubt the walls or core could stand on its own without the floors. It's a system that made for large open office space unlike the traditional way of using a web of many vertical beams and horizontal girders.

Unfortunately once one fails the others have to take the load and at a certain point you have total collapse. So in the case of WTC 1+2 floor trusses overheated and sagged pulling the perimeter wall in and causing it to fail. If you look at the videos the core was the last thing to fall but it was doomed without the other two parts to hold it up. Plus its only logical to think the floors were attached to the core and as they fell pulled the core down with them.

You can't think of the WTC as toy buildings or even compare them to buildings half their size. The physics is different at that scale.

[volatile]

Essentially, the floors were part of the structural integrity of the building, not just hanging, suspended, from the outer and inner walls.

[Pardalis]

By the way: Does someone know if this one is true? :

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/111074543b902d0828.jpg

Where did you get that from?

Are all these from the same month issue? The US one shows a picture of a pregnant Demi Moore at the top right corner, which is more than 10 years old.

[Oliver]

Where did you get that from?

Are all these from the same month issue? The US one shows a picture of a pregnant Demi Moore at the top right corner, which is more than 10 years old.

I can´t remember the exact source but it was
a conspiracy site. I always wondered if it´s some
type of cynicism or if it´s real - meaning the same
edition in different countries. :confused:

[Pardalis]

You can't tell anything from those tiny pics. It could as well be a cut and paste job.

I would need to see the dates.

Come on Oliver...

[Oliver]

You can't tell anything from those tiny pics. It could as well be a cut and paste job.

I would need to see the dates.

Come on Oliver...

I really cant remember the exact source because the
picture is pretty famous and spread all over the net.
But it seems that many people have the same question:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=%22losing+afghanistan%22+newsweek+%22life+in+pic tures%22&spell=1

ETA: Wiki says it´s true but the date is wrong in the article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsweek

Regional cover changes

The September 27 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_27), 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006) edition of Newsweek in the United States featured a cover story titled "My Life in Pictures" based around photographer Annie Leibovitz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annie_Leibovitz) and her new book, with the cover photo featuring her with several children. Foreign editions featured, instead, a cover story called "Losing Afghanistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan)" with a picture of an Islamic extremist about the U.S. fight and struggles in Afghanistan. The story was still featured in the American edition and was still mentioned on the cover.
In 2005 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005), Newsweek had featured a picture of an American flag in a trash can on the Japanese edition, absent from all other editions.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsweek#_note-IHT)

[tsig]

Gravy! What is "woo?".


You are woo.

[Pardalis]

The story was still featured in the American edition and was still mentioned on the cover.

End of story.

[tsig]

You're absolutely unreal. I asked a couple questions! See, you smug folks are not in the least bit interested in educating or discussing. It's all paranoia and insult. Just like the other side! (Actually, you are worse).

SERIOUSLY, drop the paranoia. I'm not some agent in your war with 911blogger (as I just posted). If that's what this is all about, I'll accept your apologies, if anybody cares to make one. Or are you always this way?

I haven't even read Reynolds and Woods theory. But I will soon. Have any of you really read it?

Can't understand why you hang around such a site I would think it was a club you would not be a member of.

[JimBenArm]

You are woo.
I am you?

[ponderingturtle]

Who are you?

Nice way to welcome somebody to your club!

The point was, what if some of these theories are correct? More people are going to be exposed to the possibility that things might not be as they seem; not as we were told. I suppose they'll all just be Hustler-reading perverts. But Hustler-reading perverts are people too! (I've been known to imbibe).

Who knows; maybe there will be a new investigation, with subpoena power and testimony under oath.

Or has every single aspect of the official story been proven to be true here at this forum? And every single alternate theory fully debunked?

I think someone who reads an article about the WTC in hustler would have to be a real pervert.

[ponderingturtle]

Wow, what if monkeys flew out their butts?

Now now now, stop being silly, that is so much more likely than them being right.

[JimBenArm]

Now now now, stop being silly, that is so much more likely than them being right.
But I was just asking questions!

[tsig]

I am you?

Woo is as woo does.

[tsig]

I think someone who reads an article about the WTC in hustler would have to be a real pervert.

a job is a job.

[jhunter1163]

People get paid to read Hustler? Where do I apply?

[boloboffin]

You haven't yet posted one fact that supports your 9/11 CT, and now you want to start talking about the JFK assasination?

Well, at least he's willing to admit a foundational reason for believing 9/11 woo - believing JFK woo. Pointing this out in DU and other forums really kicks the anthill over.

[chipmunk stew]

People get paid to read Hustler? Where do I apply?
Here you go (http://www.spermbankdirectory.com/).

[T.A.M.]

This is what gets me, and a valid question. If you are right, then why even acknowledge the CTers (I mean the alternate CTers)? Why even bother with this topic? Let them all implode and collapse. Let them JAQ off (whatever that means, more insider jargon; anybody? little help?) and make asses of themselves, like I guess I am because I've read 50-60 books on intel and rogue networks, and then fade away into Hustler-land?

You guys feed their fire. You don't really think they're gonna tear down the government, do you? Let them have their hobby! Like you have yours!

I was going to reply, but LashL said it so well, just read below. I agree with all he has said in the following quote.

It makes no sense that you would bother to come here to deliver that little message, no. As long as you twoofers spout BS to people, we will be here to counter your BS. If you've come here to tell those of us who rely upon facts and evidence - instead of woo - to leave you poor little misguided twoofers alone, I fear you're on a fool's errand as it appears you have no idea about why we do what we do.

Skeptics here do what we do for a myriad of reasons, some of which follow. I do not purport to speak for others, and I'm not likely to touch upon all of the reasons of all of the members here, but you'll get the idea and others will correct me or add to what I say if I've left something out or misrepresnted anything. (Because around here, that's what we do. We don't just jump on a bandwagon and cheerlead like the vast majority of the twoof movement adherents are wont to do.)

We do this because we don't like to see people misled by BS, which is all that the twoof "movement" feeds people. We do this because we don't like seeing twoofers disparage the family members of those who died that day. We do this because we will not leave unchallenged the attempts of the twoof "movement" to label everyone who doesn't buy into their unsubstantiated nonsense as "disinfo", "agents", "government shills", etc. We do this because critical thinking is important, so vitally important, and the twoof movement encourages the exact opposite - mindless followers who do not think at all.

We do this because thinking, research, facts, and evidence are important - vitally important - and the twoof movement waves away facts and reality and science and critical thinking as though they matter not a whit.

We do this because we don't like seeing woowoos trying to convince people that they should blindly follow morons like those that are embraced by you twoofers as demi-gods. We do this because lurkers and fence sitters need to see twoofers exposed for what they are, and because we want lurkers and fence sitters to see that facts, evidence, science, proof, expertise, knowledge and experience not only matter but are orders of magnitude above the alternative espoused by the twoof movement (blind belief, blind following, lack of ability or incentive to think, lack of ability or incentive to research, lack of ability or incentive to consult experts, lack of ability or incentive to become experts, etc.)

And mostly, we do this because we find the behaviour of twoofers utterly despicable when they accuse innocent people of mass murder; because we find it utterly despicable that twoofers suggest that firefighters and other first responders were "in on it" or that they are too scared to speak up for their deceased brothers and sisters; because we find the lies of the twoof movement morally repugnant; because we find it reprehensible that twoofers laugh - literally - at the heroic efforts of thoroughly decent people who died that day, in order to further the twoofers' own goals, financial and otherwise; because we never lose sight of the fact that real people died that day. Not cartoon characters, not abstract non-entities, not just a number on a piece of paper, but real people. And because the deceased left behind other real people, also victims - not cartoon characters, not abstract non-entities, but real people. Twoofers disparage these innocent victims and their families every day.

That last paragraph is reason enough all on its own for skeptics and critical thinkers to take it upon themselves to rail against twoofers. I'm surprised you had to ask.

There is much more, of course, but it's late and that will have to do for now.

Ollie:

By the way: Does someone know if this one is true? :

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/111074543b902d0828.jpg

I am guessing, given the covers have their headlines in english, but are serving non-english countries, that they are probably faked.

TAM

[Oliver]

Ollie:

I am guessing, given the covers have their headlines in english, but are serving non-english countries, that they are probably faked.

TAM

No no, it´s true - it´s a littlebit later within the thread... :)

[T.A.M.]

SCG:

Why do I trust CNN and MSNBC etc... well I do so because I have been given no reason not to. Noone has shown me any proof that they are deliberately hiding anything. They can "be in bed" with lobbyists and politicians all they want, it doesnt make them deceitful or liars. This is the problem. I do not have the paranoid mindset...and I refuse to do so. I do not find them ignoring any story that has any kind of solid evidence or credence to it.

What I do find not worthy of my trust is the "Independent" news outlet that almost always has an "agenda" against big government, against "the man". These outlets, can have a tendency to report things as news and gospel based on a single unverified report (worldreports.org and the Paulson article for example). Look at the American Free Press. I have never seen an news agency with so much Bias in my entire life.

Now that I have explained myself, Why not take the advice of those here, pick a single issue or topic within the 9/11 attacks, and lay down your evidence or what you believe to be true and why, and take it from there.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

Ollie:

ok, then I am assuming the foreign versions of Newsweek must be meant for american travellers visiting those countries (why else have the covers in English). If the fronts are true, than I guess it merely means that what sells in the rest of the world may not be what sells in America.

TAM:)

[Oliver]

Ollie:

ok, then I am assuming the foreign versions of Newsweek must be meant for american travellers visiting those countries (why else have the covers in English).

Well, Newsweek Asia is for Australia/New Zealand, too - and
Europe includes this tiny island with the funny queen. :p

If the fronts are true, than I guess it merely means that what sells in the rest of the world may not be what sells in America.

TAM:)

Yes - it´s sad, but true...

[T.A.M.]

Ollie:

You'll have to excuse my ignorance on the "asia" Newsweek thing. I had no idea it served down under.

As for the Europe thing, my comment, as ignorant as it was in reality, perhaps looked at differently, is the more enlightened approach as it assumes that the majority of Europeans do not speak English as their mother tongue...lol

TAM:)

[Oliver]

Ollie:

You'll have to excuse my ignorance on the "asia" Newsweek thing. I had no idea it served down under.

As for the Europe thing, my comment, as ignorant as it was in reality, perhaps looked at differently, is the more enlightened approach as it assumes that the majority of Europeans do not speak English as their mother tongue...lol

TAM:)

Frankly - i have no clue why they publish their products
in english all over the world. I also wonder how many
english readers they have in south america but even
all their "local" homepages are in english. :">

http://www.newsweekasia.com/
http://www.nwsub.com/
http://www.newsweeklatinamerica.com/
http://www.newsweekeurope.com/

[ConspiRaider]

This so-called "skepticalcriticalguy" is obviously a sockpuppet.

Something about his writing style seems familiar to me, and the name I came up with was:

Morphology

Thoughts?
Self-quoting, but nobody responded. No post by SCG since the above. Coincidence? I think maybe not.

Anyway we were talking about Hustler.

How 'bout them Twin Spheroids?

[notheist]

Hey!!! Where did he go????

You guys are awful, confusing him with facts and reason all that un-fun stuff.

[Gravy]

Hey!!! Where did he go????

You guys are awful, confusing him with facts and reason all that un-fun stuff.Let's not be like the LC crowd. We encouraged him to read the material in the links we provided. That's a lot to digest. Let's hope he's working at it.

[ConspiRaider]

Hey!!! Where did he go????

You guys are awful, confusing him with facts and reason all that un-fun stuff.
Maybe he realized his cover was blown.

This is the first thread Morphology started:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=70798

He came in with immediate insults and personal attacks with the first post.

That user is Suspended.

I'm seeing similarities in style in some of his later posts here, and those from that thread. If this is Morphology, then he figured to try and come in different this time - "nicer". Notice how he comes into this thread feigning "newness" and "niceness", and then gets more bold and reckless as his posts progress.

He's probably now off somewhere, dreaming up a new persockality, and then he'll be back as somebody else...

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Well, at least he's willing to admit a foundational reason for believing 9/11 woo - believing JFK woo. Pointing this out in DU and other forums really kicks the anthill over.

Actually, it was an error on my part. I meant Keane Commission. Not Warren Commission.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Self-quoting, but nobody responded. No post by SCG since the above. Coincidence? I think maybe not.

Anyway we were talking about Hustler.

How 'bout them Twin Spheroids?

I think I posted at 3am, and then slept and worked. Very impatient. But I'll take the blame for not understanding the forum more's.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Maybe he realized his cover was blown.

This is the first thread Morphology started:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=70798

He came in with immediate insults and personal attacks with the first post.

That user is Suspended.

I'm seeing similarities in style in some of his later posts here, and those from that thread. If this is Morphology, then he figured to try and come in different this time - "nicer". Notice how he comes into this thread feigning "newness" and "niceness", and then gets more bold and reckless as his posts progress.

He's probably now off somewhere, dreaming up a new persockality, and then he'll be back as somebody else...

I looked up "sock puppet". I'm not this Morphology.
Come on, a skeptic wouldn't woo like that unless he had proof! :)

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Let's not be like the LC crowd. We encouraged him to read the material in the links we provided. That's a lot to digest. Let's hope he's working at it.

Yeah, let the guy unwind from work and have dinner. And read a few things.

(Thanks for the links, Gravy, and others.)

[jhunter1163]

NB to TAM: LashL is a woman.

[ConspiRaider]

I looked up "sock puppet". I'm not this Morphology.
Come on, a skeptic wouldn't woo like that unless he had proof! :)
In fact you did not look up "sock puppet". You already knew what it meant.

In another post, you feigned ignorance at the word "woo".

Now you're claiming not to be Morphology.

I don't buy any of it.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

In fact you did not look up "sock puppet". You already knew what it meant.

In another post, you feigned ignorance at the word "woo".

Now you're claiming not to be Morphology.

I don't buy any of it.

Then don't buy it. But where's the proof? Back up your claim!

[beachnut]

Then don't buy it. But where's the proof? Back up your claim!

Showbiz Tonight did a Poll and you are a sock.

Poll Showbiz Tonight
Is scg a sock?
yes - 99.999%
no - 0%

Proof!

[LashL]

Nominated. As I stated, "A clear, passionate statement at the very heart of the purpose of the JREF."

Nominated. Couldn't have said it better myself. :)


Wow - thanks, SezMe and jhunter. I do believe that the first time a post of mine has ever been nominated. I'm flattered. :o

[jhunter1163]

You're welcome, Lash. Great post!

[T.A.M.]

NB to TAM: LashL is a woman.

:o :blush: :blush: :o

is "oooops!" and "pardon me miss/mame" sufficient...lol

sorry LashL...I agreed with everything SHE said in her post.

TAM:)

[Gravy]

NB to TAM: LashL is a woman.Really? I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask for evidence, please.

I concur about the excellence of your post, LashL!

[LashL]

:o :blush: :blush: :o

is "oooops!" and "pardon me miss/mame" sufficient...lol

sorry LashL...I agreed with everything SHE said in her post.

TAM:)

Lol, TAM, no apologies necessary! :)

Really? I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask for evidence, please.

I concur about the excellence of your post, LashL!

I'll prove it when I come to NYC, Gravy.

Alternatively, I have some rather, ahem, revealing photographs that establish my gender rather convincingly... ;)

[HyJinX]

Lol, TAM, no apologies necessary! :)



I'll prove it when I come to NYC, Gravy.

Alternatively, I have some rather, ahem, revealing photographs that establish my gender rather convincingly... ;)


:jaw-dropp Meow

[JimBenArm]

Alternatively, I have some rather, ahem, revealing photographs that establish my gender rather convincingly... ;)

Evidence, please. PLEASE! OH PLEASE! (grovels on floor)

[ConspiRaider]

Evidence, please. PLEASE! OH PLEASE! (grovels on floor)
Did someone say Twin Spheroids?

Hike!

[JimBenArm]

Did someone say Twin Spheroids?

Hike!

Why do I keep getting visions of San Onofre Nuclear Power Plant every time I see that?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1279345a5a138480b2.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=3599)

[LashL]

Evidence, please. PLEASE! OH PLEASE! (grovels on floor)

Check your PM.

just kidding, mods!

[JimBenArm]

Check your PM.

just kidding, mods!

Funny, that never works with my wife, either.

Got to work on my technique!

[T.A.M.]

JBA:

That is the greatest picture of twin spheroids I have evcer seen...awesome.

TAM

[JimBenArm]

JBA:

That is the greatest picture of twin spheroids I have evcer seen...awesome.

TAM

And it's just a short drive up Interstate 5 from San Diego. One of California's scenic delights!

[T.A.M.]

Now if only you could find a picture of the "gluteus" knoll...lol

TAM

[Gravy]

Lol, TAM, no apologies necessary! :)

I'll prove it when I come to NYC, Gravy.

Alternatively, I have some rather, ahem, revealing photographs that establish my gender rather convincingly... ;)Gulp.

I have to go now and sort my vacation photos from St. Lucia. (http://www.islandvulnerability.org/stlucialespitons.jpg)

[Dog Town]

Why do I keep getting visions of San Onofre Nuclear Power Plant every time I see that?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1279345a5a138480b2.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=3599)

Worship the SURF!

[T.A.M.]

I was looking once again at the power plant photo above, and a crazy thought occured to me...

Imagine what the conspiracy theorists on Mars must think they see when they look at earth from their planet.

TAM

[ConspiRaider]

I was looking once again at the power plant photo above, and a crazy thought occured to me...

Imagine what the conspiracy theorists on Mars must think they see when they look at earth from their planet.

TAM
They probably think Athena passed out on Jupiter's back porch after he locked her out all night...

[LashL]

Gulp.

I have to go now and sort my vacation photos from St. Lucia. (http://www.islandvulnerability.org/stlucialespitons.jpg)

Gulp.

And they call those the Petit Pitons, "petit" being French for "small"?? Yikes!

It is the Hustler thread, after all

[gumboot]

http://www.newsweekasia.com/
http://www.nwsub.com/
http://www.newsweeklatinamerica.com/
http://www.newsweekeurope.com/


Er... those are websites. Dot com websites at that.

-Gumboot

[gumboot]

I really cant remember the exact source because the
picture is pretty famous and spread all over the net.


I think that's your answer right there...

Badger, badger, badger, badger, badger...




[/U] ETA: Wiki says it´s true but the date is wrong in the article:[U]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsweek


Even if it is true, it makes sense.

The Afghanistan piece was obviously the second-running article in the USA as it was also mentioned on the cover. Frankly I'd expect an exclusive look at a high profile American celebrity photographer to be of far more interest to an American than another article about a minor (and grossly over-blown) war and how it isn't going according to plan (surprise?).

Of course, your foreign readership probably have no frikken idea who Annie Leibovitz is (I'd never heard of her) and couldn't care less about her. So the Intl versions probably don't want to use her as a selling point for their mag. So they use story two - Afghanistan.

-Gumboot

[Oliver]

Er... those are websites. Dot com websites at that.

-Gumboot

*lol* You asked:

Why would Newsweek be published in English in Europe, Asia, or Latin America?

...implying that you thought it´s not true.

I posted their worldwide websites to show that it´s true.
Oh, and the case is solved. The image is true butthe article
about Afghanistan was also in the US-edition.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I think that's your answer right there...

Badger, badger, badger, badger, badger...


http://www.nata2.info/humor/flash/badger.swf

Originally from: http://www.weebls-stuff.com/toons/badgers/
Which also gave us: http://www.weebls-stuff.com/toons/kenya/

[gumboot]

*lol* You asked:


...implying that you thought it´s not true.

I posted their worldwide websites to show that it´s true.



I was asking why their print editions would be english in areas where most people don't speak/read english as a first language.

To prove this you posted .com websites?

(You do realise that ".com" is an American domain and that in the USA they speak ENGLISH, right?)

-Gumboot

[Oliver]

I was asking why their print editions would be english in areas where most people don't speak/read english as a first language.

To prove this you posted .com websites?

(You do realise that ".com" is an American domain and that in the USA they speak ENGLISH, right?)

-Gumboot

We already had this discussion a side ago but i still don´t understand
why New Zealand and Australia belong to Asia (Newsweek Asia). :eek:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4979264/site/newsweek/

[gumboot]

We already had this discussion a side ago but i still don´t understand
why New Zealand and Australia belong to Asia (Newsweek Asia). :eek:



Er... because we're in Asia?

-Gumboot

[Oliver]

Er... because we're in Asia?

-Gumboot

Well, then you answered your own question: :D

I was asking why their print editions would be english in areas where most people don't speak/read english as a first language.

[gumboot]

Well, then you answered your own question: :D


*most* people.

There's only 4 million kiwis.

We're part of the Asia-Pacific economic-political region. We're not part of the Asian continent.

You still haven't demonstrated how an online english-language domain website explains why a non-english domain print edition would also be in english.

I'll give you a clue:

There's only two editions of Newsweek - US and International. While the US edition might lead with a domestic story of interest, the International edition will (obviously) always lead with an international story. All international editions are the same.

-Gumboot

[Oliver]

*most* people.

There's only 4 million kiwis.

We're part of the Asia-Pacific economic-political region. We're not part of the Asian continent.

You still haven't demonstrated how an online english-language domain website explains why a non-english domain print edition would also be in english.

I'll give you a clue:

There's only two editions of Newsweek - US and International. While the US edition might lead with a domestic story of interest, the International edition will (obviously) always lead with an international story. All international editions are the same.

-Gumboot

Honestly, the whole conversation is pretty weird because
to answer a question with another question proofs nothing.

Anyway: You´re wrong concerning the same contents in
the international edition. I´ve read about cases where this
was not the case but usually they seem to have the same
contents and concerning the "Afghanistan-Edition", the
whole article was included within the american edition and
mentioned on the Cover, too.

[R.Mackey]

Frankly - i have no clue why they publish their products
in english all over the world. I also wonder how many
english readers they have in south america but even
all their "local" homepages are in english.
I really think this is reaching.

C'mon, if you go into a McDonald's in different parts of the world and order a Happy Meal, you're not going to get the same thing, now are you?

All this shows to me is that the magazine plays to different market forces in different parts of the world. And perhaps citizens of the USA are averse to certain news stories, either from saturation, disinterest, or illiteracy, who cares? Anyone who wants to find out can learn all of that stuff. There is No Conspiracy. fnord.

[Oliver]

I really think this is reaching.

C'mon, if you go into a McDonald's in different parts of the world and order a Happy Meal, you're not going to get the same thing, now are you?

All this shows to me is that the magazine plays to different market forces in different parts of the world. And perhaps citizens of the USA are averse to certain news stories, either from saturation, disinterest, or illiteracy, who cares? Anyone who wants to find out can learn all of that stuff. There is No Conspiracy. fnord.

Well, i couldn´t have said it better since the whole
mystery is solved on one of the last pages. :)

[ponderingturtle]

Er... because we're in Asia?

-Gumboot

SO when did Australia move with out letting me know? I hate it when continents decide to shack up together while keeping their own name, it is immoral.

[Crungy]

I'm a bit late in reading the Hustler article, but I laughed long and hard when I read the Loose Change sidebar.

"In the two years since it first hit the internet, the breakthrough 9/11 video Loose Change has been an eye-opener for millions of people. With young guerrilla filmmakers Dylan Avery and Jason Bermas gearing up Loose Change: Final Cut for wide release, we talked with the film's Executive Producer, Korey Rowe.

No arguing 'bout young Magilla Bermas. :D

[Coritani]

New Zealand (of which I am a resident of; in Auckland) and Australia could be in their own 'section', as Oceania or Australasia.

The problem is, if you mention Australasia (especially New Zealand) to anyone outside of it they tend to say 'Austri what?' :p

[tsig]

IYou have to admit, they aren't perfect. Right? If you tell me they are perfect, I'm out of here, without even finding out what "woo" means.
?

No they are not perfect; they are inerrant.

All ninjas have to swear on them to join.