Fetzer on 'Hardfire'

[pomeroo]

Well, I've managed to book James Fetzer for a 'Hardfire' debate with, I hope, Mark. (Senor Gravy, This would be a good time to contact me.) I told Fetzer that we would somehow cover his flight expenses. Here's what he paid:

Ron,

It ran $392.60. Thanks. I look forward to meeting you.

Jim


Anything I can't raise here will come out of my own pocket (sniff).

Help!

[AZCat]

When is this scheduled to occur?

[pomeroo]

When is this scheduled to occur?



We're taping on April 17.

[AZCat]

We're taping on April 17.

Thanks. It would be nice if Mark would consent (hint, hint).

[gumboot]

Ron just make sure you don't let Fetzer bring any luggage in with him.

-Gumboot

[Totovader]

A "layman" debunking a "physics philosophy professor" (no offense gravy)...

Where do I send the money?

[TruthSeeker1234]

I certainly hope you allow Dr. Fetzer to bring his laptop with slideshow, and feed it into the video switcher, as you promised you would do for me (before you changed your mind about having me on the show).

[Cl1mh4224rd]

We're taping on April 17.
My birthday? Aww, you shouldn't have. :p

A "layman" debunking a "physics professor" (no offense gravy)...

Where do I send the money?
Psst. Fetzer's the Theologian. ;)

[StoneWT]

Do we use the link on your site to donate? I will chip in.

Fetzer is an embarrassment to the U.S. Marine Corps. He was laughed out of the JFK Assassination community due to his advocacy of the "Zapruder film is little more than a cartoon" theory. He ranted for so long that a JFK conference cut the microphone off to stop him from wasting anymore time.

Be prepared for his bloviated responses. He likes to harp on small errors having little or nothing to do with the actual topic at hand.

[GwionX]

I thought he taught critical thinking classes at UMinni-Duluth , as a philosphy professor.

Critical thinking? Wow. The snow must have a strange effect in Duluth.

[pomeroo]

I certainly hope you allow Dr. Fetzer to bring his laptop with slideshow, and feed it into the video switcher, as you promised you would do for me (before you changed your mind about having me on the show).



Ace, You changed my mind about having you on the show.

[pomeroo]

[quote=StoneWT;2495143]Do we use the link on your site to donate? I will chip in.

Fetzer is an embarrassment to the U.S. Marine Corps. He was laughed out of the JFK Assassination community due to his advocacy of the "Zapruder film is little more than a cartoon" theory. He ranted for so long that a JFK conference cut the microphone off to stop him from wasting anymore time.

Be prepared for his bloviated responses. He likes to harp on small errors having little or nothing to do with the actual topic at hand.



I appreciate the generosity of everyone who has offered to kick in a few bucks. Really, I appreciate it enormously. But, the God's-honest-truth is, I don't have the slightest idea how to collect the money. I'm open to suggestions.

[The Doc]

You could use PayPal Ron :)

http://www.paypal.com

Might take some getting used to though.

[GwionX]

do you accept paypal?

[Totovader]

Psst. Fetzer's the Theologian. ;)

Holy stupid mistake... obviously I was seeing Fetzer- thinking Jones.

Ok, well- not quite as fun.

Fetzer won't actually answer any questions. Would be kind of fun to see him talk about the scientific method, though...

[CurtC]

No, Griffin's the theologian. Fetzer's a philosopher.

[Brainster]

Ron just make sure you don't let Fetzer bring any luggage in with him.

LOL!:D

[Totovader]

No, Griffin's the theologian. Fetzer's a philosopher.

In the grand (conspiracy) scheme of things, they're all theologians.



Wait a minute... Brantley is Foster?

And Foster is Brantley!

And Christy's the bimbo!

[Cl1mh4224rd]

No, Griffin's the theologian. Fetzer's a philosopher.
Argh. Multiple layers of mistake... Thanks for correcting that.

[LashL]

I'll be happy to pitch in some money too, Ron, if Mark is amenable to the debate.

(P.S. Setting up a PayPal account is pretty straightforward, and I find it a very convenient way to send money online, particularly when sending payment from Canada to the U.S.)

[Axiom_Blade]

Nice!
I think Fetzer's my favorite CTer. Anything with him in it is automatically golden.
He sweats, he blusters, he rants, he screeches like a girl when he gets really flustered...
Awesome.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Dr. Fetzer has informed me that he plans to bring his slideshow. Yes, this ought to be great. Not counting the LC clips on Amy Goodman, AFAIK, it will be the first time a television audience (albeit public access) will have the evidence actually presented to them. I hope Dr. Fetzer is allowed to speak, and that Mr. Wieck and company don't just resort to Bill O'Reilly tactics.

Yes, Ron, I know I caused you to change your mind about having me on Hardfire. Initially, you were fantasizing that I could be manipulated the way you did the LC boys. Once it became clear that I was intent on presenting visual evidence that would easily convince your audience that Dr. Greening's gravity collapse theory is divorced from reality, you cowardly backed out.

[Gravy]

I'll be happy to pitch in some money too, Ron, if Mark is amenable to the debate.

Yes, I sent Ron an email that I'm all for it. :)

[Gravy]

Dr. Fetzer has informed me that he plans to bring his slideshow. Yes, this ought to be great. Not counting the LC clips on Amy Goodman, AFAIK, it will be the first time a television audience (albeit public access) will have the evidence actually presented to them. I hope Dr. Fetzer is allowed to speak, and that Mr. Wieck and company don't just resort to Bill O'Reilly tactics.

Yes, Ron, I know I caused you to change your mind about having me on Hardfire. Initially, you were fantasizing that I could be manipulated the way you did the LC boys. Once it became clear that I was intent on presenting visual evidence that would easily convince your audience that Dr. Greening's gravity collapse theory is divorced from reality, you cowardly backed out.

Got Rubble?

[A W Smith]

Dr. Fetzer has informed me that he plans to bring his slideshow. .

I want to see the body language and physical reaction of fetzer as each slide of his show is refuted, Therefore I would suggest a screen in screen display rather than going back and forth between head shots and slide show screen shots.

[Minadin]

I got $20 that says you will be able to raise enough money by the deadline. (either way, you win)

[ref]

Yes, I sent Ron an email that I'm all for it. :)

This is great :) another one to watch!

[ref]

I wonder which points he brings up.

His top 10 reasons the hijackers were not involved?
Pentagon C-130 theories?
Does he even dare to debate Mark about the WTC?

And I know Mark is tearing them all apart, no matter what he brings :)

[Rawkarma]

I'm all for donating and I agree with LashL that PayPal would be a convenient way to collect said monies; it's simple to setup and if you've ever bought something off of Ebay (I would think many people here have), you're likely to have an active account.

Dr. Fetzer has informed me that he plans to bring his slideshow. Yes, this ought to be great.

Yes, it will be. Worth paying to see in fact.

I hope Fetzer doesn't bomb as dramatically as the LC boys; if he does, I think Ron should close out appropriately by calling: "Taxi for Fetzer!"

[JAStewart]

Yes! brilliant!

I can't wait to see Unkie Fetzy panic.

[CurtC]

From what I've seen of Fetzer, his technique is to talk louder than his opponents, and not shut up to let them get a word in. My advice for Ron would be to have a mute button for Fetzer's mic within your reach - not to silence him, but to force him not to silence you.

[pomeroo]

Dr. Fetzer has informed me that he plans to bring his slideshow. Yes, this ought to be great. Not counting the LC clips on Amy Goodman, AFAIK, it will be the first time a television audience (albeit public access) will have the evidence actually presented to them. I hope Dr. Fetzer is allowed to speak, and that Mr. Wieck and company don't just resort to Bill O'Reilly tactics.





I understand your concern. I am, after all, an unknown quantity here: I have never hosted debates with Les Jamieson or the Loose Change boys. It is possible that I will start shrieking on the air and bury my guest under a torrent of abuse.



Yes, Ron, I know I caused you to change your mind about having me on Hardfire. Initially, you were fantasizing that I could be manipulated the way you did the LC boys.



Again, those problems with comprehension, Ace. Words, we must remind you, have meanings. When you write that I "manipulated" Avery and Bermas, people who don't know you will get the idea that I somehow "manipulated" them. If they watch the debates, they will wonder why you chose that curiously inappropriate word. Once they get a gander at you in action, they will wonder no more. Someone who babbles about "dustifying" steel is capable of using just about any word in any situation.




Once it became clear that I was intent on presenting visual evidence that would easily convince your audience that Dr. Greening's gravity collapse theory is divorced from reality, you cowardly backed out.




You turned out to be a scientific illiterate, a total crackpot presenting utter nonsense. You were crushed without mercy, exposed as a know-nothing, by people who are themselves scientists, and you came away from the experience not an ounce wiser. People who are merely ignorant are not necessarily stupid. People who cannot learn, who are impervious to all information that fails to conform to their prejudices, by definition, are. All the detailed explanations spoon-fed to you by genuine experts failed to make the slightest dent in your absurd fantasies.

[pomeroo]

I got $20 that says you will be able to raise enough money by the deadline. (either way, you win)



I think this debate is important enough that I will pony up whatever is necessary. Naturally, I, being cheap, hope that I don't have to foot the entire bill.

[cloudshipsrule]

Yes, Ron, I know I caused you to change your mind about having me on Hardfire. Initially, you were fantasizing that I could be manipulated the way you did the LC boys. Once it became clear that I was intent on presenting visual evidence that would easily convince your audience that Dr. Greening's gravity collapse theory is divorced from reality, you cowardly backed out.

Like a fly at a picnic, offering nothing and bothering everyone at the table.

[Loss Leader]

you cowardly backed out.


This is not english. However, when it comes to poor grammar, I'm sure BS1234 will find a way to blame the international monetary fund.

[Vincent Vega]

Is TruthSeeker1234 Dr. "Pennies on a windowsill"?

Cuz' wasn't "dustification" of steel her theory? Or did TS1234 just borrow it?

[TruthSeeker1234]

You turned out to be a scientific illiterate, a total crackpot presenting utter nonsense. You were crushed without mercy, exposed as a know-nothing, by people who are themselves scientists, and you came away from the experience not an ounce wiser. People who are merely ignorant are not necessarily stupid. People who cannot learn, who are impervious to all information that fails to conform to their prejudices, by definition, are. All the detailed explanations spoon-fed to you by genuine experts failed to make the slightest dent in your absurd fantasies.

Yet Dr. Fetzer expresses the same "absurd fantasies". I'm very glad you're having him on, but could you please elucidate any differences between his views and my own that might support your evidently contradictory conclusions?

Of course I don't agree with your "experts". That is the whole premise of a scientific debate, Mr. Wieck - two people who disagree. I am perfectly literate in the principles of science, and you know it. I do not disagree with your "experts" about conservation of energy or any of the other relevant laws of physics. The disagreement is primarily one of observations. The scientific plausibility of the official story is based on complete fabrications of what was actually observed, and the visual record demonstrates this clearly. That is why I feel quite confident debunking Greening, e.g.

Yes, I'm aware that you had Les Jamieson and the LC boys on. AFAIK, none of them presented any visual evidence. Instead, you launched into the "debate" with Dylan and Jason by asking qustions about al Qaeda. This is what I mean by manipulation.

Can you please confirm that you have agreed to allow Dr. Fetzer to present visual evidence on Hardfire?

Thank You.

[Minadin]

I think this debate is important enough that I will pony up whatever is necessary. Naturally, I, being cheap, hope that I don't have to foot the entire bill.


Sorry, Ron, that was just my backwards way of saying, "I'll be happy to chip in if you come up short."

[pomeroo]

[quote=TruthSeeker1234;2496109]Yet Dr. Fetzer expresses the same "absurd fantasies". I'm very glad you're having him on, but could you please elucidate any differences between his views and my own that might support your evidently contradictory conclusions?




As far I know, you both believe very silly things that are contradicted by all available evidence.



Of course I don't agree with your "experts". That is the whole premise of a scientific debate, Mr. Wieck - two people who disagree. I am perfectly literate in the principles of science, and you know it.



You have created the impression of someone who has a very poor grasp of scientific principles and, more importantly, of someone who is incapable of processing new information. Your garbled pseudo-science has been painstakingly dissected and refuted. You didn't notice.




I do not disagree with your "experts" about conservation of energy or any of the other relevant laws of physics. The disagreement is primarily one of observations. The scientific plausibility of the official story is based on complete fabrications of what was actually observed, and the visual record demonstrates this clearly. That is why I feel quite confident debunking Greening, e.g.





You have wasted everyone's time with fanciful, imaginary concepts such as the "dustification" of steel at the WTC. You have ignored the reality of planes crashing into buildings, the testimony of thousands of eyewitnesses who observed those planes, and the existence of tons of recovered steel that required months to haul away. You live in a dream world.



Yes, I'm aware that you had Les Jamieson and the LC boys on. AFAIK, none of them presented any visual evidence.


Wrong.




Instead, you launched into the "debate" with Dylan and Jason by asking qustions about al Qaeda. This is what I mean by manipulation.




In other words, you don't use the word "manipulation" to mean "manipulation." A debate on the events of 9/11 will probably contain a few references to al Qaeda.



Can you please confirm that you have agreed to allow Dr. Fetzer to present visual evidence on Hardfire?





It is not necessary for me to confirm anything to you. But, Jim Fetzer can use whatever visual evidence he thinks will enable him to make his case most effectively.



Thank You.




We aims to please.

[AZCat]

Ron - if you can set up a method of payment, I will also chip in. Just let us know.

[pomeroo]

Ron - if you can set up a method of payment, I will also chip in. Just let us know.


I just opened a PayPal account. How do we proceed?

[TruthSeeker1234]

Ron:

1. You agreed to have me on your show.
2. You changed your mind, and will not have me on the show.
3. You claim this change of mind was based on what you consider to be my scientific shortcomings.
4. Dr. Fetzer has the same scientific shortcomings, in your view.
5. Yet he is going on your show.

This is contradictory.

Dr. Fetzer is a Ph.D, the founder of the Scholars, and has appeared on several network TV programs discussing 9/11. I can claim none of these things. If your position is based on these differences, that is perfectly reasonable. Dr. Fetzer has the academic credentials, and I do not.

However, those are not the reasons you have given. Furthermore, nothing about my credentials changed between the time you agreed to have me on, and the time you changed your mind.

What did happen during that time, is that I made it known to you that I was bringing evidence, and I called you out on a few of your inane ramblings, including your "bowling ball through balsa wood" analogy. I also alerted you to Dr. Greening's criticisms of NIST on physorg, before he came on JREF.

None of this is sour grapes on my part. I am delighted to know Dr. Fetzer is coming on, I support him, Dr. Greening has confirmed he will still have a video discussion with me when I can line up a venue.

[pomeroo]

Ron:

1. You agreed to have me on your show.
2. You changed your mind, and will not have me on the show.
3. You claim this change of mind was based on what you consider to be my scientific shortcomings.
4. Dr. Fetzer has the same scientific shortcomings, in your view.
5. Yet he is going on your show.

This is contradictory.




Don't use words you don't understand.




Dr. Fetzer is a Ph.D, the founder of the Scholars, and has appeared on several network TV programs discussing 9/11. I can claim none of these things. If your position is based on these differences, that is perfectly reasonable. Dr. Fetzer has the academic credentials, and I do not.





Fetzer is a very prominent fantasist. He will present the case for his wrongheaded views and Mark will attempt to refute them.

You are just another crackpot, one of a distrubingly large group of people who hate reason and spout nonsense.

I learned my lesson with Les Jamieson.




However, those are not the reasons you have given. Furthermore, nothing about my credentials changed between the time you agreed to have me on, and the time you changed your mind.

What did happen during that time, is that I made it known to you that I was bringing evidence,



You have demonstrated to the satisfaction of every sane person here that you have absolutely NO evidence.


and I called you out on a few of your inane ramblings, including your "bowling ball through balsa wood" analogy.


You "called me out" on nothing. I said that if a bowling ball is suspended over a structure constructed of balsa wood, the interest lies solely in what caused the ball to fall, not what happened when it did. It was not intended as an exact analogy to the WTC and nobody thinks it was.



I also alerted you to Dr. Greening's criticisms of NIST on physorg, before he came on JREF.




I was aware that Dr. Greening is not sold on the NIST Report's conclusions or methodology.




None of this is sour grapes on my part. I am delighted to know Dr. Fetzer is coming on, I support him, Dr. Greening has confirmed he will still have a video discussion with me when I can line up a venue.



Your nose is growing.

[CurtC]

I just opened a PayPal account. How do we proceed?
There is an email address associated with that PayPal account. Tell us what that email address is, and we'll shoot you some funds. If you'd rather not have that email address posted on a public forum, you can PM it to those of us who ask. Starting with me.

[scissorhands]

Ron, set up a paypal account with a web based email like hotmail,yahoo or something if you are concerned about posting your personal one here.
I would like to contribute to this.
You can pm me too.

[T.A.M.]

This debate will be so entertaining, I will actually buy the DVD version if shown where to buy it afterward...awesome that this is coming together.

TAM:)

[AZCat]

Please PM me the email address also, Ron.

[alexg]

PM me too, I'll help a little.

[Dog Town]

Ron, I would love a PM as well. You do good work, Gravy kick some butt!

[LashL]

Yes, I sent Ron an email that I'm all for it.


Terrific! I can hardly wait :)

I just opened a PayPal account. How do we proceed?

That has been answered above, but I just want to add that if you are are keeping the email address private, please PM me as well with the address and I'll click over to PayPal today and send some $.

[negativ]

I don't have an awful lot of spare cash laying around, but I would find a way to contribute something if you could get Dr. Fetzer to suit up (http://www.gorillacostumes.com/) and demonstrate his Samsonite Counterterrorism Technique on camera...

[pomeroo]

To everyone who has offered to contribute to the Great Debate, I can't thank you enough. You guys are the best!

Give me a couple of days to resolve a few problems and I'll start e-mailing you privately.

Incidentally, I'm not breaking any rules here, am I?

[FactCheck]

One rule should be made before the debate. The moderator should instantly stop his attempts to run 10 issues knowing you can only address one or two. STOP HIM! That's a cheap debate tactic. Point out it's a cheap debate tactic if he tries it.

He will also be very forceful with his voice. He has a very strong presence. He's much like a preacher in his style of debate. Something he no doubt learned from his studies. He knows it's not what you say but how you say it. He knows if he sounds like he believes it, other will as well. Just remember, it's all synthetic.

Good luck, you're gonna need it, he lives for this stuff and is trained fro public speaking.

[WildCat]

I think calliope circus music should be played whenever Fetzer is in the shot by himself.

No, I couldn't ever be an impartial moderator in such a debate.

[ref]

BUMP!

This debate takes place today.

[The Doc]

Good luck today guys :)

I have no doubt that you'll tear Fetzer a new one. If you have trouble, I can provide a high-tech NWO laser beam to assist you in this matter.

Doc.

[Undesired Walrus]

Anyone taking bets on "I dont see how 19 arabs led by a man in a cave, armed with boxcutters can take out the US" appearing sometime tonight?

[Spins]

If I was editing the debate for DVD I'd play the "Twilight Zone" music in the background every time Fetzer is speaking.

:boggled:

[alexg]

Can we watch this live? Where and when?

[gumboot]

It's already the 18th here... I can report, from the future, that nothing overly exciting happens regarding Fetzer today. I mean yesterday.

-Gumboot

[JimBenArm]

It's already the 18th here... I can report, from the future, that nothing overly exciting happens regarding Fetzer today. I mean yesterday.

-Gumboot
Damn time-travelling Kiwis!

[beachnut]

Fetzer tells me I am an impaired buffoon.


Do you always make up your mind without looking at the evidence? That doesn't sound very rational to me. In fact, if one side has studied
the evidence and arrived at conclusions based upon it, while the other
side is going on the basis of its "gut" instincts, I would say that one
side is rational in its beliefs and other side is either ignorant or at
least cognitively impaired. It doesn't know what it's talking about.
And that, Keith, appears to describe you! Thanks for writing, but why
don't you actually look at the evidence and act less like a buffoon?

Jim


And the standard party line then, which includes those pesky beam weapons now.
You appear to be unfamiliar with the basics of the case, so here is a simple
summary of some of what you need to know to figure out what happened here.
That steel melts at 2,800*F, that the max temp of jet-fuel based fires is
only 1,800*F, that UL certified the steel used in the towers to 2,000*F for
up to six hours before it would even significantly weaken, when the fires
burned only for less than an hour (South Tower) and about ninety minutes
(North Tower) at low temperatures because it was oxygen-starved, means the
steel neither melted nor weakened. The impact of the planes was negligible
because they had sophisticated load-redistribution capabilities built into
them. As Frank DeMartini observed, the impact of a plane on the buildings
would be like sticking a pencil through mosquito netting! Even THE 9/11
REPORT itself conceded that the towers fell in about 10 seconds, which is
the same as a grand piano in free fall would have taken, if it had been re-
leased from the top of one of them at the same time it began to collapse,
which would have been impossible under any scenario other than controlled
demolition removing lower floors before falling mass impacted with them.
So some source of energy other than the planes or the fires was necessary
to bring the buildings down. You can actually see massive explosions on
floors at the start of collapse before they were enveloped with clouds of
debris, fine dust created by pulverizing the concrete flooring material,
and steel beams are thrown outward and even upward! You would expect to
see clouds of debris from the ground up when the buildings fell, but in
this case, they were exploding from the top down! This effect only have
been the result of previously positioned demolitions exploding in series.
That conclusion, supported by multiple kinds of evidence, including even
observational evidence (see "9/11 Revisited", for example), receives ad-
ditional reinforcement from the pools of molten metal found at the sub-
basement level of all three buildings. (Don't forget WTC7, which was
hit by no aircraft, only incurred very modest fires, and was "pulled"
at 5:20 PM following the suggestion of Larry Silverstein.) It really
doesn't matter if structural engineers are afraid to speak out because
they think they will be ridiculed or otherwise punished by the loss of
funding, for example. Even they cannot possibly violate natural laws!
Members of the society have conducted their own experiments with cell
phones and your claims contadict their findings. As to whether or not
these pilots could have handled these aircraft or whether cell phone
calls were possible, please see the studies on our "Resources" page,
which were authored by a mathematician and computer scientist and by
a pilot who is also an aeronautical engineer. If you are sincere, I
would be glad to continue corresponding, but if not, let's let it go.

Jim.

[uk_dave]

That steel melts at 2,800*F It didn't melt, that the max temp of jet-fuel based fires is
only 1,800*F, that UL certified the steel used in the towersassemblies to 2,000*F for
up to six hoursfireproofed before it would even significantly weaken, when the fires
burned only for less than an hour (South Tower) and about ninety minutes
(North Tower) at low temperatures because it was oxygen-starved, means the
steel neither meltedcorrect nor weakenedincorrect.

oh boy, when will this joker ever learn?

[rwguinn]

oh boy, when will this joker ever learn?

When Bison can actuall use the wings they are credited with having?:D

[Brainache]

It's already the 18th here... I can report, from the future, that nothing overly exciting happens regarding Fetzer today. I mean yesterday.

-Gumboot

Should we tell them it's Chipmunk Stew's birthday?

Happy birthday CS!

[JamesB]

Oh you think that is funny e-mail from Fetzer, let me look into my archives:

This is when I explained to him that the US was not building pipelines through Afghanistan:

Since I believed everything I have said, I cannot possibly be lying. Don't you grasp that, even if I were wrong, I would not be lying unless I was deliberately asserting something I knew to be false with the intention to mislead? Why not just say that it was a natural gas pipeline rather than an oil one? What leads you to be so incredibly nasty and to assault me verbally and in writing? Last night you committed slander, today libel. So you are covering all the bases.

[Dog Town]

So...how did it go?

[Totovader]

So...how did it go?

... and how long before it's online? :)

[Gravy]

So...how did it go?I'm trying to think of an apt description. The phrase "goalposts in a tornado" comes to mind. :eek:

I made some comments in the "Fetzer fund" thread. Beyond that I'll wait until the shows are up. I didn't ask when that will be. Last time it was pretty quick.

[beachnut]

Oh you think that is funny e-mail from Fetzer, let me look into my archives:

This is when I explained to him that the US was not building pipelines through Afghanistan:

Remember he teaches critical thinking! Thus, if he believes it, it can not be a lie. Darn, I know a couple of Presidents that need to use this line!


Since I believed everything I have said, I cannot possibly be lying. Don't you grasp that, even if I were wrong, I would not be lying unless I was deliberately asserting something I knew to be false with the intention to mislead? Why not just say that it was a natural gas pipeline rather than an oil one? What leads you to be so incredibly nasty and to assault me verbally and in writing? Last night you committed slander, today libel. So you are covering all the bases.


I did not email him after I lost all the arguments by default; I knew he was the BS king, why argue. Jim Fetzer is my hero BS king, he just keep telling bigger and bigger lies, and since he believes everything he says, it is not a lie but - I have to take his course on critical thinking!

I wonder if I can use this line with my wife? I believe it, so I am not telling lies...

[Whiplash]

This reminds me of the Seinfeld episode "The Beard" in which Jerry was dating a cop who didn't believe that he never had watched Melrose Place. She wanted him to take a lie detector test, and in a later scene, Jerry was imploring George to help him. As a professional liar, he felt that George could help him beat the test. However, George's opinion was basically that it was such an inborn skill that he could never successfully teach it to another (he used some analogy like teaching someone to paint).

In the end however, he did offer Jerry one piece of advice. "It's not a lie, if you believe it!".

[ref]

I'm trying to think of an apt description. The phrase "goalposts in a tornado" comes to mind. :eek:

I made some comments in the "Fetzer fund" thread. Beyond that I'll wait until the shows are up. I didn't ask when that will be. Last time it was pretty quick.

So, at least he showed up then.

[Horatius]

In the end however, he did offer Jerry one piece of advice. "It's not a lie, if you believe it!".



The exact line I thought of!

So the question is, if you continue to believe it after you've been shown to be wrong, is that lying? Can you choose to believe certain things? Or is belief/disbelief an automatic function of our brain?

[Vincent Vega]

The exact line I thought of!

So the question is, if you continue to believe it after you've been shown to be wrong, is that lying? Can you choose to believe certain things? Or is belief/disbelief an automatic function of our brain?

No. In a mild form it is called self-delusion or denial. It it's most severe form it is indicative of mental illness. Guys like Fetzer may* fit the latter.

*I am in no means qualified to diagnose anyone.

[JamesB]

Remember he teaches critical thinking! Thus, if he believes it, it can not be a lie. Darn, I know a couple of Presidents that need to use this line!



I did not email him after I lost all the arguments by default; I knew he was the BS king, why argue. Jim Fetzer is my hero BS king, he just keep telling bigger and bigger lies, and since he believes everything he says, it is not a lie but - I have to take his course on critical thinking!

I wonder if I can use this line with my wife? I believe it, so I am not telling lies...

Incidently, Fetzer not only lied about the subject in the first place, he lied about my argument. I was not arguing that they are building a natural gas pipeline instead of an oil pipeline, I argued that they are not currently building a pipeline at all. Here is my original e-mail:

Various problems with your oil pipeline theory.
1. Various companies have discussed building a pipeline, but even 5 years after 9/11 it is still in the planning stages.
2. It was never an oil pipeline, it was a natural gas pipeline, which would serve Pakistan or India.
3. The 2 major military bases at Bagram and Khandahar are not in Northern Afghanistan, and are not located on any logical path for a pipeline if there were one.
4. A pipeline which ran through northern Afghanistan would not run anywhere you would want it to.

[LashL]

I am very much looking forward to the Hardfire video of the debate being posted. :)