Will I get my ban badge?

[JamesB]

Dylan is threatening to ban me from their forum for "personal attacks", because I quoted them.

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=8058&st=0&#entry13301026

And check out the guy who claims Hitler didn't invade France.

Do the French know this?

[Unsecured Coins]

I thnk yours is on back order. I know I got 2 coming to me, the first was about my debut Coins video and the second one, I didn't even get to post.

[The Silver Shadow]

Delusional Dylan is up to it again...

[Lurker]

Damn that Tx guy is ignorant of history. He says this over there:


In Jyune of 1940, The French, Marshall Petain, signed an armistice with Germany taking France out of the war and into German occupation. That is not an invasion by force nor is it claiming Germany never took them over. Your childish and stupid attack over on the Jref forum shows your true stupidity and childishness in this case. I\'m through with you. You have been proven wrong but you are too dense to understand. Enjoy you fantasy...

Um, what occurred BEFORE Petain signed the armistice? Oh, that's right, Germany INVADED France. The German INVASION of France is what caused France to surrender.

How he can be so ignorant of history is beyond me.

Lurker

[Brainster]

Damn that Tx guy is ignroant of history. He says this over there:



Um, what occurred BEFORE Petain signed the armistice? Oh, that's right, Germany INVADED France. The German INVASION of France is what caused France to surrender.

How he can be so ignorant of history is beyond me.

Lurker

Hmmm, isn't he a JREF forum member? But you're right, that's a stunningly inaccurate claim, as is this continuation:

In June of 1940, The French, Marshall Petain, signed an armistice with Germany taking France out of the war and into German occupation. That is not an invasion by force nor is it claiming Germany never took them over.

[~enigma~]

Hmmm, isn't he a JREF forum member? But you're right, that's a stunningly inaccurate claim, as is this continuation:
Read what JamesB was arguing. He misquoted Jason as saying INVADED and I answered that. Then he went on to do what he hates and move the goalposts by saying "took over". Two totally different concepts. Anyway what does WW@ trivia have to do with anything and why was James stupid enough to call Dylan out for something Jason said that James admits was to impress a bystander? Now he asked Dylan to ban him then runs here and posts? And he wonders why LCF paints Jref with a broad brush....c'mon...talk about a double standard :)

[tacodaemon]

Truthers sure have an eagerness to believe they have totally "owned" the people they disagree with. For example, remember that ridiculous thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=77803) about a month ago in which TonicBlue tried to convince us that there were terrorists driving around on 9/11 in a truck with a picture of the 9/11 attacks painted on the side? Well, one of the LCFers thinks that (http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=8031&view=findpost&p=13282425) Gravy was utterly "owned" in that thread.

[Brainster]

Read what JamesB was arguing. He misquoted Jason as saying INVADED and I answered that. Then he went on to do what he hates and move the goalposts by saying "took over". Two totally different concepts. Anyway what does WW@ trivia have to do with anything and why was James stupid enough to call Dylan out for something Jason said that James admits was to impress a bystander? Now he asked Dylan to ban him then runs here and posts? And he wonders why LCF paints Jref with a broad brush....c'mon...talk about a double standard :)

If you want to say that James should not have tweaked Dylan about Jason's claims (including the one about our soldiers being treated in military hospitals in Syria, which he made this weekend), then I might agree with you. If you want to argue that WWII is largely irrelevant to what we are discussing, I might agree with you on that as well. If you want to argue that this thread should not have been started, again you might find me in concurrence.

But if you're going to claim that Germany did not invade France in 1940, I most certainly will not agree.

[scissorhands]

http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/timeline/ww2time.htm

Christ on a bike.
Heres a nice timeline of events in world war 2.
Note the invasion of France, May 10, 1940.
:confused:

[uk_dave]

But if you're going to claim that Germany did not invade France in 1940, I most certainly will not agree.

Neither would the troops evacuated from the beaches of Dunkirk as the Germans advanced.

[JamesB]

Read what JamesB was arguing. He misquoted Jason as saying INVADED and I answered that. Then he went on to do what he hates and move the goalposts by saying "took over". Two totally different concepts. Anyway what does WW@ trivia have to do with anything and why was James stupid enough to call Dylan out for something Jason said that James admits was to impress a bystander? Now he asked Dylan to ban him then runs here and posts? And he wonders why LCF paints Jref with a broad brush....c'mon...talk about a double standard :)


Hey, it was a silly thread to begin with. It was ostensibly started to discuss my e-mail exchange with Jones, and 38 posts later not a single person has addressed the subject. Yes, I was tweaking Dylan, but he deserves it, he jumped into the thread to tweak me.

But this non-invasion of France thing is just bizarre.

[~enigma~]

http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/timeline/ww2time.htm

Christ on a bike.
Heres a nice timeline of events in world war 2.
Note the invasion of France, May 10, 1940.
:confused:
And here is a timeline countrary to that...

http://www.historyonthenet.com/Chronology/timelinewwii.htm

Now either address JamesB misquoting Jason and how his running here to start this thread helps promote the myth that LCF says as to all Jrefers being idiots or just stop being an idiot...simple enough?

[~enigma~]

Hey, it was a silly thread to begin with. It was ostensibly started to discuss my e-mail exchange with Jones, and 38 posts later not a single person has addressed the subject. Yes, I was tweaking Dylan, but he deserves it, he jumped into the thread to tweak me.

But this non-invasion of France thing is just bizarre.
It is his forum so it's wrong for him to post there?

[HawksFan]

Unbelieveable. How could anyone come to the conclusion that France was never invaded? I mean granted, the defense of France was not very effective, but they DID resist.

[JamesB]

It is his forum so it's wrong for him to post there?

No, but does that mean I cannot respond? He can ban me anytime he likes. I don't stay up nights worrying about it.

[scissorhands]

And here is a timeline countrary to that...

http://www.historyonthenet.com/Chronology/timelinewwii.htm

Now either address JamesB misquoting Jason and how his running here to start this thread helps promote the myth that LCF says as to all Jrefers being idiots or just stop being an idiot...simple enough?


France was invaded by Germany in May 1940.
I suggest you spend a bit of time educating yourself about this before digging any deeper.

[Lurker]

And here is a timeline countrary to that...

http://www.historyonthenet.com/Chronology/timelinewwii.htm


I'm sorry, how does that contradict anything said earlier? France may have declared war on Germany (in response to Poland) but Germany STILL INVADED France.

Lurker

[~enigma~]

France was invaded by Germany in May 1940.
I suggest you spend a bit of time educating yourself about this before digging any deeper.Tell you what...tell me what WW2 has to do with a thread about Jones acd Screw Loose Change, then tell me how stupid it was to even bring up and misquote Jason. Then ask me if your opinion makes any difference to me :)

[scissorhands]

Tell you what...tell me what WW2 has to do with a thread about Jones acd Screw Loose Change, then tell me how stupid it was to even bring up and misquote Jason. Then ask me if your opinion makes any difference to me :)

You think that the fact Germany invaded France is just my opinion?
Maybe you are spending a bit too much time over there.
Take a break and read up on some history.

[~enigma~]

You think that the fact Germany invaded France is just my opinion?
Maybe you are spending a bit too much time over there.
Take a break and read up on some history.Can you answer a simple question or are you going to refuse answering so you can look like a defender of the stupidity that you defend? What does WW@ have to do with a thread on LCF about Jones and Screw Loose Change? Answer that...otherwise I really don't want to listen to your stupidity.

[Bandersnatch]

And here is a timeline countrary to that...

http://www.historyonthenet.com/Chron...melinewwii.htm

How is that contrary?

[scissorhands]

Can you answer a simple question or are you going to refuse answering so you can look like a defender of the stupidity that you defend? What does WW@ have to do with a thread on LCF about Jones and Screw Loose Change? Answer that...otherwise I really don't want to listen to your stupidity.

:)
So you accept that Germany invaded France in May 1940?
Then I wont inflict any more of my "stupidity" on you.

[Stellafane]

Truthers sure have an eagerness to believe they have totally "owned" the people they disagree with. For example, remember that ridiculous thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=77803) about a month ago in which TonicBlue tried to convince us that there were terrorists driving around on 9/11 in a truck with a picture of the 9/11 attacks painted on the side? Well, one of the LCFers thinks that (http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=8031&view=findpost&p=13282425) Gravy was utterly "owned" in that thread.


Were I (God forbid) a twoofer, just about the last thread I'd ever mention is that one about the terrorists driving around in a van sporting a painting of the twin towers being attacked. Of all the coma-inducing stupidity ever uttered in the name of 9/11 twoofiness, that claim has to rank as the most insane -- and considering the competition, that's really, really saying something.

[gumboot]

Wow that guy also claims it was Italy that invaded Greece... someone tell the ANZACs! They seem to remember fighting German Panzers. I'm sure they'll be relieved to discover they were mistaken all these years.

(Actually, someone tell the Greeks too, because they friggen hate Germans...)

-Gumboot

[HyJinX]

Those were holographic Panzers, Gumboot. Everyone knows this.

[~enigma~]

Wow that guy also claims it was Italy that invaded Greece... someone tell the ANZACs! They seem to remember fighting German Panzers. I'm sure they'll be relieved to discover they were mistaken all these years.

(Actually, someone tell the Greeks too, because they friggen hate Germans...)

-Gumboot
Andrew could you do a cut and paste where TxGuy said Italy and soley Italy attacked Greece. Be careful where you tread because I am TxGuy not an idiot like uncle Fester.

[gumboot]

Just for the record... JamesB doesn't appear to have misquoted Jason Bermas. In his first comment, where he uses the word "invaded" he is not directly quoting...

Addressing the change from "invade" to "take over". Invasion essentially means to "take over by force". Therefore any country that was "invaded" was also taken over. Thus by interpreting Bermas' quote as meaning "invading" JamesB is actually doing him a favour - because Germany "took over" even more countries than they invaded.

I have to agree that WW2 is off topic for that thread, but I don't see how that's relevant. Since when was being off topic an appropriate banning offense? Yet it's okay for Dylan to tell JamesB he "has a stick up his [rule8]"?

-Gumboot

[~enigma~]

So stop me and correct me where I'm wrong but I see this thread as positive proof that some people here have nothing better to do with their life than attack someone who defended Jason Bermas for being misquoted over a topic as mundane as WW2 trivia when your problem with him is 9/11 research? IOW you are not attacking any of his or their arguments but instead you choose to attack a totally irrelevant point? That is just sad. I think now would be a good time for alot of people here to step back and ask themselves why bother if they can only argue about trivialities. WW2 has nothing to do with 9/11 and I have been asking you guys to explain why you attack it. Funny, no answer but continuing stupidity...that speaks volumes...

[~enigma~]

Just for the record... JamesB doesn't appear to have misquoted Jason Bermas. In his first comment, where he uses the word "invaded" he is not directly quoting...

Addressing the change from "invade" to "take over". Invasion essentially means to "take over by force". Therefore any country that was "invaded" was also taken over. Thus by interpreting Bermas' quote as meaning "invading" JamesB is actually doing him a favour - because Germany "took over" even more countries than they invaded.

I have to agree that WW2 is off topic for that thread, but I don't see how that's relevant. Since when was being off topic an appropriate banning offense? Yet it's okay for Dylan to tell JamesB he "has a stick up his [rule8]"?

-GumbootDid I defend what Dylan said? I just said that running here starting a thread after JamesB asked to be banned was a really immature and flighty thing. Now are you going to show where I said Italy attacked Greece alone or are we all to assume you realize your error?

[gumboot]

Andrew could you do a cut and paste where TxGuy said Italy and soley Italy attacked Greece. Be careful where you tread because I am TxGuy not an idiot like uncle Fester.

Sure...

You are also padding your list with countries such as Greece that Hitler attacked with Italy.

Bearing in mind, the only country Bermas could originally name was Poland, which was jointly invaded by Germany and Russia.

Given that, the context of your above statement is where you are trying to demonstrate nations that Germany did not invade. Thus your statement above reads to me as Hitler got Italy to invade Greece for him.

This is, of course, false. Italy invaded Greece on its own initiative, was beaten, and lost much of southern Albania in the process. Germany then came down and carried out their own successful invasion of Greece.

I have to say I'm a little disappointed if you are TxGuy. Your statements regarding WW2 are full of factual errors.

As far as the problem of Bermas not knowing all of this... Bermas claims to be the researcher for the Loose Change team. Not knowing the precise details of WW2 is not a serious problem. Not knowing the name of every country Germany invaded is not a serious problem. Thinking Germany only invaded TWO countries IS a problem.

Researchers should have well above average knowledge of history. By this admission, Bermas reveals that his historical knowledge is well below average (I honestly do not know a single person who doesn't know Germany invaded most of Europe).

-Gumboot

[~enigma~]

Sure...



Bearing in mind, the only country Bermas could originally name was Poland, which was jointly invaded by Germany and Russia.

Given that, the context of your above statement is where you are trying to demonstrate nations that Germany did not invade. Thus your statement above reads to me as Hitler got Italy to invade Greece for him.

This is, of course, false. Italy invaded Greece on its own initiative, was beaten, and lost much of southern Albania in the process. Germany then came down and carried out their own successful invasion of Greece.

I have to say I'm a little disappointed if you are TxGuy. Your statements regarding WW2 are full of factual errors.

As far as the problem of Bermas not knowing all of this... Bermas claims to be the researcher for the Loose Change team. Not knowing the precise details of WW2 is not a serious problem. Not knowing the name of every country Germany invaded is not a serious problem. Thinking Germany only invaded TWO countries IS a problem.

Researchers should have well above average knowledge of history. By this admission, Bermas reveals that his historical knowledge is well below average (I honestly do not know a single person who doesn't know Germany invaded most of Europe).

-Gumboot
So I said he attacked with Italy and your being idiotic enough to claim I said Italy attacked Greece without Germany? Do you know how to read? It is apparent you know how to write cause i read your NORAD report but it seems you are unable to read. Apologize for your lies about what I said...can you understand what I asked?

[Carnivore]

Those were holographic Panzers, Gumboot. Everyone knows this.

Both my great uncles fought in NZ 2nd Division in Greece. Those holographic bullets fired by the holographic Germans seemed to inflict surprisingly real fatal wounds on a lot of their mates.

My Dad's father was in the British army in Northern France in 1940. He seemed sure that the desperate fighting and retreat to the coast, culminating in the epic defence and evacuation from Dunkirk was against invading Germans. Perhaps he got it wrong and it was a bunch of Parisian traffic wardens trying to issue parking tickets for the tanks.

[~enigma~]

Cmon Andrew...I'm waiting for your apology for twisting my words...is it coming or do you only expect woos to apologize for lying?

[HyJinX]

Both my great uncles fought in NZ 2nd Division in Greece. Those holographic bullets fired by the holographic Germans seemed to inflict surprisingly real fatal wounds on a lot of their mates.

My Dad's father was in the British army in Northern France in 1940. He seemed sure that the desperate fighting and retreat to the coast, culminating in the epic defence and evacuation from Dunkirk was against invading Germans. Perhaps he got it wrong and it was a bunch of Parisian traffic wardens trying to issue parking tickets for the tanks.

I certainly meant no disrespect to your great uncles. I was merely trying to make light of a heated debate. I interject inappropriately at times. I meant to offend nobody...especially those that suffered greatly and gave the ultimate sacrifice to destroy tyranny. My humor was miscalculated. My apologies.

[JamesB]

Geez, I just thought it was funny that Dylan threatened to ban me for quoting Jason. I wasn't intending to start a civil war. :boxedin:

[~enigma~]

Geez, I just thought it was funny that Dylan threatened to ban me for quoting Jason. I wasn't intending to start a civil war. :boxedin:
You didn't. The guys here that continued to harp on WW2 being relevant to 9/11 did and now Andrew and his apparent refusal to apologize for twisting my words is. you are not responsible for his actions....

[Redtail]

Geez, I just thought it was funny that Dylan threatened to ban me for quoting Jason. I wasn't intending to start a civil war. :boxedin:

You mean "War of Northern Aggression"! :mad::rolleyes:

[chipmunk stew]

Truthers sure have an eagerness to believe they have totally "owned" the people they disagree with. For example, remember that ridiculous thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=77803) about a month ago in which TonicBlue tried to convince us that there were terrorists driving around on 9/11 in a truck with a picture of the 9/11 attacks painted on the side? Well, one of the LCFers thinks that (http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=8031&view=findpost&p=13282425) Gravy was utterly "owned" in that thread.


I admit (http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=8031&view=findpost&p=13287132), this is a huge story, probably the biggest 9/11 breakthrough since the BBC WTC7 thing.

:dl:

[Carnivore]

I certainly meant no disrespect to your great uncles. I was merely trying to make light of a heated debate. I interject inappropriately at times. I meant to offend nobody...especially those that suffered greatly and gave the ultimate sacrifice to destroy tyranny. My humor was miscalculated. My apologies.


My humour is often misinterpreted also. Absolutely no offence taken, I know you were mocking a hypothetical " No Panzer" CT and it tickled me.:) My comments werent directed at you, I was merely expressing disbelief that anyone could feel able to rewrite history that was observed and recorded by untold millions within living memory. Sorry if I made you uncomfortable - you go right on interjecting!:D

[HyJinX]

Par for the course on a forum where intended meaning can be truly misunderstood. But my apology still stands because, regardless of the nature of my intended humor, I still made light of a very real tragedy. You have a personal connection to that tragedy...and humor has no place within that truism. Thank you for clarifying...but I do feel bad about making light of something that was very real...too real...for many families.

I too feel contempt for those who try to rewrite history...I also feel a little contempt for myself for making mockery of it.

A good lesson all around. Thanks for understanding and expressing your side.

[gumboot]

So I said he attacked with Italy and your being idiotic enough to claim I said Italy attacked Greece without Germany?



Well... let's clear a couple of things up...

1) The German and Italian invasions of Greece were independent of each other.
2) If you did not mean to claim Germany did not invade Greece, I apologise, that's how I read it.
3) If 2) is true, it makes no sense that you would raise it as evidence refuting JamesB's list of countries invaded by Germany. If Germany did indeed invade Greece, how is including Greece in a list of nations invaded by Germany "padding"?

-Gumboot

[gumboot]

You didn't. The guys here that continued to harp on WW2 being relevant to 9/11 did and now Andrew and his apparent refusal to apologize for twisting my words is. you are not responsible for his actions....



I don't think anyone thinks it's relevant do they? :confused:

-Gumboot

[~enigma~]

2) If you did not mean to claim Germany did not invade Greece, I apologise, that's how I read it.

-Gumboot
Nothing about meaning...The words of mine you even quoted did not say what you claimed they meant. You are not twisting my words to mean what you want them to mean. An apology saying "I'm sorry for claiming you said what you didn't" would be accepted. The trash you expect me to accept isn't...am I supposed to think you were being genuine...sorry, I am not a woo that will fall for that :)

[Cl1mh4224rd]

So I said he attacked with Italy and your being idiotic enough to claim I said Italy attacked Greece without Germany? Do you know how to read?
Uhh... You might want to read his post again. You're going woo on us...

Edit: Actually, the phrase you used (". . .Hitler attacked with Italy") is ambiguous wording open to misinterpretation. That seems to be what happened here.

[~enigma~]

Uhh... You might want to read his post again. You're going woo on us...

Edit: Actually, the phrase you used (". . .Hitler attacked with Italy") is ambiguous wording open to misinterpretation. That seems to be what happened here.
Hitler attacked with Italy means Italy attacked alone? Only to those with the mindset to accuse. As far as Italy attacking alone, there is nothing ambiguious in my words. So take your woo and file it :)

[gumboot]

Uhh... You might want to read his post again. You're going woo on us...

Edit: Actually, the phrase you used (". . .Hitler attacked with Italy") is ambiguous wording open to misinterpretation. That seems to be what happened here.



Precisely. And a good reader, when coming across ambiguous writing, tries to determine the meaning based on context.

In the context of the discussion (countries invaded or taken over by Germany), and in particular the remainder of the post (refuting that some specific examples were actually cases of Germany invading countries), the only logical conclusion was that the poster was arguing that Germany did not invade Greece.

Otherwise the comment makes no logical sense whatsoever.

Enigma, I am sorry I misinterpreted your post. It was not intentional. As I have explained, your post was not very clear. I will not apologise for intentionally twisting your words to make them mean what I wanted them to mean, because I did not do this.

-Gumboot

[gumboot]

Hitler attacked with Italy means Italy attacked alone? Only to those with the mindset to accuse. As far as Italy attacking alone, there is nothing ambiguious in my words. So take your woo and file it :)



Perhaps if you had said "Germany attacked with Italy" things would have been clearer.

Consider...

"Hitler attacked with tanks"

"Hitler attacked with the German Army"

"Hitler attacked with words"

In addition, perhaps if you had not been trying to discredit Greece as an example of Germany invading another country, the confusion would not have arisen. After all, as I have said, listing Greece as a nation invaded by Germany is not padding - especially if Jason Bermas initiated the list with Poland, which was invaded by Germany and Russia together.

-Gumboot

[~enigma~]

Precisely. And a good reader, when coming across ambiguous writing, tries to determine the meaning based on context.

In the context of the discussion (countries invaded or taken over by Germany), and in particular the remainder of the post (refuting that some specific examples were actually cases of Germany invading countries), the only logical conclusion was that the poster was arguing that Germany did not invade Greece.

Otherwise the comment makes no logical sense whatsoever.

Enigma, I am sorry I misinterpreted your post. It was not intentional. As I have explained, your post was not very clear. I will not apologise for intentionally twisting your words to make them mean what I wanted them to mean, because I did not do this.

-GumbootSorry...you are the first non-woo to go on ignore. You claimed I said something and posted my exact words which said no such thing.

[JamesB]

You didn't. The guys here that continued to harp on WW2 being relevant to 9/11 did and now Andrew and his apparent refusal to apologize for twisting my words is. you are not responsible for his actions....


Dude, if you make a claim like "Germany didn't invade France", you are going to get flamed, no matter how good of an argument you use to defend yourself semantically.

And I don't think anyone considers 9/11 directly connected to WWII, but there is definitely a connection between the way people see and understand one historical event versus another. It is not just a coincidence that many of the same people also believe we didn't land on the moon and the Holocaust was faked.

[~enigma~]

Dude, if you make a claim like "Germany didn't invade France", you are going to get flamed, no matter how good of an argument you use to defend yourself semantically.

And I don't think anyone considers 9/11 directly connected to WWII, but there is definitely a connection between the way people see and understand one historical event versus another. It is not just a coincidence that many of the same people also believe we didn't land on the moon and the Holocaust was faked.No some of these guys think they are making fun of a woos statement. Just goes to show you what some people here are really like.
you tell me I said what Andrew says I did then you show me how the quote of mine he posted says what he claims. He twisted my words when he thought I was a woo and now he can't gracefully back out.

[gumboot]

So much easier to criticise someone when you've put them on ignore... :rolleyes:

I'll correct anyone who gets something wrong. I'm not into that whole "them-us" "woo" thing.

-Gumboot

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Hitler attacked with Italy means Italy attacked alone? Only to those with the mindset to accuse. As far as Italy attacking alone, there is nothing ambiguious in my words. So take your woo and file it :)
Nothing ambiguous?

Peter wrote that book with a pen.
Peter wrote that book with his wife.

Get it?

"Hitler attacked with Italy" can mean either "Hitler attacked using Italy", or "Hitler attacked along with Italy".

Even the most correct meaning isn't entirely accurate, apparently.

[orphia nay]

...
Enigma, I am sorry I misinterpreted your post. It was not intentional.
...
-Gumboot

Dear Enigma, just accept the apology and take Andrew off ignore. Who really cares if you didn't sum up Germany's invasion history in one brief sentence? :D Especially since you've had to type with one hand in the past few days because of your shoulder surgery. I don't blame you for being brief in the slightest. Hope you're feeling less pain today.

I know I do care when I see two of my favourite JREFers bickering over the meaning of a few words. Give o'er, ye mardy buggers! :)

[Redtail]

Wow. Thin skinned folk around here.:D

[~enigma~]

Dear Enigma, just accept the apology and take Andrew off ignore. Who really cares if you didn't sum up Germany's invasion history in one brief sentence? :D Especially since you've had to type with one hand in the past few days because of your shoulder surgery. I don't blame you for being brief in the slightest. Hope you're feeling less pain today.

I know I do care when I see two of my favourite JREFers bickering over the meaning of a few words. Give o'er, ye mardy buggers! :)
When he admits to twisting the words i used to mean what he wanted I will take him off ignore, until then I have no interest in the words of a liar.

ETA - this isn't bickering over the meaning of words. It is a perfectly obvious attempt by Andrew to say I said somethong I didn't. He even had the nerve toquote my exact words which didn't say what he claimed yet he still has the nerve to claim i said what he wants.

[Rika]

.. I'm going to dip my hat into the ring long enough to say.. if that is what I think it reads, Gumboot's intereptation is this.

"The phrase Hitler attacked with Italy is false, as Italy attacked by tself, then Hitler attacked after."

And assumed the phrase was made because you thought Hitler had attacked with, not after.

Then he apologized for it.. and you aren't accepting it because he misread? Am I understanding this correctly?

[~enigma~]

.. I'm going to dip my hat into the ring long enough to say.. if that is what I think it reads, Gumboot's intereptation is this.

"The phrase Hitler attacked with Italy is false, as Italy attacked by tself, then Hitler attacked after."

And assumed the phrase was made because you thought Hitler had attacked with, not after.

Then he apologized for it.. and you aren't accepting it because he misread? Am I understanding this correctly?
He apologized for misinterpreting it. I admit he did that but what he did was claimed I said it and quoted my words which said something other than his interpretation. He refuses to apologize for saying my words were not what they were. i have no desire to take a man off ignore if he can't do something as simple as apologizing for twisting my words. If he wants to remain a stubborn bull head...fine...he stays on ignore.

[scissorhands]

Do you admit you were wrong in stating that Germany didnt invade France in May 1940?
Last I saw, you were maintaining that position.
I think you are trying very hard to backtrack from an obvious blunder, probably produced in the heat of the moment, and something you could have admitted to far earlier.
Its a shame, I have seen your posting on LCF and its good stuff, dont let your ego get in the way and be humble enough to admit the occasional mistake.
Get over it and move on.

[~enigma~]

Do you admit you were wrong in stating that Germany didnt invade France in May 1940?
Last I saw, you were maintaining that position.
I think you are trying very hard to backtrack from an obvious blunder, probably produced in the heat of the moment, and something you could have admitted to far earlier.
Its a shame, I have seen your posting on LCF and its good stuff, dont let your ego get in the way and be humble enough to admit the occasional mistake.
Get over it and move on.The problem is Andrew twisting my words and essentially calling me a liar. If you can't understand or you refuse to see that, it isn't my problem. So once again, are you going to tell me what WW2 trivia has to do with 9/11? Was WW2 a reason to misquote Jason Bermas? If you have a problem with his understanding about 9/11 (and I am sure we all do), call him on that but don't attack and misquote based on his WW2 knowledge AND most certainly don't be so immature as to question Dylan about it as if the guy is Jason's mother.

[scissorhands]

I have absolutely no interest in whether you feel Jason Bermas was misquoted or not.
I am interested when somebody from this forum makes inaccurate assertions about the historical details of a war that my grandparents fought in.
Now answer my question.

[~enigma~]

I have absolutely no interest in whether you feel Jason Bermas was misquoted or not.
I am interested when somebody from this forum makes inaccurate assertions about the historical details of a war that my grandparents fought in.
Now answer my question.
And I am interested in an apology from Andrew for twisting my words. You want to question me about WW2? Then get over there like a real man and question me. I am not going to kiss your [rule8].

[Carnivore]

And I am interested in an apology from Andrew for twisting my words. You want to question me about WW2? Then get over there like a real man and question me. I am not going to kiss your [rule8].


Let me see if I've got this straight:

1) On LCF JamesB makes a joke about Bermas thinking Germany only took over two countries in WWII.

2) You get into a discussion regarding Bermas being misquoted. You take it upon yourself to correct JamesB. You also lecture him on WWII history and state that either 3 or 4 countries (if you include Belgium) were invaded by Germany. You mention that other countries were given to Germany by treaty.

3) JamesB points out that Germany invaded many more than 4 countries in WWII. He lists a bunch. You get snippy and imply that all of the countries he lists were "taken over" by treaty or armistice rather than being "invaded by force" You use the specific example of France. You insist that JamesB has been proved wrong.

4) Various JREFers who care about history jump on the "France not invaded" thing. Some take you for a woo, which you find insulting. Others expect you to correct yourself.

5) At JREF you refuse to correct your statement that France was not invaded by Germany in WWII. You produce a timeline of WWII that does not mention the invasion of France. Various JREFers assume you do this to support your contention that France was not invaded by Germany in WWII. You state that WWII trivia is irrelevant to 9/11 discussion.

6) Various people try to engage you on JREF regarding your statements on WWII. You refuse to answer on the grounds that their questions are not about LCF.

7) You complain that people are calling you on your statements regarding WWII and insist that they are arguing about trivialities.

8) Gumboot misinterprets your comment about Italy invading Greece. You call him on it.

9) Gumboot quotes you accurately, explaining why he thought what you wrote meant something different to what you intended. He apologises for misinterpreting you.

10) You insist that he is lying about what he thought you meant. You insist that it is impossible for your (accurately quoted) words to be misunderstood and that he is twisting your words.

11) Gumboot assures you that he is not deliberately twisting your words and apologises again for misunderstanding you. You call him a liar and put him on ignore.

12) Various JREFers explain to you how your words could be misunderstood. You keep insisting Gumboot is deliberately twisting your words.

13) Scissorhands keeps asking you if you stand by your comments regarding WWII. You evade by talking about LCF and Gumboot.

14) Scissorhands keeps asking you if you stand by your comments regarding WWII. You demand Gumboot apologise for twisting your words. You demand Scissorhands only ask you about your statements regarding WWII on LCF. You imply that Scissorhands is not a real man for asking you if you stand by your statements regarding WWII on JREF. You imply that answering Scissorhands' question on JREF would be kissing Scissorhands' [Rule 8].

Is that about where we are now Enigma?

If not, please correct me.
If so, am I allowed to ask you if you stand by your egregious distortions of history? (Note the plural.) Can I do it here or should it be in another web forum?

I dont care about LCFs internal politics. I dont care about your argument with Gumboot. Like some others here, I care a lot that you have made some public statements about the history of WWII that are wildly incorrect and insulting.

I know you are not a woo. I know what you have done to counter CTists and defend reality. At the moment however, you are dodging fair questions, name calling, spouting shrill irrelevancies and sulking. If your posts in this thread were my only knowledge of you, I would certainly assume you were a woo.

Please just reread your statements regarding WWII and double check your facts.

[~enigma~]

Let me see if I've got this straight:

1) On LCF JamesB makes a joke about Bermas thinking Germany only took over two countries in WWII.

2) You get into a discussion regarding Bermas being misquoted. You take it upon yourself to correct JamesB. You also lecture him on WWII history and state that either 3 or 4 countries (if you include Belgium) were invaded by Germany. You mention that other countries were given to Germany by treaty.

3) JamesB points out that Germany invaded many more than 4 countries in WWII. He lists a bunch. You get snippy and imply that all of the countries he lists were "taken over" by treaty or armistice rather than being "invaded by force" You use the specific example of France. You insist that JamesB has been proved wrong.

4) Various JREFers who care about history jump on the "France not invaded" thing. Some take you for a woo, which you find insulting. Others expect you to correct yourself.

5) At JREF you refuse to correct your statement that France was not invaded by Germany in WWII. You produce a timeline of WWII that does not mention the invasion of France. Various JREFers assume you do this to support your contention that France was not invaded by Germany in WWII. You state that WWII trivia is irrelevant to 9/11 discussion.

6) Various people try to engage you on JREF regarding your statements on WWII. You refuse to answer on the grounds that their questions are not about LCF.

7) You complain that people are calling you on your statements regarding WWII and insist that they are arguing about trivialities.

8) Gumboot misinterprets your comment about Italy invading Greece. You call him on it.

9) Gumboot quotes you accurately, explaining why he thought what you wrote meant something different to what you intended. He apologises for misinterpreting you.

10) You insist that he is lying about what he thought you meant. You insist that it is impossible for your (accurately quoted) words to be misunderstood and that he is twisting your words.

11) Gumboot assures you that he is not deliberately twisting your words and apologises again for misunderstanding you. You call him a liar and put him on ignore.

12) Various JREFers explain to you how your words could be misunderstood. You keep insisting Gumboot is deliberately twisting your words.

13) Scissorhands keeps asking you if you stand by your comments regarding WWII. You evade by talking about LCF and Gumboot.

14) Scissorhands keeps asking you if you stand by your comments regarding WWII. You demand Gumboot apologise for twisting your words. You demand Scissorhands only ask you about your statements regarding WWII on LCF. You imply that Scissorhands is not a real man for asking you if you stand by your statements regarding WWII on JREF. You imply that answering Scissorhands' question on JREF would be kissing Scissorhands' [Rule 8].

Is that about where we are now Enigma?

If not, please correct me.
If so, am I allowed to ask you if you stand by your egregious distortions of history? (Note the plural.) Can I do it here or should it be in another web forum?

I dont care about LCFs internal politics. I dont care about your argument with Gumboot. Like some others here, I care a lot that you have made some public statements about the history of WWII that are wildly incorrect and insulting.

I know you are not a woo. I know what you have done to counter CTists and defend reality. At the moment however, you are dodging fair questions, name calling, spouting shrill irrelevancies and sulking. If your posts in this thread were my only knowledge of you, I would certainly assume you were a woo.

Please just reread your statements regarding WWII and double check your facts.
Tell you what, the subject of this thread is "Will I get my ban badge." Not one of you with the exception of the first reply said anything about that. Instead you fall in as many others with a wolfpack mentality and decided to make this thread about my views on WW2. This is the conspiracy sub forum so am I now part of a global conspiracy? I want an apology from Andrew for essentially calling me a liar. Unless that is forthcoming, he is staying on ignore. Is that simple enough to understand? Now please understand that trying to twist a thread that was started by JamesB into one about my views on WW2 (on a conspiracy forum) is just absurd. Are some of the things some of the guys say over at LCF about Jref forum posters true? If not, why are you guys acting like they are?

[Dog Town]

If not, why are you guys acting like they are?
If you associate people calling you on something, to be like LCF. You should be contemplating your situation.
You sound confused. Is the hydrocodone getting to you? That is a serious question.


.02

[~enigma~]

If you associate people calling you on something, to be like LCF. You should be contemplating your situation.
You sound confused. Is the hydrocodone getting to you? That is a serious question.


.02
Cmon and think for a minute. Am I complaining about being called on anything? I am complaining about Andrew essentially calling me a liar and the pack mentality displayed by some of the posters here. I am also complaining about the rude (to JamesB) behavior and hijacking of his thread about an entirely different topic. So would you care to explain again how I am complaining about being called on anything? Have a few people attempted to take this thread way off topic and what exactly does WW2 trivia have to do with conspiracys?

[Carnivore]

Tell you what, the subject of this thread is "Will I get my ban badge." Not one of you with the exception of the first reply said anything about that. Instead you fall in as many others with a wolfpack mentality and decided to make this thread about my views on WW2. This is the conspiracy sub forum so am I now part of a global conspiracy? I want an apology from Andrew for essentially calling me a liar. Unless that is forthcoming, he is staying on ignore. Is that simple enough to understand? Now please understand that trying to twist a thread that was started by JamesB into one about my views on WW2 (on a conspiracy forum) is just absurd. Are some of the things some of the guys say over at LCF about Jref forum posters true? If not, why are you guys acting like they are?

You're right. This sub forum is not the best place to be discussing WWII. If you would like, I'll start a new thread in the history section. I have been pursuing it here because it was in this thread that your statements rearding WWII were made or quoted, and initially it seemed like a simple mistake had been made which would quickly be corrected.

Like I said, my primary interest in this thread is the accuracy of some public statements about history. Your fight with Gumboot and how LCF view JREF is not directly connected with that.

With regards to "wolf pack mentality", I am not attacking you for anything to do with LCF or JREF. All I am doing is calling you on some public statements you have made about history that are factually incorrect. I am really, honestly, truly not having a go at you for anything else. :) I do think that defending historical truth is as important as countering CTs.

That said, if you feel like people are ganging up on you in here I'll let it go for the moment. You have my respect and my good wishes. I really think we should clear up this WWII thing, but if you dont feeling like going there at the moment that's fine. Tell you what, if you start a WWII thread I'll post in it. I'll check the history forum over the next few days. How does that sound?

[~enigma~]

You're right. This sub forum is not the best place to be discussing WWII. If you would like, I'll start a new thread in the history section. I have been pursuing it here because it was in this thread that your statements rearding WWII were made or quoted, and initially it seemed like a simple mistake had been made which would quickly be corrected.

Like I said, my primary interest in this thread is the accuracy of some public statements about history. Your fight with Gumboot and how LCF view JREF is not directly connected with that.

With regards to "wolf pack mentality", I am not attacking you for anything to do with LCF or JREF. All I am doing is calling you on some public statements you have made about history that are factually incorrect. I am really, honestly, truly not having a go at you for anything else. :) I do think that defending historical truth is as important as countering CTs.

That said, if you feel like people are ganging up on you in here I'll let it go for the moment. You have my respect and my good wishes. I really think we should clear up this WWII thing, but if you dont feeling like going there at the moment that's fine. Tell you what, if you start a WWII thread I'll post in it. I'll check the history forum over the next few days. How does that sound?
Then you can call me where they were made...easy enough?

[Carnivore]

In my opinion, yes.

[HawksFan]

On topic, I think the whole "badge" thing is rather silly and unnesessary, especially since getting banned over there is about as difficult as getting mugged in Detroit. Pretty much all ya gotta do is show up.

[~enigma~]

On topic, I think the whole "badge" thing is rather silly and unnesessary, especially since getting banned over there is about as difficult as getting mugged in Detroit. Pretty much all ya gotta do is show up.
You would think it's that easy but truth be told I am still there although they clearly know who i am. What is silly is asking Dylan to ban you and then running over here to start a thread about it.

[Minadin]

Then you can call me where they were made...easy enough?
You're asking people to sign up for the LC forum? Why put people through that?

Enigma, I've been on your side in a lot of discussions we've had, here and there, but I'm starting to think that you've spent too much time over there recently. One of the most distinguishing differences between a faith-based (woo) belief system and an evidence-based (skeptic) one is that the skeptic will change his mind if evidence shows that he is wrong. You don't seem to want to do this on the WW2 issue - that's why posters are suggesting that it smells like woo. You may need to relax a little bit and just kinda chill out. Take a break from the LC fora for a couple days.

In any case, would I be wrong in my assesment if I said that the reason you are saying the WW2 issues are secondary because your primary complaint is that we're too quick to attack / make derisive comments, rather than having a more friendly and lively discussion? If that is the case, it's becoming a more and more common comment: from the mod team, some of the more senior posters, other visitors such as Dr. Greening and Mr. Rodriguez, etc. It's probably something we should work at on the whole. There's really no need to be so antagonistic, even on such an emotional issue.

[~enigma~]

You're asking people to sign up for the LC forum? Why put people through that?
If they want to "call" me on something I said there...guess you missed Darat's posts which said this is not LCF.
Enigma, I've been on your side in a lot of discussions we've had, here and there, but I'm starting to think that you've spent too much time over there recently. One of the most distinguishing differences between a faith-based (woo) belief system and an evidence-based (skeptic) one is that the skeptic will change his mind if evidence shows that he is wrong. You don't seem to want to do this on the WW2 issue - that's why posters are suggesting that it smells like woo. You may need to relax a little bit and just kinda chill out. Take a break from the LC fora for a couple days.And how exactly is not talking about my statement at LCF a refusal to look at evidence? how is asking Andrew to apologize for essentially calling me a liar a refusal to look at evidence?

In any case, would I be wrong in my assesment if I said that the reason you are saying the WW2 issues are secondary because your primary complaint is that we're too quick to attack / make derisive comments, rather than having a more friendly and lively discussion?More or less...

If that is the case, it's becoming a more and more common comment: from the mod team, some of the more senior posters, other visitors such as Dr. Greening and Mr. Rodriguez, etc. It's probably something we should work at on the whole. There's really no need to be so antagonistic, even on such an emotional issue.
As long as I get attacked with a pack mentality....deal with the antagonistic attitude. No attack....no antagonisim...Pretty much this has been said betwwen the lines in akmost everyone of my posts in this thread. Maybe it isn't me that should be taking a break from the forum for a while :)

[Dog Town]

Have a few people attempted to take this thread way off topic and what exactly does WW2 trivia have to do with conspiracys?

I think saying Germany did not invade France, falls under the banner of CT!
Another thread perhaps? Also I notice you avoided my question about the pills.

[~enigma~]

I think saying Germany did not invade France, falls under the banner of CT!
Another thread perhaps? Also I notice you avoided my question about the pills.
Because your question about the pills was neither on topic nor relevent nor any of your business (not to mention extremely stupid).

[Dog Town]

Because your question about the pills was neither on topic nor relevent nor any of your business (not to mention extremely stupid).

Did you not say on LCF you were on a vicodin buzz? I'll go find the exact quote if you have fogotten. As for it not being pertinent,but stupid, I disagree. It would seem to explain, you actions. Atleast to me. I have been around lots of fans, of said painkiller. The depression during, and after, is quite harsh for some.

[~enigma~]

Did you not say on LCF you were on a vicodin buzz? I'll go find the exact quote if you have fogotten. As for it not being pertinent,but stupid, I disagree. It would seem to explain, you actions. Atleast to me. I have been around lots of fans, of said painkiller. The depression during, and after, is quite harsh for some.
Yup and I also said it here...but as for your stupidity and insistance of asking even though I told you not to...enjoy your company on ignore. just understand an apology by Andrew will get him off...you are there permanently :)

[Carnivore]

Then you can call me where they were made...easy enough?

See, now I've misinterpreted you. (It's late, I'm tired.) It seems you were telling me to sign up at LCF in order to discuss history with you. Yes, that's where you originally made your remarks, but you posted a timeline that seemed intended to support your remarks in this thread. I believe it was that post and your refusal to further elaborate on it that raised the hackles of the history wolves.:)

I have absolutely no intention of ever signing up at LCF, particularly not to try to have a sensible discussion about history. If statements are posted or quoted here, I will feel free to comment on them here. If posts are made here that seem intended to support contentious statements made elsewhere I will feel free to challenge them here.

We have already agreed that this subject is OT for this thread. I think the JREF history forum would be a better venue. It's up to you. I'll will not pursue the matter further here unless you make further remarks here that I believe to be untrue.

[Dog Town]

Yup and I also said it here...but as for your stupidity and insistance of asking even though I told you not to...enjoy your company on ignore. just understand an apology by Andrew will get him off...you are there permanently :)

Oooo...you told me not to!
As for the ignore... Boohoo. How will I sleep?

[~enigma~]

See, now I've misinterpreted you. (It's late, I'm tired.) It seems you were telling me to sign up at LCF in order to discuss history with you. Yes, that's where you originally made your remarks, but you posted a timeline that seemed intended to support your remarks in this thread. I believe it was that post and your refusal to further elaborate on it that raised the hackles of the history wolves.:)

I have absolutely no intention of ever signing up at LCF, particularly not to try to have a sensible discussion about history. If statements are posted or quoted here, I will feel free to comment on them here. If posts are made here that seem intended to support contentious statements made elsewhere I will feel free to challenge them here.

We have already agreed that this subject is OT for this thread. I think the JREF history forum would be a better venue. It's up to you. I'll will not pursue the matter further here unless you make further remarks here that I believe to be untrue.
So don't sign up there. Your choice but wouldn't it be a safe guess on your part that had I had any intention of discussing history that I almost certainly would have posted in the History forum sometime since November? So why is it assumed that I have to "kiss [rule8]" and discuss it here?

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I am complaining about Andrew essentially calling me a liar. . .
He.
@#%&ing.
Apologized.

What is wrong with you?

http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/7443/onnoticejm5.jpg

[~enigma~]

He.
@#%&ing.
Apologized.

What is wrong with you?


http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/7443/onnoticejm5.jpg

If he apologized since he was put on ignore, I didn't see it. If you are referring to his sham apology for misinterpreting me....that wasn't what he needed to apologize for. If you don't understand or don't like the fact that I want an apology...too bad :)

[Dog Town]

If he apologized since he was put on ignore, I didn't see it. :)

So he is demanding an apology, he can't even see? Lay off the pills dude!
Pissed, I already used the laughing dog.

[gumboot]

Forget about it folks...

I apologised for misinterpreting his words, and I stand by that apology. I am always sorry any time I misunderstand someone. I have explained how that misunderstanding occured.

I do not believe Enigma is a liar. I believe he is (was?) mistaken about some facts regarding WW2, however I see no evidence these errors were intentional, thus I see no lie.

I see he is now accusing me of lying. Good for him. I will not be apologising for something I did not do. My accidental misreading of his words was genuine, and it appears I am not the only one who found his statement ambiguous. I did not intentionally twist his words. Enigma believes I did, and will not accept any apology except for this particular infraction. I guess I will be staying on ignore. How about we leave this thread alone?

-Gumboot