Canadian twoofer magazine

[CHF]

I was browsing a local bookstore during my lunch hour and saw a stack of Global Outlook magazines - the magazine of 9/11 twoof.

Not a single one had been bought. Why? Well the price might have something to do with it: $15!

Yup, the truthseekers are demanding $15 for a magazine that offers absolutely nothing new.

It's not like they're out looking for the still alive hijackers or hiring engineers to test their theories.

So what could possibly warrant a $15 charge for a magazine rehashing the same old discredited crap? I'd hate to think this is all just a shameless cash grab.

[Apollo20]

The fact that there were a whole bunch of copies of the Global Outlook magazine still on the stand obviously means they hadn't been sold, but says nothing about how many may have been sold.

If a tree falls in the forest, and nobody is there, does anybody care?

P.S. I was recently in London England and just about every newstand/bookstore had pictures/magazines/books about the Royal Family. I wondered what could possibly warrant a charge of X pounds for material rehashing the same old discredited crap? I'd hate to think this was all just a shameless cash grab.

[CHF]

Apollo,

I don't think a London book shop would deny that they're selling pictures of the Royal Family as a cash grab.

But surely the twoof movement isn't making false claims about 9/11 for that reason. Are they?

[Mince]

P.S. I was recently in London England and just about every newstand/bookstore had pictures/magazines/books about the Royal Family. I wondered what could possibly warrant a charge of X pounds for material rehashing the same old discredited crap? I'd hate to think this was all just a shameless cash grab.


So, bad behavior excuses other bad behavior?

[Pardalis]

If a tree falls in the forest, and nobody is there, does anybody care?

I don't think that's the idea of that conundrum...

[jaydeehess]

A magazine makes only a small percentage of its revenues via the retail price of the copy. It makes the bulk of its revenues via advertising. The cost to the creator of a magazine, per copy, goes down with the number one has printed as well.

Does that answer the question of why this particular magazine costs quite a lot per copy while the advertising space cost to the advertiser goes up with a larger circulation.

Little or no paid advertising.
Small circulation means low revenue per ad and high per copy publication cost.

[jaydeehess]

I don't think that's the idea of that conundrum...

It sort of is though. If no one is there to witness the sale of a stack that is then replaced by another stack then it will look as if none were sold.

I agree its a stretch for that philosophic canard though.

[Apollo20]

CHF:

Yes, you have a point ...... but are you saying that selling a particular type of 9/11 merchandise is morally reprehensible for the group of people you call "TRUTHERS" while "business is business" is morally acceptable for everyone else?

Jaydeehess:

No, it is not a stretch... not if you are getting my point, which I think you are. But, on the other hand, maybe the owner of the bookstore you were in is a conspiracy theorist. They appear to congregate in Toronto... I even know a TV producer at the CBC who appears to be one.....

[LashL]

<snip>They appear to congregate in Toronto...

All 12-20 of them?

I even know a TV producer at the CBC who appears to be one.....

OMG - who would have ever thought that there might be a troofer working for the CBC!!111eleventy1 Shocking, absolutely shocking. :rolleyes:

[Par]

I was recently in London England and just about every newstand/bookstore had pictures/magazines/books about the Royal Family. I wondered what could possibly warrant a charge of X pounds for material rehashing the same old discredited crap? I'd hate to think this was all just a shameless cash grab.


Don’t be so silly. Those who sell royal memorabilia and related crap do not pretend to be anything other than profit-based enterprises. They don’t claim to be truth-seekers with the sole intention of the good of the people or whatever. Peddling false and damaging crackpot theories to make a buck from the credulous is morally reprehensible. Selling tacky memorabilia is not. Regardless, as Mince pointed out, two wrongs don't make a right.

[Apollo20]

1. No one is obliged to purchase the Global Outlook Magazine.

2. Have you read the magazine in question to verify that it is peddling "false and damaging crackpot theories."?

3. Would you ban the sale of this magazine?

4. I see the Jehovah Witnesses magazine "Watchtower" being peddled too. I think the people selling it would "claim to be truth-seekers with the sole intention of the good of the people". I don't believe what these people say, but I am not bothered by it either.

[Par]

So, you’ve posted a pair of questions (the answers to which, by the way, are both “no”) and a pair of statements. Nothing seems to follow from any of them. None of them seem connected to your previous point. Oh well.

[tsig]

1. No one is obliged to purchase the Global Outlook Magazine.

2. Have you read the magazine in question to verify that it is peddling "false and damaging crackpot theories."?

3. Would you ban the sale of this magazine?

4. I see the Jehovah Witnesses magazine "Watchtower" being peddled too. I think the people selling it would "claim to be truth-seekers with the sole intention of the good of the people". I don't believe what these people say, but I am not bothered by it either.

Your questions and answers all have a sharp point to them.

Are you pointlessly poking people?

[Apollo20]

The topic of this thread is "Canadian Twoofer Magazine".

All my points appear to be "on-topic".....,

so what's your point?

[pomeroo]

[quote=Pardalis;2747092]I don't think that's the idea of that conundrum...



If a man speaks in a forest, and there is no woman present, can he still be wrong?

[Horatius]

1. No one is obliged to purchase the Global Outlook Magazine.



No one is obliged to spend money on a reading with Sylvia Browne, either, but we still object to it (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=86085). Why would you object to us trying to stem the tide of ignorance and fraud, just because it's a 9/11 related subject?




4. I see the Jehovah Witnesses magazine "Watchtower" being peddled too. I think the people selling it would "claim to be truth-seekers with the sole intention of the good of the people". I don't believe what these people say, but I am not bothered by it either.


But we still (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=85269&highlight=watchtower) object (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=82512&highlight=watchtower) to it. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=158&highlight=watchtower) It's what the JREF is supposed to do. If you don't like that, then why are you here?

[Apollo20]

I believe in TOLERANCE.....

and I'm here to debate the meaning of TRUTH.....

[Horatius]

So you're willing to tolerate fraud?

You're willing to tolerate ignorance?

[Mince]

You want the TRUTH? You think you're entitled? You can't handle the TRUTH! Son, we live in a world that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives...You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall.
We use words like honor, code, loyalty...we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You use 'em as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to!

[Furcifer]

Apollo20: Truth is subjective but skepticism isn't. Or is it?

[Mince]

Apollo20: Truth is subjective but skepticism isn't. Or is it?

Nothing is absolute...including this statement.


ETA: Don't listen to anything I say...including this statement.

[CptColumbo]

Nothing is absolute...including this statement.


ETA: Don't listen to anything I say...including this statement.

I didn't listen to it at all, I just read it.

[Mince]

I didn't listen to it at all, I just read it.


Oh. Well, don't read this statement.

[CHF]

but are you saying that selling a particular type of 9/11 merchandise is morally reprehensible for the group of people you call "TRUTHERS" while "business is business" is morally acceptable for everyone else?

Business is business for anyone who acknowledges that to be the case. But the "truthers" claim to be above that. They're trying to expose the truth about 9/11 and save the world from the evil/greedy NWO/illuminati/capitalist/corporate elite.

1. No one is obliged to purchase the Global Outlook Magazine.

We're not obliged to listen to Holocaust Deniers either, yet they're still revolting people who peddle lies and should be called on it.

2. Have you read the magazine in question to verify that it is peddling "false and damaging crackpot theories."?

I flipped through it. Steven Jones, Jim Fetzer, Kevin Barrett....same old crap re-packaged with a $15 price tag.

3. Would you ban the sale of this magazine?

Nope.

Although I'm pretty certain that most twoofers would shut down Popular Mechanics if they could.

4. I see the Jehovah Witnesses magazine "Watchtower" being peddled too. I think the people selling it would "claim to be truth-seekers with the sole intention of the good of the people". I don't believe what these people say, but I am not bothered by it either.

Neither am I. At least they admit it's religion.