Open Thread - Speak Your Mind

[Childlike Empress]

I didn't realise LashL had written the message she is so keen for him to read. Eugh that is cheesy.


Yeah, she didn't. My fault. I leave it to your imagination to correct the PM she should have written.

[~enigma~]

Yeah, she didn't. My fault. I leave it to your imagination to correct the PM she should have written.
I think William is in love with you or your avatar. Try asking him to run around barking like a dog...I want to see if he/she/it does :)

[William Rea]

Yeah, she didn't. My fault. I leave it to your imagination to correct the PM she should have written.

Eugh, can't bear to think about it. Apparently Enigma is jealous about us exchanging a few posts. Do you think he is to shy to talk to you and is only able to express himself with adolescent pouting?

[negativ]

I really wish I had a gun that shoots cancer over the internet.

[William Rea]

Yeah, she didn't. My fault. I leave it to your imagination to correct the PM she should have written.

Just to put Enigma's mind to rest I think I'm bi-curious so it doesn't matter to me CE ;) .

Woof, Woof.

[Childlike Empress]

Eugh, can't bear to think about it. Apparently Enigma is jealous about us exchanging a few posts. Do you think he is to shy to talk to you and is only able to express himself with adolescent pouting?


I think his job to keep the REAL floor plans of the WTCs hidden prevents him from thinking a clear thought... nothing to do with me.

joking

[LashL]

Practical suggestion.

Instead of whinging about how us nasty people are derailing the derailed thread why don't YOU answer Greening instead of adding more fluff on top of his post? I'm sure if people are REALLY that bothered about the Greening post they'll go looking for it!

Reading comprehension is not your strong point, apparently.

It's an open thread, boring lawyer girl. Your secret love Mr. Greening will return, don't worry.

Eh? You clearly have no concept or knowledge about my views of Mr. Greening and his tin hat, so you really shouldn't spout such nonsense.

ROFLOL, seriously? You wrote that without a smile on your face?

All the BS from JREFers that pads the threads in this Forum and you're moaning about CE and myself posting in an already derailed thread.

Get yourself a life LashL before it's too late.



Your post is nonsense from start to finish.

I second that emotion!

Of course, you do, given that you have never had an original thought in your life, and given that you wouldn't know an original thought if it kicked down the door, walked down the stairs, strolled into your Mom's basement and kicked you in the teeth.

Seriously, boring lawyer girl, there is a PM function on this forum. Simply drop your Prince a line like "Frank, i've written a very important message for you, please take a look". Cuts the deal, doesn't it?

See above. You are obviously so far removed from reality that you may as well be on another planet. Oh, wait...that's a given.

I didn't realise LashL had written the message she is so keen for him to read. Eugh that is cheesy.

I didn't. Try reading for comprehension in future.

Yeah, she didn't. My fault. I leave it to your imagination to correct the PM she should have written.

So, you admit that you were wrong but instead of apologizing, you make up something equally unfounded and nonsensical. No surprise, really. Pathetic, but not surprising.

Eugh, can't bear to think about it. Apparently Enigma is jealous about us exchanging a few posts. Do you think he is to shy to talk to you and is only able to express himself with adolescent pouting?

Similarly, you - like the fellow who calls himself "Childlike Empress" - admit that you were wrong but instead of apologizing, you make up something equally unfounded and nonsensical. Again, not surprising coming from you. Pathetic, but not surprising.

Oh, and by the way,

No, Dr. Greening. Those numbers are from the Apollo 11 Mission Report, dated November 1969. You can download the PDF (a scan of the original paper copy, I gather) from the link I gave.

Your number on the leak rate is bogus. (Well, not bogus, but it's the wrong one: the maximum design target, not the actual leak rate.)

As for your position on Apollo, no, you didn't say your position. You just implied it ... just like many other conspiracy theorists who claim to be "fence sitters."

And knee jerk? Ha. If I had posted a simple denial, or unsourced rebuttals, you could make that claim. I didn't; I spent a hour or so researching the claim and found that it is bogus based on published data.

So what is your point here? So there were some high-altitude nuclear bomb tests. So what?

If you're trying to lead into the old "Van-Allen belts not survivable" or "6 feet of lead required", those have been thoroughly debunked. Go to www.clavis.org for details on that one.

ETA: I had a great deal of respect for you based on your chemical analyses and comments on that area. Unfortunately, outside of that you seem to be either argumentative, enjoy baiting (i.e. like a troll), or you're just another conspiracy theorist. You've basically trashed any respect I had for you by such actions.

ETA 2: You're also displaying typical conspiracy theorist - or troll - behaviour by switching to a new topic as soon as the previous one gets debunked; vis your non-response to the replies to your inflammatory evolution comment above.

[William Rea]

Reading comprehension is not your strong point, apparently.
Eh? You clearly have no concept or knowledge about my views of Mr. Greening and his tin hat, so you really shouldn't spout such nonsense.
Your post is nonsense from start to finish.
Of course, you do, given that you have never had an original thought in your life, and given that you wouldn't know an original thought if it kicked down the door, walked down the stairs, strolled into your Mom's basement and kicked you in the teeth.
See above. You are obviously so far removed from reality that you may as well be on another planet. Oh, wait...that's a given.
I didn't. Try reading for comprehension in future.
So, you admit that you were wrong but instead of apologizing, you make up something equally unfounded and nonsensical. No surprise, really. Pathetic, but not surprising.
Similarly, you - like the fellow who calls himself "Childlike Empress" - admit that you were wrong but instead of apologizing, you make up something equally unfounded and nonsensical. Again, not surprising coming from you. Pathetic, but not surprising.
Oh, and by the way,

OK, I give up, your posting is getting so dull now that I'm not even entertained by it any longer.

[Corsair 115]

My thoughts of the moment:

Does JREF sell scorecards about forum members and their past interactions? Because all the ego clashing that's been going on in the last page or two of posts has left me confused since I can't really tell who the players are and where they're coming from. It's clear there's some history I'm not informed about. So scorecards would be really helpful.

[~enigma~]

OK, I give up, your posting is getting so dull now that I'm not even entertained by it any longer.
If LashL continues to post will you leave and stay gone?

[Revolutionary91]

Of course, you do, given that you have never had an original thought in your life, and given that you wouldn't know an original thought if it kicked down the door, walked down the stairs, strolled into your Mom's basement and kicked you in the teeth.

I'm 15. Are you saying I shouldn't be living at my moms?

[~enigma~]

I'm 15. Are you saying I shouldn't be living at my moms?
Is that what that post meant? Must be a language other than english. Didn't know you were bilingual.

[William Rea]

My thoughts of the moment:

Does JREF sell scorecards about forum members and their past interactions? Because all the ego clashing that's been going on in the last page or two of posts has left me confused since I can't really tell who the players are and where they're coming from. It's clear there's some history I'm not informed about. So scorecards would be really helpful.

Just look for anyone posting JREFUnorthodoxTM views and close behind you'll find someone willing to heap attacks on them. I have no particular history with any of these people, I am just not FundyorthodoxTM enough for them.

[Childlike Empress]

See above. You are obviously so far removed from reality that you may as well be on another planet. Oh, wait...that's a given.


Woot? You believe in life able to type on a keyboard (avoiding "intelligent" because a boring lawyer girl like you would surely fire a cheap shot on it) on other planets? But that's woo! :eek:

So, you admit that you were wrong but instead of apologizing, you make up something equally unfounded and nonsensical. No surprise, really. Pathetic, but not surprising.


You miss the point. As usual.

My thoughts of the moment:

Does JREF sell scorecards about forum members and their past interactions? Because all the ego clashing that's been going on in the last page or two of posts has left me confused since I can't really tell who the players are and where they're coming from. It's clear there's some history I'm not informed about. So scorecards would be really helpful.


I'm sure Gravy has written a "paper" on it. www.orthodoxy.noodlepages.com

[Corsair 115]

Just look for anyone posting JREFUnorthodoxTM views and close behind you'll find someone willing to heap attacks on them. I have no particular history with any of these people, I am just not FundyorthodoxTM enough for them.Sorry, William, but from what I've seen, you're engaging in this ego clashing just as much as others are.

[William Rea]

Sorry, William, but from what I've seen, you're engaging in this ego clashing just as much as others are.

I didn't say I wasn't, I am explaining why it is happening.

I have a first strike policy though. If people leave me alone or post pleasantly to me, I respond likewise, if they decide to get personal, the gloves come off.

You'll notice as well that I just ignore certain posters who act like my stalkers and follow me around the threads just to flame and troll me. They hate being ignored, especially when they know I can see them. It's like children raising the stakes to get attention.

[~enigma~]

I didn't say I wasn't, I am explaining why it is happening.

I have a first strike policy though. If people leave me alone or post pleasantly to me, I respond likewise, if they decide to get personal, the gloves come off.
Apparently you didn't get the memo from Philip Zelikow....

[LashL]

My thoughts of the moment:

Does JREF sell scorecards about forum members and their past interactions? Because all the ego clashing that's been going on in the last page or two of posts has left me confused since I can't really tell who the players are and where they're coming from. It's clear there's some history I'm not informed about. So scorecards would be really helpful.

For the record, I have no prior history with either the guy posting as "Childlike Empress" or the girl/guy posting as "William Rea". That the two of them have paired up, however, is not particularly surprising, even though they've apparently aimed their collective sights at the wrong person for no apparent reason. :)

[William Rea]

For the record, I have no prior history with either the guy posting as "Childlike Empress" or the girl/guy posting as "William Rea". That the two of them have paired up, however, is not particularly surprising, even though they've apparently aimed their collective sights at the wrong person for no apparent reason. :)

Paired up? Why is that not surprising?

You stuck your head above the parapet and started attacking me...

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2766549#post2766549

I shot it.

[Revolutionary91]

For the record, I have no prior history with either the guy posting as "Childlike Empress" or the girl/guy posting as "William Rea". That the two of them have paired up, however, is not particularly surprising, even though they've apparently aimed their collective sights at the wrong person for no apparent reason. :)

Didnt you meet Dr Greening in real life? Do you make a habit of meeting internet men?

[Furcifer]

My thoughts of the moment:

Does JREF sell scorecards about forum members and their past interactions? Because all the ego clashing that's been going on in the last page or two of posts has left me confused since I can't really tell who the players are and where they're coming from. It's clear there's some history I'm not informed about. So scorecards would be really helpful.

LashL and enigma have a tendancy to antagonize people, namely junior members, in the exact same way over and over again. Seems to be the same rhetoric all the time. Calling attention to it only draws fire upon yourself as well, apparently they are beyond reproach.

[LashL]

Paired up? Why is that not surprising?

You stuck your head above the parapet and started attacking me, I shot it.

Wrong again, as usual, on all counts.

[~enigma~]

LashL and enigma have a tendancy to antagonize people, namely junior members, in the exact same way over and over again. Seems to be the same rhetoric all the time. Calling attention to it only draws fire upon yourself as well, apparently they are beyond reproach.
I asked you once not to post to me nor to use my name. Do you have a reading problem?

[KoihimeNakamura]

LashL and enigma have a tendancy to antagonize people, namely junior members, in the exact same way over and over again. Seems to be the same rhetoric all the time. Calling attention to it only draws fire upon yourself as well, apparently they are beyond reproach.

You DO know that both CE and WR are twoofers, right? For that matter, you do know that it wasn't quite meant to antagonize.. well, I'm not sure, but it is a habit to have to repeat posts for people to recognize.

[~enigma~]

Didnt you meet Dr Greening in real life? Do you make a habit of meeting internet men?
This line of thought can get interesting but it can also end with a 15 year old being banned if he follows it.

[William Rea]

Wrong again, as usual, on all counts.

LashL, are you denying that you typed this in post #224 of this thread accusing me of derailing the thread?

Just quoting this to get past the derail by the guy who calls himself "Childlike Empress" and the girl or guy who calls herself/himself "William Rea" so that Frank (who calls himself Apollo here) doesn't miss it.

[Revolutionary91]

This line of thought can get interesting but it can also end with a 15 year old being banned if he follows it.

Let's hope that doesn't happen. I would hate to see a troll from Texas on LC get banned.

[William Rea]

Wrong again, as usual, on all counts.

LashL, there were question marks in my post...

Paired up? Why is that not surprising?

Question marks indicate a question not a statement, I am asking you to further clarify your remarks regarding CE and myself "pairing up" and why this does not surprise you.

[~enigma~]

Let's hope that doesn't happen. I would hate to see a troll from Texas on LC get banned.
Wait a damn sec. I caution you about starting a personal attack on a poster hear and you threaten me with being banned at LCF? Do whatever you think is right you woo *******.

[William Rea]

LashL and enigma have a tendancy to antagonize people, namely junior members, in the exact same way over and over again. Seems to be the same rhetoric all the time. Calling attention to it only draws fire upon yourself as well, apparently they are beyond reproach.

Along with Beachnut, Horatius, Moany7, HeyLeroy, Foolmewunz et al. All cheeks of the same backside.

Oops, forgot Tokorona as well. He/she wasn't getting any attention from me over in Forum Management so he/she followed me over here to resume hostilities and make unsubstantiated accusations that I am related to what is generically termed the "Truth Movement". Evidence of course will never be forthcoming.

[Hokulele]

I have a first strike policy though. If people leave me alone or post pleasantly to me, I respond likewise, if they decide to get personal, the gloves come off.


You only respond (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2457260#post2457260), never initiate (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2459279#post2459279)?

[Revolutionary91]

Wait a damn sec. I caution you about starting a personal attack on a poster hear and you threaten me with being banned at LCF? Do whatever you think is right you woo *******.

I just said a troll from Texas. You immediately identified it with yourself.

Don't worry, that particular troll is much needed comic relief, so we want to keep him.:)

[~enigma~]

I just said a troll from Texas. You immediately identified it with yourself.

Don't worry, that particular troll is much needed comic relief, so we want to keep him.:)
Stop being stupid. Your threat made me lose the little respect I had for you as a human. Hope your happy now...

[KoihimeNakamura]

I don't care if I get attention from you. Honestly. Stop projecting.

However, I believe that either you are a truther, or a troll, and gave you the benefit of the doubt. I suppose that was a mistake. (And I note your hypocripsy. You have any evidence for any of your claims in Forum Mangement?)

[Furcifer]

I asked you once not to post to me nor to use my name. Do you have a reading problem?

lol, arrogant and rhetorical. get over yourself and try to be nice to people instead of constantly putting them down.

ps- request denied

[LashL]

LashL and enigma seen to have a tendancy to antagonize people, namely junior members, in the exact same way over and over again. Seems to be the same rhetoric all the time. Calling attention to it only draws fire upon yourself as well, apparently they are beyond reproach.

I suggest that you take it up with forum management if you are going to spew such nonsensical crap, 3bodyproblem.. I would think that they might be interested in your wholly unfounded accusations that they engage in the favourtism that you allude to. Personally, I think that the moderators are very even handed.

I also think that rational readers will find that you are playing silly buggers as a result of your prior failed attempt to, in your words, "teach the law to a lawyer" etc. in which you only demonstrated your own shortcomings and abject failure, but hey, knock yourself out.

I don't know why you felt the need to jump in here with a blatant personal attack, but hey, I'm not one to complain so bring it on, little man.

In the mean time, in the interests of keeping this thread somewhat respectable,

No, Dr. Greening. Those numbers are from the Apollo 11 Mission Report, dated November 1969. You can download the PDF (a scan of the original paper copy, I gather) from the link I gave.

Your number on the leak rate is bogus. (Well, not bogus, but it's the wrong one: the maximum design target, not the actual leak rate.)

As for your position on Apollo, no, you didn't say your position. You just implied it ... just like many other conspiracy theorists who claim to be "fence sitters."

And knee jerk? Ha. If I had posted a simple denial, or unsourced rebuttals, you could make that claim. I didn't; I spent a hour or so researching the claim and found that it is bogus based on published data.

So what is your point here? So there were some high-altitude nuclear bomb tests. So what?

If you're trying to lead into the old "Van-Allen belts not survivable" or "6 feet of lead required", those have been thoroughly debunked. Go to www.clavis.org for details on that one.

ETA: I had a great deal of respect for you based on your chemical analyses and comments on that area. Unfortunately, outside of that you seem to be either argumentative, enjoy baiting (i.e. like a troll), or you're just another conspiracy theorist. You've basically trashed any respect I had for you by such actions.

ETA 2: You're also displaying typical conspiracy theorist - or troll - behaviour by switching to a new topic as soon as the previous one gets debunked; vis your non-response to the replies to your inflammatory evolution comment above.

[Corsair 115]

Ah well, since the sniping is apparently continuing, I guess I'll just settle back and watch the action.

I guess the bickering is an open mike of sorts...

[uk_dave]

Let's hope that doesn't happen. I would hate to see a troll from Texas on LC get banned.

Well, that says alot for averys choice of admin on his forum.

If rev91 gets banned here, then he'll ban enigma from the lcf.

And then pout.

Still, I guess quest would have already banned enigma, had avery not already banned quest, which of course left an opening which LUCUS thought he could fill, until he banned himself.

It's a regular little soap opera over there.

[~enigma~]

I suggest that you take it up with forum management if you are going to spew such nonsensical crap, 3bodyproblem.. I would think that they might be interested in your wholly unfounded accusations that they engage in the favourtism that you allude to. Personally, I think that the moderators are very even handed.
LashL, I have one thing to say about his stupid accusation....eh (IOW, what is his friggin point)...

[Furcifer]

You DO know that both CE and WR are twoofers, right? For that matter, you do know that it wasn't quite meant to antagonize.. well, I'm not sure, but it is a habit to have to repeat posts for people to recognize.

Oh yah I know, but they weren't doing anything wrong, and I fail to see how someone can derail an open thread. Maybe I missed something...

[Corsair 115]

It's a regular little soap opera over there.Er, seems to me the last few pages of this thread would also qualify as soap opera.

Whoops, I said I was going to sit back and watch... er, the pull of the open mike was too much for me. Yeah, that's it! That's my story and I'm sticking to it! :D

[~enigma~]

Well, that says alot for averys choice of admin on his forum.

If rev91 gets banned here, then he'll ban enigma from the lcf.

And then pout.

Still, I guess quest would have already banned enigma, had avery not already banned quest, which of course left an opening which LUCUS thought he could fill, until he banned himself.

It's a regular little soap opera over there.You don't know the entire story. I was banned..WAS.

[~enigma~]

Er, seems to me the last few pages of this thread would also qualify as soap opera.

Whoops, I said I was going to sit back and watch... er, the pull of the open mike was too much for me. Yeah, that's it! That's my story and I'm sticking to it! :D
Karaoke night at Jref?

[LashL]

Along with Beachnut, Horatius, Moany7, HeyLeroy, Foolmewunz et al. All cheeks of the same backside.

Oops, forgot Tokorona as well. He/she wasn't getting any attention from me over in Forum Management so he/she followed me over here to resume hostilities and make unsubstantiated accusations that I am related to what is generically termed the "Truth Movement". Evidence of course will never be forthcoming.

Sigh. More unfounded whining from you. What's with the unfounded accusations of being treated differently by the moderators? You have been treated fairly here. Just because rational thinkers may disagree with your views, that doesn't mean that you get a free pass when you're being a jerk. Stop whining already. You claim to be a man. You might want to start exhibiting same. So far, you haven't.

lol, arrogant and rhetorical. get over yourself and try to be nice to people instead of constantly putting them down.

ps- request denied

Oh, the irony. It burns.

[KoihimeNakamura]

No. Please, I don't nkow how good the people here sing..

[uk_dave]

You don't know the entire story. I was banned..WAS.

Ohhhh I DO know. They (or a rogue admin) banned you for being you while you was helping them to get hold of the 'smoking gun' (can't help laughing at this) of the wtc plans.

It took the almighty avery to reinstate you, because no one else over there had the wherewithall to seed the torrent (though why they couldn't just download them from the original link is beyond me. It didn't take all that long)

Ever since then the admins (including our juvenile friend rev91) have had to tread carefully around you. Anyone would think you're a made man.... ;)

[William Rea]

You only respond (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2457260#post2457260), never initiate (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2459279#post2459279)?

OK Hokulele, I can tell you're gagging for some attention from me so lets sort this out shall we so I can roll over and fall asleep.

The offending post...

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2458174#post2458174

YOU alone decided to take such great offence at my remark in a post that was not even replying to you and which was Intended to be humorous. Male science Geeks getting laid is a common comical character used by people far funnier and more politically correct than me. I suggest that if you had a sense of humour or were male you would not have decided to be so personally offended at an impersonal generalised comical remark.

Your response...

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2459092#post2459092 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2459092#post2459092)

What you did decide to do was to immediately adopt a hostile "attitude" with me that I was not going to accept. I am simply not going to apologise for YOUR insecurities. You will prise that apology from my cold dead hands.

Get over yourself or do what has been suggested to me on this forum and grow some!

End of posts with you until you grow up.

[~enigma~]

Anyone would think you're a made man.... ;)
The mafia doesn't exist...

ETA - I tend to look at it somewhat differently. I am (or was) a supposed enemy of LCF and there I was helping when Dylan's supposed friends and supporters sat on their collective butt.

ETA2 - I also don't discuss 9/11 there since it would do nothing except be a cyber shouting match. I stay in the lounge.

[Hokulele]

OK Hokulele, I can tell you're gagging for some attention from me so lets sort this out shall we so I can roll over and fall asleep.

The offending post...

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2458174#post2458174

YOU alone decided to take such great offence at my remark in a post that was not even replying to you and which was Intended to be humorous. Male science Geeks getting laid is a common comical character used by people far funnier and more politically correct than me. I suggest that if you had a sense of humour or were male you would not have decided to be so personally offended at an impersonal generalised comical remark.

Your response...

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2459092#post2459092 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2459092#post2459092)

What you did decide to do was to immediately adopt a hostile "attitude" with me that I was not going to accept. I am simply not going to apologise for YOUR insecurities. You will prise that apology from my cold dead hands.

Get over yourself or do what has been suggested to me on this forum and grow some!

End of posts with you until you grow up.


Interesting that your humor tends to be of the insulting and derogatory type. It does to make it difficult to determine whether you are trying to be funny or offensive.

[William Rea]

lol, arrogant and rhetorical. get over yourself and try to be nice to people instead of constantly putting them down.

ps- request denied

People who are constantly putting others down generally only do so because they loathe themselves.

[LashL]

LashL, I have one thing to say about his stupid accusation....eh (IOW, what is his friggin point)...

Eh?

;)

[uk_dave]

ETA - I tend to look at it somewhat differently. I am (or was) a supposed enemy of LCF and there I was helping when Dylan's supposed friends and supporters sat on their collective butt.



Absolutely. It was a very entertaining period in the LCF history, as all the regs bitched and whined about you to the point of you getting banned while in the middle of seeding the torrent they were all so excited about getting hold of.

And then poor old JTOG (or whatever) spent ages trying to render the files no one else could open, believing (bless their innocent hearts) that it contained THE smoking gun of smoking guns.

Very funny. Like watching children discover that water is wet.

[Furcifer]

I suggest that you take it up with forum management if you are going to spew such nonsensical crap, 3bodyproblem.. I would think that they might be interested in your wholly unfounded accusations that they engage in the favourtism that you allude to. Personally, I think that the moderators are very even handed.

I also think that rational readers will find that you are playing silly buggers as a result of your prior failed attempt to, in your words, "teach the law to a lawyer" etc. in which you only demonstrated your own shortcomings and abject failure, but hey, knock yourself out.

I don't know why you felt the need to jump in here with a blatant personal attack, but hey, I'm not one to complain so bring it on, little man.

In the mean time, in the interests of keeping this thread somewhat respectable,

Why would I take it up with forum management? I have no problem with you constantly telling people they cannot read, they should read for comprehension and everything is nonsense. We've all heard it before that's for certain.

I freely admitted I garnered the attention of the moderators of my own volition. In fact you can see that post in the forum management section if you choose to do so. I'm older and wiser now. Just not as wise as you. You're so wise you know what "playing silly buggers" means. If I can find somebody that wise I will have to ask them if they remember what it was like to play silly buggers.

I just found it interesting you chose to give ME your unsolicited advice about the proper use of the term "slander", but you failed to do so with other members using the same term. I believe this is called a "double standard".(ps-you're still wrong, well...you're just not a right as you could be)

There was no personal attack, merely observation supported by evidence. There's a difference. I like you, you make me laugh. You're not a boring lawyer girl at all.

[LashL]

<snip>OK Hokulele, I can tell you're gagging for some attention from me so lets sort this out shall we so I can roll over and fall asleep.

I hardly think that Hokulele, or anyone else for that matter, is gagging for the attention of the likes of you.

Since you raised the issue, albeit left handedly, I've no doubt that any putative partner of yours would like nothing more than for you to "roll over and fall asleep" although, admittedly, it is difficult to comprehend how any rational person would want to be involved with you in the first place. I will not comment further on the mentality of your putative partners since to do so would likely being insulting to the mentally challenged.

The point is that you were out of line and you don't even realize it. You really should apologize to Hokulele.


<snip>Get over yourself or do what has been suggested to me on this forum and grow some!

You should heed your own advice, on both counts: get over yourself and grow a pair.

Is this post off centre? Yes, but as it only responds to your own post, I think it's fair game.

[Mobyseven]

Along with Beachnut, Horatius, Moany7, HeyLeroy, Foolmewunz et al. All cheeks of the same backside.

William, if you make accusations against people they aren't stalkers if they respond to your accusations.

If I started a "William Rea is a troll who engages in ad hominem attacks" thread, you would respond to that, wouldn't you? You would defend yourself against the accusations being made.

Now, if you were to stop accusing me of engaging in ad hominem attacks, threatening legal action against you and stalking you, and you apologised, you'd probably find pretty quickly that people such as me would not feel compelled to address you anymore. And yet here you are, once again, specifically accusing me among others of 'stalking' you.

Reported.

[Furcifer]

Along with Beachnut, Horatius, HeyLeroy, Foolmewunz et al. All cheeks of the same backside.


These guys are all stand up, especially HeyLeroy. You really have to say something stupid to get them going.

[SezMe]

It's an "Open Thread" and I am invited to speak my mind. OK. It irritates the hell out of me when someone quotes a looooong post in its entirety and then adds only a line or two of commentary. Why the hell quote the whole damn post?

Sheeeesh.

[AZCat]

It's an...

...Sheeeesh.

That's why I use ellipses - I don't want to waste virtual paper. :)

[SezMe]

But aren't you ashamed of your wasteful use of .........

.............................

?

[AZCat]

But aren't you ashamed of your wasteful use of .........

.............................

?

Not wasteful - I recycle used punctuation at my workplace. In fact, all the commentary by me here is at least 80% post-consumer recycled material.

[William Rea]

I hardly think that Hokulele, or anyone else for that matter, is gagging for the attention of the likes of you.

Since you raised the issue, albeit left handedly, I've no doubt that any putative partner of yours would like nothing more than for you to "roll over and fall asleep" although, admittedly, it is difficult to comprehend how any rational person would want to be involved with you in the first place. I will not comment further on the mentality of your putative partners since to do so would likely being insulting to the mentally challenged.

The point is that you were out of line and you don't even realize it. You really should apologize to Hokulele.

You should heed your own advice, on both counts: get over yourself and grow a pair.

Is this post off centre? Yes, but as it only responds to your own post, I think it's fair game.

Thanks for butting in where you're not wanted but I'm sure that if Hokulele is not satisfied she will keep demanding I apologise. Despite the fact I have demonstrated there is nothing to apologise for, it hasn't stopped her following me around the forum demanding an apology for the last 3 months or so.

I really ought to be asking her to apologise for defamation of character that I have had to suffer for at least 3 months. Perhaps I ought to ask ****** to look into it as he seems to be expert.

I have quoted this for the record since you decided to not just insult me but also my family, very stylish.

Reported.

[William Rea]

These guys are all stand up, especially HeyLeroy. You really have to say something stupid to get them going.

"stand up" ???

[chillzero]

This thread is one step away from being made moderated due to the number of generated reports.
1 - Trolling is not against the Membership Agreement. Stop reporting it.
2 - Stop the bickering and personal attacks.
3 - There are too many posts to strip out and move to AAH, so my next actions are dependant on the next couple of posts.

If you stop bickering and return to civil conversation, the thread will be left alone.
If a small number continues to bicker while others return to topic it will be stripped down of several pages, and the thread moderated.
If the bickering continues, the whole thread will be shipped to AAH.

Remember your MA and behave appropriately.

[Mobyseven]

I really ought to be asking her to apologise for defamation of character that I have had to suffer for at least 3 months. Perhaps I ought to ask ****** to look into it as he seems to be expert.

The irony is suffocating.

Does NO ONE else want to add their thoughts as per the first few posts?

[T.A.M.]

Just to clarify (although you would think reading the name of the poster above the quote would be sufficient), it was I who said "For every IQ=140 there is an IQ=80" or something to that effect.

Those who know me, know that if I were trying to make this a serious argument up for debate or discussion, I would have brought some evidence. The manner in which I spoke it, as well as the context of the other posts surrounding it, should give most readers the clues they need to realise it was a statement made to make a point, not one of definitive fact.

I would imagine, that the bell curve on intelligence is skewed in such a way that the number of people with IQ=140 are much less than the IQ=80, so if we go with that assumption, than I am correct, and as others have said, there are simply lots of IQ=80 to spare.

The fact that this silly little point was brought up and whined about and bitched about, says alot about those who did the formentioned whining and bitching.

As for my minor spelling error, while I am no spelling bee winner, I would compare my posting skill, as well as language skill against any of those who mentioned it, any day. It is considered RUDE by most internet etiquette standards, to bring up or try to correct another poster for MINOR spelling errors, where the intent or purpose of the word is clearly understood despite the error.

Given the posters who made the negative comments are notorious here for doing so, I am not surprised, especially on an "Open" Thread...but it was a "near entire page" of posting derailing...

TAM:)

[Crazy Chainsaw]

This thread is almost as interesting as some on the secret - private art forums that I visit, It reminds me of the flap over the nude sculptures compared to the real models. Who modeled for the Sculptures.
I wish all here could have seen the young lady who made Her dress out of clear see though freezer bags.
It sold for I think 20 grand she actually wore it in the art show.
Artist were actually the ones taking over the world, one work at a time soon we will rule and anarchy will engulf all reason.
You can not stop us, people will buy almost anything in a pretty package, even if it makes no sense to do so.

If Scientists were as attractive as movie stars, Sports heroes, and entertainers then almost everyone would be working on a PHD, and the truth movement would have died years ago.

It is not a sin to seek the truth only to misrepresent it and turn the seach for truth into just another lie for political gain.

[fitzgibbon]

I believe you shouldn't confuse my with Gravy. That's where my humour ends.

Notice I referenced Gravy (who was online when I posted that, BTW) for possible correction, not Childlike Empress. That's 'cuz, having waded through all the iterations of the Loose Change thread and noting your posting there, I was deferring to a poster whose judgment I'd trust.

HTH
F

[Alt+F4]

Let's hope that doesn't happen. I would hate to see a troll from Texas on LC get banned.

Unlike the LCF where everyone who joins is automatically pre-banned, this forum only bans folks who don't follow the rules. Speaking of the LCF, are you now a mod over there?

[Alt+F4]

Unlike the LCF where everyone who joins is automatically pre-banned, this forum only bans folks who don't follow the rules. Speaking of the LCF, are you now a mod over there?

After a read over there I see you are indeed a administrator, and if you ban folks there for what they say here, well then congrats, you've graduated from the Dylan Avery school of closed intellectual inquiry.

[Apollo20]

Well, sorry I missed all the action last night! And on the subject of personal attacks I would say that I have endured by far the most of anyone on this thread… I could have complained to the moderators long ago, but I will not let it bother me! I do, however, find it interesting that anyone would take the time to write a mini-essay about my technical posts on this thread, without providing any technical input of their own!

Now I cannot possibly respond to 3 pages of rantings, but I will try to address a few issues that have been raised.

First on the Apollo 11 data: I can assure everyone that I used NASA data as provided by the “NASA MISSION REPORTS” published by Apogee Books and taken from the archives of NASA. That being said, I note that I also use in my Apollo research the excellent publication: APOLLO BY THE NUMBERS, which is a NASA report No. SP-2000-4029. By comparing the numbers in SP-2000-4029 with the numbers in the NASA MISSION REPORTS I have found MANY discrepancies. So many in fact, that I wrote to a NASA scientist about it. He basically said: “Go with the numbers in SP-2000-4029”. Now that’s fine but unfortunately I have been unable to find any Lunar Module descent O2 data in SP-2000-4029, while this data IS given in the NASA MISSION REPORTS, so that O2 data is what I used to do my calculations. If someone has found other O2 data, well good for you, but I resent the tone of the response to my original posting and the suggestion that I am out to deceive!

On EVOLUTION I would say this: If evolution has nothing to say about the ORIGIN of life then what does it say? I am not impressed with a theory that tells me that between one variety of pigeon and another the number of ribs and vertebrae vary. Theories of evolution MUST start with an answer to the question: How did life on earth begin. As for more recent versions of Stanley Miller’s experiment, they change NOTHING! Please read what J. H. John Peat says about these kinds of experiments at truthinscience.org.uk. Simply put, science cannot explain the origin of life… not at all, not even close! Now that does NOT mean that I turn to the Bible for an answer. I simply say that the origin of life remains one of life’s mysteries.

As for some of the so-called rebuttals of my posts that I have supposedly failed to address, all I can say is that I havn’t really seen much that I would consider a true rebuttal of many of my points, just expressions of some alternative views/results/opinions. I could respond to these posts with A TON of additional material, but I don’t have the time or inclination to respond to slaves of orthodox thinking when I know it would be like casting pearls before …. well …. you know the old saying. I do find it amazing, however, that so much of the anti-Greening rhetoric on this thread reads like a lecture from some sort of authoritarian thought police. Lighten up!

P.S. Thanks to those who have shown a more enlightened approach; your comments are like sweet nectar in a desert of bigotry.

[uk_dave]

reads like a lecture from some sort of authoritarian thought police.


Yes you do.

Lighten up!Indeed

[grmcdorman]

First on the Apollo 11 data: I can assure everyone that I used NASA data as provided by the “NASA MISSION REPORTS” published by Apogee Books and taken from the archives of NASA. That being said, I note that I also use in my Apollo research the excellent publication: APOLLO BY THE NUMBERS, which is a NASA report No. SP-2000-4029. By comparing the numbers in SP-2000-4029 with the numbers in the NASA MISSION REPORTS I have found MANY discrepancies. So many in fact, that I wrote to a NASA scientist about it. He basically said: “Go with the numbers in SP-2000-4029”. Now that’s fine but unfortunately I have been unable to find any Lunar Module descent O2 data in SP-2000-4029, while this data IS given in the NASA MISSION REPORTS, so that O2 data is what I used to do my calculations. If someone has found other O2 data, well good for you, but I resent the tone of the response to my original posting and the suggestion that I am out to deceive!Dr. Greening, the numbers I was quoting are from the Mission Reports. I gave you the reference (a link to the PDF). If you have a source that gives the actual leak rate for the LM as 0.2 lb/hr, please give it; I would appreciate examining the source. Failing that, I have to restate my position: you have made an error in your calculations which renders your conclusion wrong, and you have not addressed that.

Now, as to the tone of the responses: what on earth are you trying to achieve with these posts? In the absence of any clear statement of your thesis, the obvious conclusion most readers will draw from your posting is that you are questioning the reality of the Apollo missions. You still have not stated what your thesis is, other than "there are contradictions in the numbers."

Yes, you did not explicitly say you were denying the Apollo reality - but you have not said what your intent was at all. This is sophistry and trollish behaviour. If you want an intelligent discussion, please explicitly state your thesis.

On EVOLUTION I would say this: If evolution has nothing to say about the ORIGIN of life then what does it say? I am not impressed with a theory that tells me that between one variety of pigeon and another the number of ribs and vertebrae vary. Theories of evolution MUST start with an answer to the question: How did life on earth begin. As for more recent versions of Stanley Miller’s experiment, they change NOTHING! Please read what J. H. John Peat says about these kinds of experiments at truthinscience.org.uk. Simply put, science cannot explain the origin of life… not at all, not even close! Now that does NOT mean that I turn to the Bible for an answer. I simply say that the origin of life remains one of life’s mysteries.Dr. Greening, you are still conflating two different but related things. In chemistry terms, you're conflating the origin of elements with the interactions of elements.

Evolutionary theory does not explain the genesis of life; nor does it need to. What it explains is how life changes, once it has appeared. As posted earlier, not only is this well supported by the evidence, but it is being observed even now. To dismiss evolutionary theory because abiogenisis is inadequately understood is akin to dismissing the periodic table because quantum theory is not well understood. It's a red herring.

For further on this topic, see this topic (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB090.html) on www.talkorigins.org. The statement there is similar:The theory of evolution applies as long as life exists. How that life came to exist is not relevant to evolution. Claiming that evolution does not apply without a theory of abiogenesis makes as much sense as saying that umbrellas do not work without a theory of meteorology.


I do not see how you can make this claim as an intelligent, trained scientist. (Edit to clarify: not the quote above, but your claim that evolution is specious).

As for some of the so-called rebuttals of my posts that I have supposedly failed to address, all I can say is that I havn’t really seen much that I would consider a true rebuttal of many of my points, just expressions of some alternative views/results/opinions.Please be specific. Which ideas have you expressed that you feel haven't been specifically addressed?

I could respond to these posts with A TON of additional material, but I don’t have the time or inclination to respond to slaves of orthodox thinking when I know it would be like casting pearls before …. well …. you know the old saying. I do find it amazing, however, that so much of the anti-Greening rhetoric on this thread reads like a lecture from some sort of authoritarian thought police. Lighten up!Dr. Greening, some of our favourite truthers can respond with "A TON of additional material". Unfortunately, little to none of the material is correct. And regardless, what is your point in these postings? It seems to me that you are posting controversial items - but refusing to take a stand. You are approaching the modus operandi of a particular poster in the General Skepticism and The Paranormal forum (who I won't name) who loves to post links to controversial items but refuses to commit to any sort of opinion about them.

P.S. I have just had my account approved at Apollo Hoax. I am posting there for further information on the Apollo items; in particular the LM leak rate and the transmission logs quoting the remaining consumables.

ETA: Thread at ApolloHoax is http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=theories&thread=1184426948
When I get some responses there, I will start a new thread here to avoid derailing this one any further (as if that's possible).

[negativ]

I do not see how you can make this claim as an intelligent, trained scientist.

For possible explanations, see J.K. Rowling's yet unannounced, unwritten, and probably unimagined new book, "Francis Collins and the Frozen Waterfall."

It's based, my sources tell me, on an article (http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20060815_sam_harris_language_ignorance/) written by Sam Harris.

[grmcdorman]

Back on topic: one of my favourite "theories" - if you can dignify it with that - is the Face on Mars/Buildings on Mars crowd. It was pretty clear from the beginning that it was pareidolia, but there's still people claiming it's an artificial construct (despite the high-resolution images that show it's anything but). Richard Hoagland, in particular, is making money off it. (For debunking of this, see http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/hoagland/).

There's one born every ... what is now, 3-something seconds with population growth? :p

[T.A.M.]

Apollo20:

You are by far the most difficult person to read of all that post here...and I think this is intentional.

Sometimes you are strictly by the book, posting excellent commentary, and good references. Other times you are posting things that, to me at least, are near full on Woo. Then other times you are a bitter cynic. Perhaps, your personality, so deep and colorful, is all of these things, or perhaps all of them are a front so that you keep everyone on edge...I'll be damned if I can tell, and I am usually a good judge of these things.

TAM:)

[A W Smith]

Take for example the use by many JREFers of words that have no dictionary meaning like “twoofer” and “woo”. And, of course, the mysterious word: “sundies”, or “stundies”… or whatever….

Yes, stand up and be counted all of you who claim to be ADULTS yet feel comfortable using these non-words on a public forum that claims to be EDUCATIONAL!

Woo! Twoo!

PLEASE!

To those JREFers who feel comfortable with such drivel I say:

“Physician, heal thyself.” … Luke 4, 23.


“When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child” … I Corinthians 13,1.

Because quite FRANKLY, the use of such cant or argot ON A PUBLIC FORUM betrays a juvenile pathology bordering on imbecility that truly BOGGLES THE MIND…




I remember a member of this board using the invented words "Nistian" and "JREFer"

[Apollo20]

GRMCRORMAN:

1. "There are contradictions in NASA's numbers" IS my thesis and I have given one example to support it. NASA's reports dealing with the Apollo missions published between 1968 and 2000 contain many data that change from one document to another without explanation or justification..... But please explain how you make the logical leap from my claims about NASA'a changing data set to this absurd statement: "The obvious conclusion most readers will draw from your posting is that you are questioning the reality of the Apollo missions."

2. When you say that "Evolutionary theory does not explain the genesis of life." Well fine, ok... I stand corrected. But you know as well as I do that the ORIGIN OF LIFE supposedly embodies evolutionary processes at some point in time and it is this connection or starting point in the evolutionary chain that is a very controversial issue. So accuse me of conflating theories all you want, but you cannot deny that The Theory of Evolution IMPLIES that there is a continuum of evolving entities, starting with prokaryotic cells let's say, that supposedly emerged from some sort of primordial soup, and that the prokaryote cells then EVOLVED, or so we are told, into eukaryotes. Since you appear to be such an expert on EVOLUTION, could you please explain how all this happend.

[Apollo20]

A. W. Smith.

Ah yes, NISTians and JREFers.... well, these are both based on obvious acronyms that appear to be understood by most people.

But WOO? Is it an acronym?

If it is, sorry, I still don't get it!

[Apollo20]

TAM:

I apologize! I do not intentionally try to obfuscate... really.

I may not please you, or others, with what I write, but I hope you see that I do not engage in attacks on specific individuals even when many such individuals go after me in a very personal way.

TAM, why is my behavior/style under the microscope and not the individuals who appear to have no hesitation in insulting me? And why do the moderators of this forum allow this kind of verbal abuse of someone?

[ref]

Wow. I'm glad this thread has not been moved. It's indeed meant to be an open thread, so pretty much anything can be discussed. Like Moby said, I also liked to read what other people had on their mind about the CT's at the moment. But like I earlier said, I also enjoyed the wine discussion and other topics :)

So keep on talking about anything. But keep it civil and no furious attacks and endless back and forth arguing. I start sounding like a moderator :D

To Frank Greening:

I'd like to know, who are "your people"? I see you haven't made many friends here, and you also seem to dislike many opinions made by other members here. Do you feel you are not understood at all, anywhere? Who do you hang out with, so to speak?

[grmcdorman]

Dr. Greening, shortly I will start a new thread on the topic of the Apollo issue. We can discuss this issue there, rather than derailing this thread any further.

With respect to evolution, yes, abiogenisis may - and should - involve evolutionary processes. But that does not mean either 1) evolution must necessarily explain abiogenisis or 2) that lack of understanding of abiogenisis invalidates subsequent evolution.

As for early evolution, yes, that may be poorly understood too. However, subsequent evolution is well supported across virtually all life sciences disciplines. Again, look at this article (http://www.thestar.com/article/198318) in the Toronto Star (thread here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=78531)).

I would suggest, though, if you want to dispute this as well go to the Science, Mathematics, Medicine and Technology forum, where there are numerous threads - and posters more knowledgable than I - or look up information on talkorgins.org. This thread, and this forum, is not the location to argue about evolution (unless you can tie it into a conspiracy somehow, eh?).

[Apollo20]

Ref:

"I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
Oh Lord please don't let me be misunderstood!"

But seriously...

I hang out with my wife and son, both of whom I love dearly. I live near a lake by the edge of some nice woods with lots of deer and birds. That's more than enough company!

After all, I wouldn't join a club that would have me as a member!

[T.A.M.]

TAM:

I apologize! I do not intentionally try to obfuscate... really.

lol...now I am so messed up with how you post, that I do not know if this is part of the game or not...I will assume not.


I may not please you, or others, with what I write, but I hope you see that I do not engage in attacks on specific individuals even when many such individuals go after me in a very personal way.

I must admit, most of the time, if not all, you seem to not attack any one individual, however, you do, on a very regular basis, make less that positive remarks towards those who post here, us NISTIANS, us JREFers. This generalizing, as well as the demeaning, almost digusted tone, with which you refer, is why , at least in part, that you recieve such hostility in return.


TAM, why is my behavior/style under the microscope and not the individuals who appear to have no hesitation in insulting me? And why do the moderators of this forum allow this kind of verbal abuse of someone?

This is a good question. I think it is due to the fact that prior to coming here, you were someone that most here felt was in "their corner". Someone helping to defend the logic and reason that makes the "truth" movements theories so bizarre and improbable. Your paper had been quoted many times, and cited many more. Then you came here, got off on the wrong foot, for most of us anyhow. This was followed by some reasonableness, and now a somewhat fluctuating persona, swinging like a pendulum between cantakerous and civil. You are someone who has the credentials, and most here had assumed your personality and posting style/content would reflect the stance you had taken in your papers. Apparently not, and for this you are an Enigma to most, so we study you...lol

As for why others are not under the microscope, many have been here much longer than you, while others are less contraversial, others less volatile.

As for allowing the verbal abuse, I think that when verbal ABUSE occurs, you should report it, but do not forget it is a skeptics forum, so a hostile attitude towards posting that conflicts with anothers idea of what is right, is to be expected, or at least not unexpected.

TAM:)

[Furcifer]

I like the idea of an open thread because it simplifies things. While I'm sure much of what is being discussed here is or already has been discussed in other forums, I simply don't have the time to filter through all of them. It's like our own Variety Show (or Gong Show. or Soap Opera, or Drama or Fight Night ;)) Glad it wasn't moved as well.

So any have an opinion on Convergence and the Theory of Minimum Complexity in regards to evolution? I see convergent complexity accounting for minimum complexity in the primordial ooze, resulting in genesis.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

lol...now I am so messed up with how you post, that I do not know if this is part of the game or not...I will assume not.



I must admit, most of the time, if not all, you seem to not attack any one individual, however, you do, on a very regular basis, make less that positive remarks towards those who post here, us NISTIANS, us JREFers. This generalizing, as well as the demeaning, almost digusted tone, with which you refer, is why , at least in part, that you recieve such hostility in return.



This is a good question. I think it is due to the fact that prior to coming here, you were someone that most here felt was in "their corner". Someone helping to defend the logic and reason that makes the "truth" movements theories so bizarre and improbable. Your paper had been quoted many times, and cited many more. Then you came here, got off on the wrong foot, for most of us anyhow. This was followed by some reasonableness, and now a somewhat fluctuating persona, swinging like a pendulum between cantakerous and civil. You are someone who has the credentials, and most here had assumed your personality and posting style/content would reflect the stance you had taken in your papers. Apparently not, and for this you are an Enigma to most, so we study you...lol

As for why others are not under the microscope, many have been here much longer than you, while others are less contraversial, others less volatile.

As for allowing the verbal abuse, I think that when verbal ABUSE occurs, you should report it, but do not forget it is a skeptics forum, so a hostile attitude towards posting that conflicts with anothers idea of what is right, is to be expected, or at least not unexpected.

TAM:)

The problem TAM is there are true Scientific mysteries and historic mysteries, and to solve them an open mind is required, even open to the woo sometimes because sometimes the best ideas are not found in science books.
There are several valid mysteries to 9/11/2001 that have not been answered yet they have just been past off with excuses mostly and not really looked at.

There can be no sides in the study of 9/11/2001 only the science, the provable empirical facts the actual truth not the (truth movement) truth.
However what do I know, as our Good Friend Lyte Tripp once said, how can I disagree with physicist , pilots and engineers, PhD, I am just a guy in Kentucky with a chainsaw. He did not count on me getting that type of reception all the time, according to one mechanical engineer I talked to this stunt is physically impossible.
http://chainsawsanders.com/Untitled_20070325_1.MOV
He even did calculations that proved it was, I just guess I am so bad at math I can not figure out how not to do it.
I run into closed minds all the time, you would not believe the bet I have won from people with degrees telling me that what I do can not be done.
One of the things I like best about Frank is he always keeps and open mind.
Even to Woo hoo ideas, which is where the phrase Woo comes from.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woo_hoo
And now you know where the phrase Woo actually comes from. Ideas that are Woo are Ideas that are so ludicrous, they are comical.
PS. Frank I was sprayed with the herbicide in agent orange when I was young, it was sprayed on rural power lines in this country as well to control weeds and brush it was sprayed by helicopter and I could not get out of the spray fast enough.
If it was deliberate then I guess that I to am a victim of it.

[Civilized Worm]

You know it is indeed amusing that I have been accused of childish behavior on this very forum, (by folks I will not befoul my mouth to mention by name because they KNOW who they are), when so many JREFers display such extremely childish behavior all of their own in so many ways!


Perhaps, but at least we don't think that AIDS is a government conspiracy.


QUOTE=Apollo20;2764883]However, I have also been challenged as to my opinion on the Apollo missions. Well, I have researched this topic in some detail too and there are many undeniable anomalies in the record of the Apollo missions as published by NASA. Here is one to start with:[/QUOTE]


See? I told you there'd be more!


Pardalis:

"How many conspiracy theories do I believe in?"

Well I can tell you one theory I do not believe in:

EVOLUTION


Wow, the woo gates are open now!


Robert Anton Wilson.


How can someone who believes in magick be called a sceptic?


IMO the difference is that the Randi Skeptic follows a belief system (fundamentalistic materialism) while the Wilson Skeptic is skeptical about everything and likes to change his belief system everytime Randi Skeptics change their underwear. Both are united in their fight against religious fundamentalism (with the mentioned extension of the Wilson Skeptics definition of it ;)).


Yeah, how dare we only change our worldviews when new evidence arises as opposed to whenever we've had a really cool drug trip!


I'm 15. Are you saying I shouldn't be living at my moms?


Really? That old?


For possible explanations, see J.K. Rowling's yet unannounced, unwritten, and probably unimagined new book, "Francis Collins and the Frozen Waterfall."

It's based, my sources tell me, on an article (http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20060815_sam_harris_language_ignorance/) written by Sam Harris.


Hey be fair dude, at least Collins accepts evolution and isn't a conspiracy nut.

[William Rea]

The fact that this silly little point was brought up and whined about and bitched about, says alot about those who did the formentioned whining and bitching.

Given the posters who made the negative comments are notorious here for doing so, I am not surprised, especially on an "Open" Thread...but it was a "near entire page" of posting derailing...

TAM:)

The only reason I went for it was to make a point about some of the people on here affording a little of the same latitude that you were expecting to everyone in the Forum!

It obviously seems to have made an impression on you. Now imagine that scaled up by several orders of magnitude.

[Revolutionary91]

Civilised Worm do you know what a skeptic actually is?

[William Rea]

Well, sorry I missed all the action last night! And on the subject of personal attacks I would say that I have endured by far the most of anyone on this thread… I could have complained to the moderators long ago, but I will not let it bother me!...snip...

On this thread maybe but overall this is a drop in a very large ocean Apollo. This has been quite tame in comparison helped out mainly by the fact that LashL just isn't a very good adversary.

[Civilized Worm]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_skepticism


Do you have any idea what pseudoscience is?

[Revolutionary91]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_skepticism


Do you have any idea what pseudoscience is?

This sums up the JREFers

Habitual debunkers are sometimes called pseudoskeptics (http://forums.randi.org/wiki/Pseudoskeptic) or pathological skeptics and accused of intentionally relying on pseudoscience masquerading as empirical skepticism.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism

[DGM]

This sums up the JREFers





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism
You guy's haven't had anything to debunk in years. So how could this be true. We're just getting bored.

[Civilized Worm]

This sums up the JREFers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism


As a sceptic I'm going to have to ask you to back up that claim.

[Apollo20]

Chainsaw:

Greetings!

I was just reading part of A.I. Oparin's book ORIGIN OF LIFE. He really believed scientists would one day be able to make LIFE in a test tube!

I'd sooner try and make NANOALUMINUM, or summon up a HOMUNCULUS, like good old Jack Parsons!

Anyway, I am intrigued by your theory of the origin of "woo"!

But first I have to post a correction to my claim that WOO is not in the dictionary...

I was wrong. It is!

Woo v.t.

1. to try to gain the affection of someone, or court

2. to pursue or try to persuade

So, if someone is "peddling woo" are they just trying to be friends?

That's funny when this thread is such a dangerous place to be! I mean just take a look at the names and avatars of some of the posters...

Anyway, gotta run, time to get back to my Justified Agents of Woo album, the windowpane is just kicking in....

[Dave Rogers]

Just a brief comment, since this is an open mike.

Dr. Greening clearly holds, or professes to hold, a number of beliefs that many of us here consider quite unfounded and contradicted by evidence, but which are shared by those we term conspiracy theorists. I suspect (stop me if I'm wrong, Dr. Greening) that it is his belief that something was wrong with the conventional explanation of the collapse of the Twin Towers that led him to analyse their collapse in more detail. Having done so, however, he displayed a quality that the majority of the truth movement signally lack - the intellectual honesty to be convinced by his own conclusions. As a result, we have a valuable set of resources for debunking a large portion of supposed evidence advanced by truthers. Many of the rest of us simply can't be bothered to do that level of analysis, because, rejecting the truth movement's overall conclusions, we don't see that single area of study as important.

Dr. Greening, I'd like to say that I for one would encourage you to pursue further your suspicions about AP coating of the WTC fireproofing, or analysis of the microspheres, or whatever else concerns you. Whatever way your results lead you, please present them here. If the only result is that you decide that AP is impossible - or that the origin of the microspheres is innocuous - and move on to investigate another suspicion, you will most probably still have advanced our understanding of 9/11. And if you have any convincing results to the contrary, we could hardly call ourselves skeptics and ignore them.

Dave

[grmcdorman]

Dave, I don't have a problem with Dr. Greening's investigation of that. He is approaching it, after all, using his expertise and training. If unthought-of chemical reactions were a factor in the events that day, it is not only worthwhile but, I think, important for it to be investigated. So, yes, despite some of his other posts, I would hope that he continues with those researches.

[Furcifer]

Anyway, gotta run, time to get back to my Justified Agents of Woo album, the windowpane is just kicking in....

LMFAO, you know this actually explains a lot. Chemist indeed!

[A W Smith]

Anyway, gotta run, time to get back to my Justified Agents of Woo album, the windowpane is just kicking in....

LMFAO, you know this actually explains a lot. Chemist indeed!


here's something to watch when that windowpane kicks in:D
http://www.weebls-stuff.com/toons/scampi

[Ranb]

On EVOLUTION I would say this: If evolution has nothing to say about the ORIGIN of life then what does it say? I am not impressed with a theory that tells me that between one variety of pigeon and another the number of ribs and vertebrae vary. Theories of evolution MUST start with an answer to the question: How did life on earth begin

Evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population from generation to generation. Or you could call it a gradual process in which something changes into a different and more complex form.

It apparently means something else to you. It does not have to mean what you want it to mean. You are rather arrogant. You should try coming up with facts and studies of your own instead of typing "MUST" to impress people.

The people who propose theories are the ones who define them.

Ranb

[T.A.M.]

The problem TAM is there are true Scientific mysteries and historic mysteries, and to solve them an open mind is required, even open to the woo sometimes because sometimes the best ideas are not found in science books.
There are several valid mysteries to 9/11/2001 that have not been answered yet they have just been past off with excuses mostly and not really looked at.

There can be no sides in the study of 9/11/2001 only the science, the provable empirical facts the actual truth not the (truth movement) truth.
However what do I know, as our Good Friend Lyte Tripp once said, how can I disagree with physicist , pilots and engineers, PhD, I am just a guy in Kentucky with a chainsaw. He did not count on me getting that type of reception all the time, according to one mechanical engineer I talked to this stunt is physically impossible.
http://chainsawsanders.com/Untitled_20070325_1.MOV
He even did calculations that proved it was, I just guess I am so bad at math I can not figure out how not to do it.
I run into closed minds all the time, you would not believe the bet I have won from people with degrees telling me that what I do can not be done.
One of the things I like best about Frank is he always keeps and open mind.
Even to Woo hoo ideas, which is where the phrase Woo comes from.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woo_hoo
And now you know where the phrase Woo actually comes from. Ideas that are Woo are Ideas that are so ludicrous, they are comical.
PS. Frank I was sprayed with the herbicide in agent orange when I was young, it was sprayed on rural power lines in this country as well to control weeds and brush it was sprayed by helicopter and I could not get out of the spray fast enough.
If it was deliberate then I guess that I to am a victim of it.


Look, I am not against being suspicious, when it is warranted. I am also not afraid to admit the err of my ways. However, unlike most truthers, I go into something assuming that what the evidence points to is the correct conclusion UNTIL any further evidence points to a different one. In the case of almost all of the alleged CTs we have mentioned, No such new or overriding evidence has been provided.

I have seen no solid evidence of Bigfoot.
I have seen no convincing data or pictures of Nessie
I have seen no unaltered photos that clearly show alien spacecraft
I have seen no convincing studies to prove Aspartame is unsafe
I have seen no convincing scientific evidence that HIV is a man made virus
I have seen no convincing evidence that the moon landing was faked.
I have seen no convincing evidence that 9/11 was an Inside Job.

When I see some evidence that is strong and solid enough to convince me, my mind will be open to changing my view on such matters.

In the meantime, I am going to take an active role in exposing the snake oil salesmen who are accusing innocent people of mass murder.

TAM:)

[MIKILLINI]

Dave R, I have read Greenings theory on the Perchlorate your speaking of. As he says, it makes a more believable theory than Jim Fetzer & Judy (Woo)ds DEW's or the thermite of controlled demolition associated with Steven Jones.
He had brought up the Plastimet fire, which occured 10 years ago in Hamilton, Ontario very near to where he lives. Lash L remembers this fire also, as it was dispersing the material over Hamilton for a few days.
His point about Plastimet regarded what materials were burning in the plant. Much of it was Poly (vinyl chlorides) and polyurethanes. It was the chlorinated species from the Plastimet fire's chemical analysis (more particularly from the PVC) that Greening used and compared it with the high content of chlorinated species found in WTC's 1 & 2 rubble pile.
If you follow these threads you will see that Crazy Chainsaw does his own experiments, they may be crazy, but that all depends on a persons perspective. CC does things in an unconventional way, and, like he says, he causes qualified professionals to eat crow by proving them wrong.
Through reading these threads, it reveals Greening came up with a plausible theory, albeit doubtful, and CC has shown the thermite theory to be a fallacy.
Here are the links;
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=78111

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=85323

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=86724

Between those two, I certainly learn a great deal.

[LashL]

Sheesh. Here we go again.

Why would I take it up with forum management?

Because you insinuated that the moderators are falling down on the job, or worse, when you claimed that certain posters here enjoy some kind of immunity from the heavy hammer of the mods, for some as yet unspecified reason.

I have no problem with you constantly telling people they cannot read, they should read for comprehension and everything is nonsense. We've all heard it before that's for certain.

Pure BS. No surprise.

I freely admitted I garnered the attention of the moderators of my own volition.

No, you didn't. You specifically blamed me for you spouting nonsense and for getting your actionable posts flagged and moderated by the mods.

In fact you can see that post in the forum management section if you choose to do so.

As I recall, you eventually accepted responsibility (half heartedly) for your own words and actions, but only after you were called out for blaming others for them. Initially, you pretended otherwise, and you stuck to that until you could not maintain such a ludicrous position any longer.

I'm older and wiser now.

Evidence?

Just not as wise as you.

Probably true.

You're so wise you know what "playing silly buggers" means. If I can find somebody that wise I will have to ask them if they remember what it was like to play silly buggers.

If you don't know what the phrase means, might I suggest that you look it up? You do yourself no favours by remaining willfully ignorant of such easily ascertained things.

I just found it interesting you chose to give ME your unsolicited advice about the proper use of the term "slander", but you failed to do so with other members using the same term.

No, you pretended to know the law of defamation when you clearly do not, you were proved wrong, and you didn't like it. It was never a matter of others misusing the terminology, and not being called on it. You’re just making things up, now.

If others misused the terminology on some other thread in which I was not involved, and/or I didn’t happen to see, I can hardly comment on it. Moreover, I am not particularly prone to correcting people on the misuse of a term, any more than I am inclined to correct their spelling, if it is not particularly relevant to the discussion at hand. I am, admittedly, a bit of a pedant, but I feel no need to correct others’ posts at every turn if it is not germane to the discussion..

In any event, you weren't whining about me "failing to do so with other members using the same term" - you were simply whining about the fact that you were wrong, while insisting that you were right.

I believe this is called a "double standard".(ps-you're still wrong, well...you're just not a right as you could be)

No, I've never engaged in such double standards, and no, I am not wrong. As you know, I invited you to provide me with details after you alleged that a lawyer had advised you (wrongly) about the law of defamation, and you refused to do so. I also offered to speak personally to the lawyer that you allegedly spoke to, because it was obvious that the alleged advice that you'd allegedly been given was wrong, and you refused to provide the requisite information in order for that to occur. Further, I provided evidence that your unfounded assertions were wrong.

There was no personal attack, merely observation supported by evidence.

Evidence? Please provide some. The truth is that you deliberately sought to continue a previous disagreement from a thread in which you were already sanctioned, by sniping at me in this thread, even though it has nothing to do with the prior thread, and for no reason other than that you are still smarting over being smacked down previously.

There's a difference. I like you,

Oh, now my life is complete. :rolleyes:

Actually, I neither like or dislike you. While your rude and obnoxious behaviour on the prior thread, and this one, may be slightly annoying, it is a mere triviality in the real world.

I respect your posts when you opine on subjects of which you have actual knowledge. I also respect your posts when you simply offer an opinion, expressed as such, without any particular knowledge of the subject matter. That is what discussion forums are all about, after all.

But I do not respect your posts when you pretend to have knowledge that you do not possess, nor when you go off on ridiculous tangents and rants on subjects of which you have no knowledge, nor when you engage in silly snark for the sake of snarking as you have done in this thread.

you make me laugh.

Interesting. Please elaborate.

Admittedly, your misguided posts on the topic of the law of libel and slander made me chuckle to myself. Not in a malicious way but rather in a "ohh boy, this requires some serious intervention of facts and reality" way. Your subsequent attempts to blame others for your own posts, though, did make me laugh.

You're not a boring lawyer girl at all.

That's true.

Now, kwitcherbelliakin, already.

[Furcifer]

My apologies LashL, I couldn't properly fix this post. I've never used a Mac, let alone an old one with Explorer 5 and no mouse! I will do my best to recreate this tomorrow. In the mean time, I hope you read it in its entirety as it was sincere.

[LashL]

You have grossly distorted my post by inserting your responses into it without properly delineating my posts from yours.

Kindly fix your post so that it is clear which words are yours and which are mine.

From your last sentence - the only one that wasn't inserted into the body of my post without distinguishing your words from mine - I take it that you're having Mac issues, so I'll assume that your bastardization of my post was unintentional.

Still, it is incumbent upon you to quote others properly, which you have not done, and it is incumbent upon you to take responsibility for your own posts. So please fix your post to make it clear to others which words are yours and which are mine.

[gumboot]

...SNIP...

And finally, independant taste tests confirm repeatedly, France then Italy then Australia round out the top three wine producing countries. While there may be some romaticism associated with the French wines, I hope you aren't suggesting that the all tasters have been "got to"?!? Show me some proof or CORK IT!



I don't know how anyone can talk about wine and not mention New Zealand.

-Gumboot

[uk_dave]

There's a cheeky little dry white sold over here called 'oyster bay' that's rather drinkable.

[calebprime]

Civilised Worm do you know what a skeptic actually is?

Asking that people here conform to some definition of 'true skepticism' is silly. They act however they act, individually, and in aggregate.



Anyway, I am intrigued by your theory of the origin of "woo"!

Anyway, gotta run, time to get back to my Justified Agents of Woo album, the windowpane is just kicking in....

Woo, from woowoo, is said to come from vocally imitating the sound of a Theramin, or musical saw, or other synthesizer sound that is often used in bad science-fiction movies.

A good use of theramin, for example, is in the song Good Vibrations by the Beach Boys. Should sound good on windowpane, or even sober.



Look, I am not against being suspicious, when it is warranted. I am also not afraid to admit the err of my ways. However, unlike most truthers, I go into something assuming that what the evidence points to is the correct conclusion UNTIL any further evidence points to a different one. In the case of almost all of the alleged CTs we have mentioned, No such new or overriding evidence has been provided.

I have seen no solid evidence of Bigfoot.
I have seen no convincing data or pictures of Nessie
I have seen no unaltered photos that clearly show alien spacecraft
I have seen no convincing studies to prove Aspartame is unsafe
I have seen no convincing scientific evidence that HIV is a man made virus
I have seen no convincing evidence that the moon landing was faked.
I have seen no convincing evidence that 9/11 was an Inside Job.

When I see some evidence that is strong and solid enough to convince me, my mind will be open to changing my view on such matters.

In the meantime, I am going to take an active role in exposing the snake oil salesmen who are accusing innocent people of mass murder.

TAM:)

I fully agree that there are default positions such as these that we ought to take. There's nothing wrong with relying on the opinions of experts, as long as they don't have a conflict of interest. Even when they do have a conflict of interest, that doesn't completely disqualify them. We can't be experts at everything ourselves. So thinking for oneself has limits.

What evidence is there for the historical Jesus? Well, you have to know when various texts were written, for starters. To know this, you have to rely on experts.

Did Oswald act alone? You have to rely on the whole web of circumstantial evidence as well as ballistics.

Most of the time, the truth of something is determined by looking at the big picture and the whole range of evidence. Call this thinking from the bottom up. People often go wrong when they start by believing some over arching thesis and then look for evidence to support it, ignoring the huge amount of contrary evidence--'top down' thinking.

[Civilized Worm]

Well said TAM! Hopefully even Revo91 understands what scepticism is now.

[Apollo20]

On the question of whether or not we should "think for ourselves" or should mostly rely on experts, I can't help but think of an example where an "expert" was ignored.

I am referring to Brigadier General Benton Partin's analysis of the OKC bombing. Now Partin is a well-qualified explosive demolitions expert who delivered a letter containing his expert analysis of the OKC bombing to Oaklahoma Senator Don Nickles on May 17th, 1995. In this letter Partin stated: "I can say with a high level of confidence that the damage pattern on the reinforced concrete superstructure (of the Murrah Building) could not possibly have been attained from a single truck bomb without supplementing demolition charges at some of the reinforced column bases."

I wonder why this particular piece of expert testimony appears to have been ignored by the authorities. Could it be that it didn't fit the government's very own conspiracy theory about the OKC bombing?

[Furcifer]

I don't know how anyone can talk about wine and not mention New Zealand.

-Gumboot

Hey we were talking about wine, not losing the America's Cup! :)


I actually did think about including NZ on that list when I wrote, mostly because of how well represented the Kiwi's are in this forum. However, to include NZ would have meant including a host of other small wine producing countries. In fact Canada only made the short list because of patriotism :) NZ is an up and comer in the World of wine no doubt, and should be explored when the opportunity arises.

Incidentally, how does a country surrounded by water lose a sailing race to a land locked country, by 1 second! Something ain't right there...

[A W Smith]

And what was the general Benton Partin's demolition expert experience with amfo not made with fuel oil but nitromethane? I have personally witnessed the immediate aftermath of a pit accident involving nitro. failure to completely purge a fuel system and putting a wrench on the crankshaft and turning it resulted in approximately 1/8 cupful of nitro blowing the entire side of a forged billet aluminum racing block off and putting a hole in a crew members leg. He was lucky because had he been leaning over the valve cover he would have been dead. The stems of two titanium valves were blown through the billet aluminum cylinder head and valvecover.

[uk_dave]

What I don't understand is, given that we are to believe the conspirators knew in both the case of OKC and the WTC towers that the 'cover story' damage (truck bomb and aircraft impact respectively) would be insufficient to cause collapse and so supplemented it with additional preplanted explosives, why didn't they just up the ante in the 'cover story'? Why not have more than two planes hijacked and flown into the wtc? Or make them fully laden 747's? Why not just make the truck bomb bigger?

It would avoid all this inconvenient expert testimony contradicting the veracity of the 'cover story', dontcha think?

[Furcifer]

Sheesh. Here we go again.

In more ways than one. I hope you appreciate how long this took.



Because you insinuated that the moderators are falling down on the job, or worse, when you claimed that certain posters here enjoy some kind of immunity from the heavy hammer of the mods, for some as yet unspecified reason.

That was quite some time ago and my opinion has changed since then. I'm not quite sure why you felt the need to bring this up again? I made no reference to it in my observation.



Pure BS. No surprise.

No, it's not BS. I made an observation that you have a tendancy to call question to peoples ability to comprehend things you write and how what they write is nonsensical. You have made this observation more than once, and only adversarialy. It is a very clever way to call attention to someones intelligence, or lack thereof. As I see it, being merely clever is beneath you.



No, you didn't. You specifically blamed me for you spouting nonsense and for getting your actionable posts flagged and moderated by the mods.

Yes, it was my understanding that inciting a riot was an actionable offence :) I was mistaken.



As I recall, you eventually accepted responsibility (half heartedly) for your own words and actions, but only after you were called out for blaming others for them. Initially, you pretended otherwise, and you stuck to that until you could not maintain such a ludicrous position any longer.

I believe you are mistaken here. At the risk of being percieved as "bickering" I will leave it at that. The actual account can be found in the forum management under the thread "What is bickering" Apparently it does not take two to tango.



Evidence?

Hopefully this post will be just that. :)


Probably true.

I will confirm this.

If you don't know what the phrase means, might I suggest that you look it up? You do yourself no favours by remaining willfully ignorant of such easily ascertained things.


I said I would seek clarification from a higher authority when possible. Thus your implying I remain "willfully ignorant" is wrong. Wikipedia is not the end all and be all of information you know.


No, you pretended to know the law of defamation when you clearly do not, you were proved wrong, and you didn't like it. It was never a matter of others misusing the terminology, and not being called on it. You’re just making things up, now.

This is incorrect. When I used the term "bordering on slander" to describe the actions of a group of individual towards another member of the forum, you immediately chastized me for doing so, without my asking for your professional legal opinion. It has been my observation that you have not done this to other members of this forum when they have done so.



If others misused the terminology on some other thread in which I was not involved, and/or I didn’t happen to see, I can hardly comment on it. Moreover, I am not particularly prone to correcting people on the misuse of a term, any more than I am inclined to correct their spelling, if it is not particularly relevant to the discussion at hand. I am, admittedly, a bit of a pedant, but I feel no need to correct others’ posts at every turn if it is not germane to the discussion..

Agreed.



In any event, you weren't whining about me "failing to do so with other members using the same term" - you were simply whining about the fact that you were wrong, while insisting that you were right.

That was then, this is now. I fail to see the connection you are trying to make.



No, I've never engaged in such double standards, and no, I am not wrong. As you know, I invited you to provide me with details after you alleged that a lawyer had advised you (wrongly) about the law of defamation, and you refused to do so. I also offered to speak personally to the lawyer that you allegedly spoke to, because it was obvious that the alleged advice that you'd allegedly been given was wrong, and you refused to provide the requisite information in order for that to occur. Further, I provided evidence that your unfounded assertions were wrong.

Perhaps not knowingly. As I stated before my friend did not wish to engage you any further in this matter. I cannot make him do so, nor can I provide you his phone number or email without his consent. His opinion on this matter has not changed, and for me this has been a closed case for quite some time.



Evidence? Please provide some. The truth is that you deliberately sought to continue a previous disagreement from a thread in which you were already sanctioned, by sniping at me in this thread, even though it has nothing to do with the prior thread, and for no reason other than that you are still smarting over being smacked down previously.

The evidence is in the comparison between your exchange with Willy and that of our own on prior occasions. The truth is I have no intent to dredge up this tiring issue, as I noted before it is a shut case. I was merely making the observation that you continue in your manner of speaking, with more junior members. I see it as an opportunity for you to develop new material. This has nothing to do with the proper use of the term "slander" or the WWE.



Oh, now my life is complete. :rolleyes:

I complete you? :) You had me at "Sheesh, Here we go again"



Actually, I neither like or dislike you. While your rude and obnoxious behaviour on the prior thread, and this one, may be slightly annoying, it is a mere triviality in the real world.
I respect your posts when you opine on subjects of which you have actual knowledge. I also respect your posts when you simply offer an opinion, expressed as such, without any particular knowledge of the subject matter. That is what discussion forums are all about, after all.
But I do not respect your posts when you pretend to have knowledge that you do not possess, nor when you go off on ridiculous tangents and rants on subjects of which you have no knowledge, nor when you engage in silly snark for the sake of snarking as you have done in this thread.

My sentiments exactly. I have a great respect for the body of knowledge you posess in many areas. I simply do not respect your posts where you snark at people for the sake of snarking.


Interesting. Please elaborate.

I engage in spasmodic explusion of air from my oral orfice when I read your posts from time to time.



Admittedly, your misguided posts on the topic of the law of libel and slander made me chuckle to myself. Not in a malicious way but rather in a "ohh boy, this requires some serious intervention of facts and reality" way. Your subsequent attempts to blame others for your own posts, though, did make me laugh.

My friend is of the same opinion as well. I should mention it was a topic of discussion at the water cooler in the days following our exchange. My only problem is that you guys got the chuckle and I got the infraction! :) On the plus side it was a great lesson on the process of moderation in the forums. It was a great lesson on many accounts for that matter.


Now, kwitcherbelliakin, already.

Done and done!

Sorry about butchering the last post, in some ways it was much more eloquent.

[Apollo20]

Dave:

It is my understanding that the OKC "bomb" was about as big as it could have been to fit in ONE truck. That was stated AFTER they revised the estimates of the size of the bomb to be as big as it could be and still fit in that truck.

So how could McVeigh have driven more than one truck bomb if you want your "lone gunman" theory to hold up!

Although you could, I guess, go for THREE truck bombs. One RYDER truck was driven by McVeigh, one BROWN truck by Terry Nichols and one FORD truck by John Doe 2, since these vehicles were all seen near the Murrah Building on April 19th, 1995.

And the story could be that the two guys with McVeigh didn't know they were delivering bombs... McVeigh asked them to help him move...

[Furcifer]

Dave:

It is my understanding that the OKC "bomb" was about as big as it could have been to fit in ONE truck. That was stated AFTER they revised the estimates of the size of the bomb to be as big as it could be and still fit in that truck.

So how could McVeigh have driven more than one truck bomb if you want your "lone gunman" theory to hold up!

Although you could, I guess, go for THREE truck bombs. One RYDER truck was driven by McVeigh, one BROWN truck by Terry Nichols and one FORD truck by John Doe 2, since these vehicles were all seen near the Murrah Building on April 19th, 1995.

And the story could be that the two guys with McVeigh didn't know they were delivering bombs... McVeigh asked them to help him move...


And leave only 1 crater and 1 seismic wave? (please don't make me explain transverse and longitudinal waves in a solid medium explaining the second recorded seismic event)

[A W Smith]

And leave only 1 crater and 1 seismic wave? (please don't make me explain transverse and longitudinal waves in a solid medium explaining the second recorded seismic event)


I think hes implying the three trucks were stacked upon each other to generate only one crater.

Of course he could have just rented a bigger truck

[Civilized Worm]

On the question of whether or not we should "think for ourselves" or should mostly rely on experts, I can't help but think of an example where an "expert" was ignored.


The trick is to use your own judgement to determine which experts are the most reliable. For example I am now somewhat suspicious of your own expert opinion.

[uk_dave]

Dave:

It is my understanding that the OKC "bomb" was about as big as it could have been to fit in ONE truck. That was stated AFTER they revised the estimates of the size of the bomb to be as big as it could be and still fit in that truck.

So how could McVeigh have driven more than one truck bomb if you want your "lone gunman" theory to hold up!

Although you could, I guess, go for THREE truck bombs. One RYDER truck was driven by McVeigh, one BROWN truck by Terry Nichols and one FORD truck by John Doe 2, since these vehicles were all seen near the Murrah Building on April 19th, 1995.

And the story could be that the two guys with McVeigh didn't know they were delivering bombs... McVeigh asked them to help him move...

Why not have a bigger truck? Or a different material for the bomb?

Why do the govt conspirators chose a scenario which is then easily contradicted by some explosives expert?

Or perhaps they bet on no one noticing?

Or perhaps the expert is wrong?

How did this expert come to the conclusion that the bomb couldn't have damaged the murrah building sufficient for collapse, when all it needed was to take out the column supporting the edge beam at the front of the building? The murrah designers hadn't built much redundancy into that design, had they?

[Pardalis]

So how could McVeigh have driven more than one truck bomb if you want your "lone gunman" theory to hold up!

OK, so we can add the JFK conspiracy to the list of conspiracy theories you believe in?

Man, you're like an onion of woo.

[Civilized Worm]

If he believes in something as outlandish as an AIDS conspiracy of course he's going to believe in the most socially acceptable of conspiracy theories!

[Pardalis]

No wonder he was ignored by the NIST.

[Civilized Worm]

That's cos they're all in on it maaaaan!

[Sword_Of_Truth]

On EVOLUTION I would say this: If evolution has nothing to say about the ORIGIN of life then what does it say? I am not impressed with a theory that tells me that between one variety of pigeon and another the number of ribs and vertebrae vary. Theories of evolution MUST start with an answer to the question: How did life on earth begin. As for more recent versions of Stanley Miller’s experiment, they change NOTHING! Please read what J. H. John Peat says about these kinds of experiments at truthinscience.org.uk. Simply put, science cannot explain the origin of life… not at all, not even close! Now that does NOT mean that I turn to the Bible for an answer. I simply say that the origin of life remains one of life’s mysteries.

I am not a biologist, but I do believe in the Bible. I am going to wade into the evolution debate as far as my knowledge allows. Wich I am not hesitant to admit isn't very far.

I believe that God created the Earth and all that lives upon it. I do not claim to know exactly how he did it or how long, wether it was six days or six billion years.

The primary objective of the Bible is to teach people not to kill, lie or bang their neighbors wives (even if she's really hawt). God gave us the gift of intellect and I have no problem with biologists using said gifts to figure out the stuff that Genesis (the book, not the band) gave less than half a dozen pages to.

On the subject of "Intelligent Design"; science is supposed to be about what can be detected, tested and measured. An intelligent designer is a purely philosophical concept (if not outright religious) wich cannot be measured scientifically and therefore has no place in a classroom devoted to science.

Now that I've made enemies on both sides of the fence, y'all can flame me at will.

[T.A.M.]

Apollo20:

I thought a THEORY, such as Darwins Theory of Evolution, was suppose to propose a Plausible Answer, and then attempt to show the validity of this answer through observation and repeatability. The theory is one of EVOLUTION, as far as I can see it, not a Theory on the Primordial Ooze, and what came from it.

Now if we look at evolution, it starts out with the premise that at some point, the most rudimentary forms of life were formed. Whether it be by the hand of a "god" or a streak of lightning, or a streak of lightning thrown by the hand of god, is irrelivent to the Evolution Theory.

What it then says, is that through a process of natural selection, those features within a given lifeform that help it surive longer, at least long enough to reach the stage of procreation, are selected to remain, via reproduction, while those features that inhibit reaching the age of reproduction are selected out, as the lifeform does not live long enough to pass these genes on to offspring. Hence lifeforms evolve to include genetically favorable or neutral traits, and to disclude those traits unfavorable.

Where in that theory is the discussion of the primordial ooze and those who crawled out of it.

Apollo20 said:

On EVOLUTION I would say this: If evolution has nothing to say about the ORIGIN of life then what does it say? I am not impressed with a theory that tells me that between one variety of pigeon and another the number of ribs and vertebrae vary. Theories of evolution MUST start with an answer to the question: How did life on earth begin. As for more recent versions of Stanley Miller’s experiment, they change NOTHING! Please read what J. H. John Peat says about these kinds of experiments at truthinscience.org.uk. Simply put, science cannot explain the origin of life… not at all, not even close! Now that does NOT mean that I turn to the Bible for an answer. I simply say that the origin of life remains one of life’s mysteries.

The bolded part is your opinion. You are looking for a theory on the origin of life, which the theory of evolution and natural selection is not...those who claim it is, are misinformed.

The Theory of Evolution explains the DIVERSITY of life, not the ORIGIN.

TAM:)

[Apollo20]

So,

U.K Dave, Pardalis, Civilized Worm, I take it YOU ARE ALL EXPERTS ON THE EFFECTS OF EXPLOSIVES, no doubt with degrees in physics, chemistry, and/or math.

Sorry, I thought you only had ENGLISH degrees..... I will bow to your SUPERIOR KNOWLEDGE if you can prove to me that this is true..

TAM:

Glad to know giraffes were descended from horses. (Or were they?)

Anyway, if that's the THEORY OF EVOLUTION, well great.. I stand corrected once again.

Nevertheless, I am more intrested in the ORIGIN OF LIFE.

I will keep studying that while you study EVOLUTION.

[Apollo20]

A. W. SMITH:

Where did Timothy McVeigh get his NITROMETHANE... I didn't know he was in to DRAG RACING!!!!

[T.A.M.]

lol...I do not study evolution, I am a physician. I was just clarifying...you know, discussing the issue with you.

The origin of life, is a much more complex issue, and even the most widely accepted theories, those involving a primordial broth of proteins and what not, that were given some form of electromagnetic charge, and from which sprung rudementary life, are far from proven.

But such is the way of THEORIES. We take the most likely or most probable theory, and we go with it, until something contradicts it, or something more plausible comes along.

As for the giraffe and horse issue, I believe the commonly held theory states that many differing species come from a common ancestoral species. Think of it more like a tree trunk with branches, and those branches have many branches, and so on...it is not entirely linear. My knowledge on the ancestry of horses and giraffes, is very old and dusty. I am not sure if they both have a common ancestor (most likely) or not.

given a horse is a non-ruminant herbevore, where as a giraffe is a ruminant, I suspect the two may have a common ancestor, but that the giraffe unlikely decended from the horse...but like I said, the knowledge on this is old and dusty.

TAM:)

[Hokulele]

Glad to know giraffes were descended from horses. (Or were they?)


No one claims this. Please review the concept of a common ancestor.

ETA: T.A.M. beat me to this one.

Nevertheless, I am more intrested in the ORIGIN OF LIFE.

I will keep studying that while you study EVOLUTION.


Abiogensis (origin of life) is very interesting, there is an extremely large thread on that over in the Science sub-forum right now. However, in order to fully understand how the current state of affairs on this planet came to be, you have to know more than just the starting point. The multi-variable, non-linear dynamics involved in charting how species have diverged is a fascinating study in and of itself.

Personally, I find evolution to be the more interesting subject, as it can not only tell us where we have been, but can give clues as to where we could go. :)

[Crazy Chainsaw]

A. W. SMITH:

Where did Timothy McVeigh get his NITROMETHANE... I didn't know he was in to DRAG RACING!!!!

The bomb was fuel oil with ammonium nitrate laced with I believe glycerin and sulfur.
One truck was sufficient to transport that bomb, The Ammonium nitrate was the chief explosive.
The materials weighed several tons and superseded the weight limit on the truck, if DOT had got him for over weight loading the Oklahoma City bombing could have been avoided.
They pull me over all the time for no reason, why not him.

[Jonnyclueless]

Have we ever had an open thread here? Speak what's on your mind


My cat's breath smells like cat food....



I hope there is no minimum requirement for our thoughts being useful.

[A W Smith]

A. W. SMITH:

Where did Timothy McVeigh get his NITROMETHANE... I didn't know he was in to DRAG RACING!!!!


Bought at Huston Raceway Park during an event from Angus Chemical Co (http://www.talkleft.com/story/2004/11/28/553/34751).. Three drums of it were loaded on the back of a pickup truck and driven off. paid cash. the vendor I believe was a witness during the trial. I think theres even a jpeg of the reciept somwhere online. ill go look.

EDIT: it was VP racing fuels (http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:IDDEqxPdJKAJ:www.cnn.com/US/9703/okc.trial/transcripts/december/120997.am.txt+Timothy+McVeigh+nitromethane+VP+raci ng+fuels&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us)not Angus

[Apollo20]

A. W. Smith:

Thanks... That's interesting, I did not know that! However, most sources I've seen have the OKC bomb as an ANFO device.

[PhantomWolf]

Incidentally, how does a country surrounded by water lose a sailing race to a land locked country, by 1 second! Something ain't right there...

Look at who the main five people in charge of sailing the boat were and tell me where they came from. ;)

Apollo 20:

First you brought up AIDS and when that was refuted you moaned about people attacking you and ignored the responses, then changed the subject. Next you got challenged on Waco and you waved your hands, linked to a book, and promptly changed the subject. Then it was Apollo, and again a subject change, now it's Oklahoma. Are you planning to actually stick to one topic, or are you going to keep acting like the modern day CT who never answers questions and just flees to a new topic when their beliefs are challenged?

[Furcifer]

Look at who the main five people in charge of sailing the boat were and tell me where they came from. ;)



Ha! Skipper knows the rest are ballast, nothing more!. Well that and one guy to let him know which ways the telltales are moving. :)

[PhantomWolf]

Ha! Skipper knows the rest are ballast, nothing more!. Well that and one guy to let him know which ways the telltales are moving. :)

Well the Skipper of Alinghi was Brad Butterworth. You might want to check out who he is (others of note are Dean Phipps, Warwick Fleury, Simon Daubney, and Murray Jones.)

[Corsair 115]

I believe that God created the Earth and all that lives upon it. I do not claim to know exactly how he did it or how long, wether it was six days or six billion years.The evidence overwhelmingly favours the latter number being closer to accurate rather than the former (the Earth's age is estiamted to be approximately 4.6 billion years).

[Pardalis]

So,

U.K Dave, Pardalis, Civilized Worm, I take it YOU ARE ALL EXPERTS ON THE EFFECTS OF EXPLOSIVES, no doubt with degrees in physics, chemistry, and/or math.

Sorry, I thought you only had ENGLISH degrees..... I will bow to your SUPERIOR KNOWLEDGE if you can prove to me that this is true..

I know a kook when I see one.

Nevertheless, I am more intrested in the ORIGIN OF LIFE.


Aren't we all?

[Furcifer]

Well the Skipper of Alinghi was Brad Butterworth. You might want to check out who he is (others of note are Dean Phipps, Warwick Fleury, Simon Daubney, and Murray Jones.)

Yes, Butterworth, very Swiss name indeed ;)

I love the way international sports aren't really as international as we would like to believe. That was part of the reason I brought this up. As a Canadian we see it in hockey all the time. Track and Field is another one where the atheletes never seem to be from the country they are representing. Oh figure skating, there's another one. It all really boils down to which country comes up with the passports first. (or where the boat is registered)

[Sword_Of_Truth]

The evidence overwhelmingly favours the latter number being closer to accurate rather than the former (the Earth's age is estiamted to be approximately 4.6 billion years).

If that's what geologists are claiming from having made the appropriate measurements and calculations, then so be it. I'm ok with that.

It doesn't disprove the existence of God or mean that it's suddenly ok to kill your neighbor, boff his wife and then lie to the police about it. The sunday school teacher has his job and the geology 101 prof has his and I don't see why they can't co-exist. With each one teaching something valuable.

[PhantomWolf]

Yes, Butterworth, very Swiss name indeed ;)

Heh, might sound swiss, but he was born in Te Awamutu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brad_Butterworth). However they can keep him, there is a small mob still waiting to lynch him over here.

I love the way international sports aren't really as international as we would like to believe.

Alinghi had 22 nationalities in their team, and the guy with the second biggest chequebook.

Most of Team NZ was actually made up of NewZealanders. Not counting Team NZ, there were about 50 kiwis throughout the other syndicates including a Chris Dickson (BMW Oracle) and Craig Monk (Luna Rosa)

[Corsair 115]

If that's what geologists are claiming from having made the appropriate measurements and calculations, then so be it.It isn't just geology, astronomy and physics also play their part in determining the age of the Earth and the universe as a whole. The different disciplines work together and reinforce each other.

It doesn't disprove the existence of God or mean that it's suddenly ok to kill your neighbor, boff his wife and then lie to the police about it.Of course, but I don't recall anyone making such a suggestion in this thread. I would point out that a belief in God is not necessary for one to form a code of ethics and morality which says that murder or lying is unacceptable.

[T.A.M.]

If that's what geologists are claiming from having made the appropriate measurements and calculations, then so be it. I'm ok with that.

It doesn't disprove the existence of God or mean that it's suddenly ok to kill your neighbor, boff his wife and then lie to the police about it. The sunday school teacher has his job and the geology 101 prof has his and I don't see why they can't co-exist. With each one teaching something valuable.

I think the two can, and do, exist together. Whether you believe in a god, in some form, or not, should not be the deciding factor on what type of behaviour you exhibit. I would like to think that most of humanity is good intentioned, out of the instinct that it is the right way to be. That to be kind to ones neighbour is the proper course of action, as so well described in the "golden rule".

Perhaps I am to much of an optimist...who knows.

TAM:)

[PhantomWolf]

I would point out that a belief in God is not necessary for one to form a code of ethics and morality which says that murder or lying is unacceptable.

Pity it isn't enough to stop people though, then even a belief in God doesn't always stop people, sometimes it seems to encourage them :rolleyes:

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Points well made, all three of you.

The point I am making here is that I don't feel threatened by science being taught in science classes . Nor do I feel the need to declare jihad over it.

I don't think any other believers need to feel that way either. But there are alot of them who have picked the wrong hill to fight and die on.

[T.A.M.]

Points well made, all three of you.

The point I am making here is that I don't feel threatened by science being taught in science classes . Nor do I feel the need to declare jihad over it.

I don't think any other believers need to feel that way either. But there are alot of them who have picked the wrong hill to fight and die on.

I know this is quickly becoming a derail into religion, but I think you are an example of someone who has evolved religious values. The Jihadist, however, does not. His views are to interpret literally, a book whose writings are a thousand years old. Unfortunately, the Jihadies are not alone in this approach.

TAM:)

[ref]

I have to speak my mind again.

Compiling the History of the 9/11 CT's (http://911guide.googlepages.com/history) made me further realize something (as R. Mackey also mentioned in post #6 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2758816&postcount=6)).

All CT claims are (of course) based on nonsense. Originally, when I had less idea where all this CT originated from, it was more of a blur to me what made this population think that way. Now I know.

The 9/11 conspiracy theorists try to keep on proving right all the articles written in 2001 - early 2002. They try to prove that Jared Israel was right, when he 4 days after 9/11 wrote, that something was wrong with air defences. They try to prove that Carol Valentine was right, when she 25 days after 9/11 wrote, that Global Hawks, remote controlled planes, Flight 93 shoot-downs, evidence fakeries took place, and Hani Hanjour was a bad pilot. The CT's, after 6 years, still try to prove this holocaust denier was right back in 2001. They try to prove, that Jim McMichael was right back then, when he wrote his WTC article 40 days after 9/11 about design loads, everything failing at the same time, tilting building tops and "never in the history of skyscrapers".

That is the nucleus of all 9/11 CT. Not something that took a lot of investigation, calculations, expertise, time and effort. No. The nucleus is, CT's try to prove these kooks were right back in 2001. They try to prove that a man who claims Srebrenica is a hoax, who claims the 'west' manipulated the prisoner photographs, and who attended the Manhattan High School of Music and Art is able to slam dunk NORAD stand-down in 4 days. They try to prove that a woman, who has dedicated most of her effort on holocaust denying and waco government conspiracy, who is a writer, is able to slam dunk all the evidence about planes, hijackers and shoot-downs in 25 days. They try to prove, that an unknown man who claims to be some kind of an engineer, is able to perform the WTC collapse investigations correctly in 40 days.

That's what told me, like it told R. Mackey, that all this is utter BS. The 9/11 conspiracy theories are all about proving that these non-experts and kooks were all correct without a flaw, when they did all their investigative work in a few short days back in 2001.

Thank you.

[gumboot]

I actually did think about including NZ on that list when I wrote, mostly because of how well represented the Kiwi's are in this forum. However, to include NZ would have meant including a host of other small wine producing countries. In fact Canada only made the short list because of patriotism :) NZ is an up and comer in the World of wine no doubt, and should be explored when the opportunity arises.



Up and coming? Um. New Zealand wines have been winning gold medals the world over for decades. The five mile strip either side of the Wairau River in Marlborough produces what is widely considered the best Sauvignon Blanc in the world.




Incidentally, how does a country surrounded by water lose a sailing race to a land locked country, by 1 second! Something ain't right there...

$$$

-Gumboot

[gumboot]

So,

U.K Dave, Pardalis, Civilized Worm, I take it YOU ARE ALL EXPERTS ON THE EFFECTS OF EXPLOSIVES, no doubt with degrees in physics, chemistry, and/or math.



One does not need to be an expert in explosives to appreciate that a truck can carry more than 2,300kg.

We can pretty safely assume they could have used one truck to position a bomb anywhere from this size (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/df/Road_Train_Australia.jpg) down.

Thus no need for multiple trucks. All this basic process of logic requires is a mostly functioning brain.

-Gumboot

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Up and coming? Um. New Zealand wines have been winning gold medals the world over for decades. The five mile strip either side of the Wairau River in Marlborough produces what is widely considered the best Sauvignon Blanc in the world.





$$$

-Gumboot

Watch out for Kentucky, our wines are little known except to the Gourmet market. Plus we have shrimp and Caviar to go with them.
http://www.kyagpolicy.com/newsletter/kadfu_070301_Vol6_Issue1.pdf

[Apollo20]

I have been accused of changing topics when I have been allegedly debunked. Nonsense! I haven't seen a serious debunking of what I said about AIDS, Oklahoma, Waco, Agent Orange, Atomic Weapons Testing, The Tuskegee Experiment, The Origin of Life.... At best, I get some statement or quote that offers some alternative OPINION and usually doesn't address my point at all! (I will say that my Apollo 11 O2 consumption issue was VERY WELL addressed, and I stand corrected on that.) However, I change the subject after most responses because I don't want to get into exchanging quotes back and forth and back and forth..... This will prove NOTHING other than who has the most patience. In fact I notice this is a well-worn JREFer tactic: offer one contradictory statement to a post that questions the official PARTY line and then claim victory in the debate... What a joke! Then, of course, follow-up with the usual CRAP/DRIVEL about all conspiracy theorists being NUTS.. Not very thoughtful, original, impressive or convincing of anything. And when I question folk's credentials... well, who starts changing the subject. By the way, am I to believe a TOUR GUIDE over an ex-military explosives EXPERT when if comes to the OKC bombing? And its hilarious to watch all the unqualified JREFers delving into high-level PHYSICS and CHEMISTRY..... Google on McDuff!

As I said before, you guys are SOooooo predictable and SOooooo silly.... it's funny to watch really!

Woo INDEED!

[gumboot]

I have been accused of changing topics when I have been allegedly debunked. Nonsense! I haven't seen a serious debunking of what I said about AIDS, Oklahoma, Waco, Agent Orange, Atomic Weapons Testing, The Tuskegee Experiment, The Origin of Life.... At best, I get some statement or quote that offers some alternative OPINION and usually doesn't address my point at all! (I will say that my Apollo 11 O2 consumption issue was VERY WELL addressed, and I stand corrected on that.) However, I change the subject after most responses because I don't want to get into exchanging quotes back and forth and back and forth..... This will prove NOTHING other than who has the most patience. In fact I notice this is a well-worn JREFer tactic: offer one contradictory statement to a post that questions the official PARTY line and then claim victory in the debate... What a joke! Then, of course, follow-up with the usual CRAP/DRIVEL about all conspiracy theorists being NUTS.. Not very thoughtful, original, impressive or convincing of anything. And when I question folk's credentials... well, who starts changing the subject. By the way, am I to believe a TOUR GUIDE over an ex-military explosives EXPERT when if comes to the OKC bombing? And its hilarious to watch all the unqualified JREFers delving into high-level PHYSICS and CHEMISTRY..... Google on McDuff!

As I said before, you guys are SOooooo predictable and SOooooo silly.... it's funny to watch really!

Woo INDEED!



Sometimes I wonder if there's some sort of "CT filter" feature with JREF that I'm unaware of. It honestly seems like some people are reading a different forum to me.

-Gumboot

[T.A.M.]

Apollo:

There you go again. This time it is the bitter, angered Dr.Greening. I do not know what to make of you. We should nickname you "Enigma20". I feel I offered you alot of counter articles from experts on Aspartame, but in the end you chose to believe that all of those associations were in on the scam (Diabetes association, MS society, AAFP, etc...).

TAM:)

[ref]

Frank,

If a tour guide says 2+2=4 and a math professor says 2+2=5, who do you believe? That's a very simplified example of the point in hand.

When it comes to 9/11, we have had people who call themselves architects and engineers (Gordon Ross, Richard Gage) trying to prove that WTC was demolished. We have had a tour guide saying it was not demolished, with substantial amounts of evidence backing up his point. Who do you believe?

Same thinking applies to anything. It's not all about the credentials. You yourself don't like NIST, but they are the qualified experts investigating the collapses. Why don't you believe them? It's sometimes hard to follow your thinking, to be honest.

[grmcdorman]

I have been accused of changing topics when I have been allegedly debunked. Nonsense! I haven't seen a serious debunking of what I said about AIDS, Oklahoma, Waco, Agent Orange, Atomic Weapons Testing, The Tuskegee Experiment, The Origin of Life.... At best, I get some statement or quote that offers some alternative OPINION and usually doesn't address my point at all!

I'd suggest, in addition to T.A.M.'s statement that you didn't seem to accept his rebuttals on aspartame, that part of this is because of two things: your initial posts on these topics often consist solely of assertions with little reasoning or facts to support them and 2) you're using a scatter-shot approach by posting so many topics.

For the high-altitude atomic weapons testing, patience. I'm collecting information with the help of the folks at ApolloHoax, notably JayUtah. You should see a more detailed response soon.

For the Columbia disaster, I'm not really into researching that issue (or starting a thread at BAUT to get help there); one topic is enough for me.

For the origin of life, the problem there is that you started with evolutionary theory, which is connected - but not the same thing. Several posters pointed that out; I'm not sure that you ever accepted that. (Talkorigins.org has a whole section on abiogenisis, by the way.)

(I will say that my Apollo 11 O2 consumption issue was VERY WELL addressed, and I stand corrected on that.)Thank you. Note, by the way, that that post of yours was both detailed and contained specific facts that could be checked - unlike some of the others.

However, I change the subject after most responses because I don't want to get into exchanging quotes back and forth and back and forth..... This will prove NOTHING other than who has the most patience. In fact I notice this is a well-worn JREFer tactic: offer one contradictory statement to a post that questions the official PARTY line and then claim victory in the debate... What a joke!Some people do that, yes. Others offer sourced facts. Often the opposing poster (usually a CTer) ignores the response or simply denies the fact. Mind you, for a lot of the 9/11 discussion, it's all about quotes, as in many cases it's eyewitness accounts that are involved (e.g. the current thread on Susan McElwein).

Then, of course, follow-up with the usual CRAP/DRIVEL about all conspiracy theorists being NUTS..Do you think Ace Baker is not nuts? Christophera?

Not very thoughtful, original, impressive or convincing of anything. And when I question folk's credentials... well, who starts changing the subject. By the way, am I to believe a TOUR GUIDE over an ex-military explosives EXPERT when if comes to the OKC bombing?No, you're to believe the facts. The bulk of the evidence contradicts your ex-military explosives expert, so he's either mistaken or has some other agenda. Gravy generally backs up his assertions with sources. To use my response to your Apollo 11 O2 post as an example, I am neither an engineer nor an Apollo expert - I'm a software developer currently working for a medical imaging firm. I was able to show the flaw in your argument with research and sourced facts; here, it is not unknown for posters to do that - Gravy, to name one, often does that.

And its hilarious to watch all the unqualified JREFers delving into high-level PHYSICS and CHEMISTRY..... Google on McDuff!Some do, yes. Some don't, and there are very qualified posters here in virtually every domain.

As I said before, you guys are SOooooo predictable and SOooooo silly.... it's funny to watch really!

Woo INDEED!Well, I'm glad the group amuses you.

[Revolutionary91]

I'd suggest, in addition to T.A.M.'s statement that you didn't seem to accept his rebuttals on aspartame, that part of this is because of two things: your initial posts on these topics often consist solely of assertions with little reasoning or facts to support them and 2) you're using a scatter-shot approach by posting so many topics.

For the high-altitude atomic weapons testing, patience. I'm collecting information with the help of the folks at ApolloHoax, notably JayUtah. You should see a more detailed response soon.

For the Columbia disaster, I'm not really into researching that issue (or starting a thread at BAUT to get help there); one topic is enough for me.

For the origin of life, the problem there is that you started with evolutionary theory, which is connected - but not the same thing. Several posters pointed that out; I'm not sure that you ever accepted that. (Talkorigins.org has a whole section on abiogenisis, by the way.)

Thank you. Note, by the way, that that post of yours was both detailed and contained specific facts that could be checked - unlike some of the others.

Some people do that, yes. Others offer sourced facts. Often the opposing poster (usually a CTer) ignores the response or simply denies the fact. Mind you, for a lot of the 9/11 discussion, it's all about quotes, as in many cases it's eyewitness accounts that are involved (e.g. the current thread on Susan McElwein).

Do you think Ace Baker is not nuts? Christophera?

No, you're to believe the facts. The bulk of the evidence contradicts your ex-military explosives expert, so he's either mistaken or has some other agenda. Gravy generally backs up his assertions with sources. To use my response to your Apollo 11 O2 post as an example, I am neither an engineer nor an Apollo expert - I'm a software developer currently working for a medical imaging firm. I was able to show the flaw in your argument with research and sourced facts; here, it is not unknown for posters to do that - Gravy, to name one, often does that.

Some do, yes. Some don't, and there are very qualified posters here in virtually every domain.

Well, I'm glad the group amuses you.

Could you please list these qualified people. The only 2 heavy duty scientists on here are Mackey and Greening, and we all know what Greening thinks of JREF.

[Horatius]

Could you please list these qualified people. The only 2 heavy duty scientists on here are Mackey and Greening, and we all know what Greening thinks of JREF.

Here's a good summary:


http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2719481#post2719481

[Mobyseven]

Here's a good summary:


http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2719481#post2719481

Haha! I knew that list would come in handy some day!

[T.A.M.]

I will update the list and post a new one soon.

TAM:)

[William Rea]

I have been accused of changing topics when I have been allegedly debunked. Nonsense! I haven't seen a serious debunking of what I said about AIDS, Oklahoma, Waco, Agent Orange, Atomic Weapons Testing, The Tuskegee Experiment, The Origin of Life.... At best, I get some statement or quote that offers some alternative OPINION and usually doesn't address my point at all! (I will say that my Apollo 11 O2 consumption issue was VERY WELL addressed, and I stand corrected on that.) However, I change the subject after most responses because I don't want to get into exchanging quotes back and forth and back and forth..... This will prove NOTHING other than who has the most patience. In fact I notice this is a well-worn JREFer tactic: offer one contradictory statement to a post that questions the official PARTY line and then claim victory in the debate... What a joke! Then, of course, follow-up with the usual CRAP/DRIVEL about all conspiracy theorists being NUTS.. Not very thoughtful, original, impressive or convincing of anything. And when I question folk's credentials... well, who starts changing the subject. By the way, am I to believe a TOUR GUIDE over an ex-military explosives EXPERT when if comes to the OKC bombing? And its hilarious to watch all the unqualified JREFers delving into high-level PHYSICS and CHEMISTRY..... Google on McDuff!

As I said before, you guys are SOooooo predictable and SOooooo silly.... it's funny to watch really!

Woo INDEED!

It keeps me amused when I'm having a break from the real world as well, nice to have someone else on board who appreciates the absurdity of it.

[Revolutionary91]

It keeps me amused when I'm having a break from the real world as well, nice to have someone else on board who appreciates the absurdity of it.

It does remind me of the Python dead parrot sketch sometimes.

[Revolutionary91]

Here's a good summary:


http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2719481#post2719481

First off, none of those qualifications are on the level Greening is on. Most are irrelevant, and even the relevant ones aren't backed up with documentation.

LOL at:

MBA with an emphasis in Marketing and Consumer Behavior.

MG1962:
1. Experience with Building Materials

Arkan Wolfshade:
1. 12 credits shy of BS in Computer science

Brainster:
1. Spreadsheet Analyst

Boloboffin:
1. BA Bible studies
2. 2 years Graduate training - Christian Theology

parky76:
1. Bachelors Degree - Geography

[Pardalis]

Why should I waste my time with someone who denies evolution, of all things? :rolleyes:

[Ranb]

.....As I said before, you guys are SOooooo predictable and SOooooo silly.... it's funny to watch really!

Woo INDEED!

Interesting. I thought it was silly that you claim another person's theory should conform to your ideas.

Ranb

[Revolutionary91]

Quoted remark removed.

Reported. Thats the 3rd creepy sexual comment I have had to report today.

[Furcifer]

Watch out for Kentucky, our wines are little known except to the Gourmet market. Plus we have shrimp and Caviar to go with them.
http://www.kyagpolicy.com/newsletter/kadfu_070301_Vol6_Issue1.pdf

I've had Kentucky wine, it came in a clear jug, was clear, and made me go blind. :)

[Pardalis]

Reported. Thats the 3rd creepy sexual comment I have had to report today.

Sebum has nothing to do with sex, and not getting laid either.

[T.A.M.]

Rev:

You are intentionally provoking hostility with your comments.

That list is a pretty long list, and it was a list made to provide the educational and experience backgrounds of the debunkers here, regardless of its direct relation to 9/11. Some are accountants, I am a physician, Pomeroo is a talk show host. In amongst there, however, are alot of people who are qualified.

Dr. Greening is a chemist. How does this qualify him to talk about structural collapse? I am not saying he can't, but how do his educational credentials lend to this.

DRG is a Theology PhD, which has NOTHING TO DO with 9/11. Fetzer is a Philosophy PhD.

trust me, if I were to take the scholars listed at the scholars site, and break it down, it would be pretty week.

And as others have said, you are far from someone to be commenting this way on educational background.

TAM:)

[Horatius]

First off, none of those qualifications are on the level Greening is on. Most are irrelevant, and even the relevant ones aren't backed up with documentation.

LOL at:

MBA with an emphasis in Marketing and Consumer Behavior.

MG1962:
1. Experience with Building Materials

Arkan Wolfshade:
1. 12 credits shy of BS in Computer science

Brainster:
1. Spreadsheet Analyst

Boloboffin:
1. BA Bible studies
2. 2 years Graduate training - Christian Theology

parky76:
1. Bachelors Degree - Geography



Yep, I knew you'd just ignore the engineers, architects and scientists to focus on the others. What might such a lsit from any of the popular CT sites look like, do you think?

And as for people on Greening's level, well you missed:

Mercutio:
1. PhD Experimental (Social) Psychology
2. Coursework in everything from visual perception to historiography to behaviorism.
3. Areas of expertise include experimental design in social cognition (e.g., how to guard against confirmation bias), visual perception (including visual illusions), eyewitness reliability (and known influences on reliability)


MikeW:
1. PhD Software Engineering
2. Freelance writer

Dave Rogers:
1. PhD - Physics 20+ years expeience in semiconductors/photonics

Mr.D:
1. BSc - Physics
2. Msc - Physics
3. PhD - Physics (in progress)


And those are just the ones who listed PhDs. Add in the BScs, MScs, and other technical degrees, and you've got a pretty serious collection of knowledgeable people that spans almost the entire range of topics found in 9/11 CTs - From science to economics to military to politics to film and back.

But of course, you'll just ignore all that, won't you?

Also note, this isn't a complete list of everybody, as you'll note RMackey isn't included. I'm sure there are others who didn't volunteer to have their qualifications listed, for any of several possible reasons.

[T.A.M.]

Sebum is skin related, and has nothing to do with a sexual reference.

TAM:)

[grmcdorman]

First off, none of those qualifications are on the level Greening is on. Most are irrelevant, and even the relevant ones aren't backed up with documentation.The missing documentation would be because many, if not most, of the posters don't want to publicize their identity (little things like hate mail and spam, not to mention a desire for privacy). Even I did not back up the credentials I posted in that thread.

Regardless, there are two areas that useful in these discussions. One, as you imply, is relevant domain expertise - something you (and I, for the most part) lack. The other is the ability to research (and that includes the ability to tell what are valid sources, and what are spurious or suspect). With care, almost anyone can learn to do good research. (Incidentally, research skills are often formally taught at the university/college level, since all too often incoming students have problems with them.) Based on information posted, there are quite a number of posters here who have good research skills - and that skill is not at all correlated with their domain expertise. Often, in fact, the good researchers can contribute as much or more than those with the domain expertise.

ETA: In some cases - was it T.A.M.? I don't recall exactly - posters have provided, privately, documentation to the forum mods to validate their identity and profession. However, unless this is clearly required by the discussion at hand it is a bit too involved for people to do (and I doubt the mods would want to do it on a routine basis, anyway).

[Dave Rogers]

First off, none of those qualifications are on the level Greening is on.

What exactly would you describe as the level Dr. Greening is on? No offence meant, Dr. Greening, I'd just be interested to know why Rev91 feels that your level of qualification is so extraordinarily high as to automatically invalidate the opinions of the rest of us with a doctorate and decades of practical experience.

Most are irrelevant, and even the relevant ones aren't backed up with documentation.

You've highlighted 5 people and 6 qualifications out of a list of 86 people and 192 qualifications. Hardly "most". Perhaps you'd like to back up your claim with a list of exactly which qualifications are irrelevant, and why. Be sure not to miss any out; I'll be expecting to see at least 97 justified as irrelevant. You can even start with mine for free.

And your qualifications are?

Dave

[T.A.M.]

There are many who have not listed their credentials, that post here regularly, who are 9/11 debunkers, who are very qualified. The list is voluntary.

I applaud Dr. Greening for having the courage to make his name public, but many of us realize that the Jackchit's of the world, and the John Conners/Mark Dices, and the Luke's of the world, would love nothing more than to get their hands on the private details of some people here so they could harrass and hound us to the ends of insanity.

Just as we do not demand or expect to know your name and address, etc..., you should respect others rights for the same Rev.

TAM:)

[Pardalis]

You know what Revolutionary91, I was out of line and I apologize for my comment.

I just think at your age you should worry about other things than conspiracy theories and silly "revolutions".

[Revolutionary91]

You know what Revolutionary91, I was out of line and I apologize for my comment.

I just think at your age you should worry about other things than conspiracy theories and silly "revolutions".

I think it is good that young people are interested in world affairs rather than just getting laid. Apology accepted.

[T.A.M.]

Now see Rev, you reported the post and it was removed, and the poster apologized. That is what grown ups do. However, given you claim to have put me on ignore because I dared to report an inappropriate post that ANOTHER poster made, you probably won't even read this...oh well.

TAM:)

[Furcifer]

And its hilarious to watch all the unqualified JREFers delving into high-level PHYSICS and CHEMISTRY..... Google on McDuff!


What? Perhaps there was some high level Chemistry, I'm not sure. But physics? You can't get any more low level than Newtonian Mechanics. I have yet to see any threads like "Gravitational Effects and Time Dialation: A Relativistic Approach to the WTC Collapse"
"Vector K-Mesons and Radiative Decay Effects on Structural Steel"
"First Responders and Alpha Particles, LOLZ"

I think you meant "high school level PHYSICS and CHEMISTRY"

[Pardalis]

I think it is good that young people are interested in world affairs rather than just getting laid.

You should be more critical of what you read, I get the feeling you've seen one too many conspiracy sites and they have made an impression on you. But you know what? That's what they do.

They have such an appeal because of their shock value, they reveal things no one is supposed to know, there's the underground aspect that appeals to people, especially young rebels like you. ;) Of course Loose Change is shocking to anyone who sees it, it's unimaginable what they are implying, and they present it in such a way that it does for a moment make you ponder.

And especially these days with such a despised US administration and a volatile world, people let their guards down and tend to accept these theories more easily. The war in Iraq is awful so it's natural for people to demand answers, and sometimes the answers are not clear cut. But if you look at these theories critically, they are mostly bunk, they constantly use logical fallacies and often downright lies.

Dr. Greening may have more credentials than many of us here, including myself, but the number of conspiracies he endorses that have been proven false is staggering.

Also, at the core of these conspiracies there lies very often antisemitism, and believe me, you don't want to go there.

[BeAChooser]

By the way, am I to believe a TOUR GUIDE over an ex-military explosives EXPERT when if comes to the OKC bombing?

You know, of course, that your expert (General Partin) said the collapse of the WTC towers was NOT a CD. In fact, he said "the claims that the explosions and fires would not have generated enough heat to cause the building to collapse are nonsense." He said "steel doesn't have to 'melt' as some of these people claim. The yield strength of steel drops very dramatically under heat, and the impact of the airliners would have severely impacted the support columns. When they could no longer support the upper stories and the top started coming down, the dynamic loading caused a very rapid collapse, or 'pancaking,' that would have very nearly approached free-fall rate. No demolition charges were needed to accomplish this." Do you doubt him?

[Furcifer]

Rev91: I know what you are saying about qualifications and relavance to the discussion at hand but the one thing you need to consider, and we all need to consider, is that most people never directly apply their degrees to the work they do. A degree says more to the effect of "Hey look how well I can understand the subject if I put my mind to it" than "I am an authority on the matter". A two year Diploma on Construction Design is way more qualified than a PhD Physics in a lot of areas we discuss. It's more about demonstrating your knowledge and ability to understand here than merely touting your credentials.

[T.A.M.]

3body:

exactly. the list of qualifications for JREFers was done, mainly, so that those who visit here, realize that most of the debunkers here are educated individuals, not junior highschoolers or highschoolers. Now I have met alot of bright teens, I am not calling them stupid, I am merely indicating they often lack the wisdom and world experience that only time, and to a degree, an education beyond Highschool, often brings.

TAM:)

[uk_dave]

3body:

exactly. the list of qualifications for JREFers was done, mainly, so that those who visit here, realize that most of the debunkers here are educated individuals, not junior highschoolers or highschoolers. Now I have met alot of bright teens, I am not calling them stupid, I am merely indicating they often lack the wisdom and world experience that only time, and to a degree, an education beyond Highschool, often brings.

TAM:)

Yes you are! You said they can't even tie their own shoelaces or read an analogue clock!! :D

You'd never catch me being so disrespectful to the snotty nosed little tykes. :cool:

[Furcifer]

3body:

exactly. the list of qualifications for JREFers was done, mainly, so that those who visit here, realize that most of the debunkers here are educated individuals, not junior highschoolers or highschoolers. Now I have met alot of bright teens, I am not calling them stupid, I am merely indicating they often lack the wisdom and world experience that only time, and to a degree, an education beyond Highschool, often brings.

TAM:)

You know I'll even go so far as to say I was smarter in some areas when I was a teen than I am now. I mean come on, who the heck remembers how to solve differential equations? Not me, but a few years ago the Bazant paper would have been a piece of cake. These days I have trouble balancing a cheque book, seems like I have a tendancy to carry the 1 when there is no 1 to carry :(

[William Rea]

What? Perhaps there was some high level Chemistry, I'm not sure. But physics? You can't get any more low level than Newtonian Mechanics. I have yet to see any threads like "Gravitational Effects and Time Dialation: A Relativistic Approach to the WTC Collapse"
"Vector K-Mesons and Radiative Decay Effects on Structural Steel"
"First Responders and Alpha Particles, LOLZ"

I think you meant "high school level PHYSICS and CHEMISTRY"

Now you've (rule8)ed me off with that! ;)

It doesn't get higher level just because things go Relativistic, Electromagnetic or Sub-atomic! There's high level stuff going on at the Newtonian Mechanics level as well.

[Pardalis]

Revolutionary91, here are a few link you might find usefull, they might help you get a critical view of the conspiracy claims and other outlandish pseudoscience claims in general. I'm not saying to dismiss them necessarily, but they often use the same logical fallacies and rhetoric, these links might help you to recognize them:

http://www.skeptic.com/
http://www.csicop.org/
http://www.criticalthinking.org/
http://www.denialism.com/2007/03/what-is-denialism.html
http://www.theskepticsguide.org/
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/index.html
http://www.randi.org/

and here's a fennec grooming himself:
8lhx0r2N0dw&NR=1
:D

[Civilized Worm]

So,

U.K Dave, Pardalis, Civilized Worm, I take it YOU ARE ALL EXPERTS ON THE EFFECTS OF EXPLOSIVES, no doubt with degrees in physics, chemistry, and/or math.

Sorry, I thought you only had ENGLISH degrees..... I will bow to your SUPERIOR KNOWLEDGE if you can prove to me that this is true..


When did I even mention explosives? I am however an expert in spotting woo woo.


TAM:

Glad to know giraffes were descended from horses. (Or were they?)

Anyway, if that's the THEORY OF EVOLUTION, well great.. I stand corrected once again.


You seem to have got all your ideas about evolution from creationist propaganda. If I were you I would familiarise myself with the works of genuine evolutionary biologists before you embaress yourself again.


Nevertheless, I am more intrested in the ORIGIN OF LIFE.

I will keep studying that while you study EVOLUTION.


And how will you be doing that? Reading the Bible?


The sunday school teacher has his job and the geology 101 prof has his and I don't see why they can't co-exist. With each one teaching something valuable.


What does a sunday school teacher have to say that even approaches the value of geology?

[SezMe]

Also note, this isn't a complete list of everybody, as you'll note RMackey isn't included. I'm sure there are others who didn't volunteer to have their qualifications listed, for any of several possible reasons.

Holy Jesus on a pogo stick. Little did I know that we were playing the stupid degrees game. I hate it but I don't want to cede to the other side so add me:

SezMe: Phud in Applied Mathematics. Career in mathematical modeling, mostly environmental.

ETA: One of my more interesting projects was analyzing the effects on home runs by the air conditioning in the Astrodome.

[Furcifer]

Holy Jesus on a pogo stick. Little did I know that we were playing the stupid degrees game. I hate it but I don't want to cede to the other side so add me:

SezMe: Phud in Applied Mathematics. Career in mathematical modeling, mostly environmental.

Holy Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick.

[Furcifer]

Now you've (rule8)ed me off with that! ;)

It doesn't get higher level just because things go Relativistic, Electromagnetic or Sub-atomic! There's high level stuff going on at the Newtonian Mechanics level as well.


Puh Leez! 350 years of undergraduate homework has exhausted Newtonian Mechanics Everything Newtonian has already been done. :p


All the cool physicists are doing field theory anyways ;)

[T.A.M.]

Holy Jesus on a pogo stick. Little did I know that we were playing the stupid degrees game. I hate it but I don't want to cede to the other side so add me:

SezMe: Phud in Applied Mathematics. Career in mathematical modeling, mostly environmental.

ETA: One of my more interesting projects was analyzing the effects on home runs by the air conditioning in the Astrodome.

I collected the data, so those who come here realize we are not a bunch of teens playing "debating 101", but rather a collection of articulate and educated individuals. While our posts tend to tell most this, it is nice to have a list. As well, it does show that we have a wide variety of people with various areas of expertese, some relevent, some not.

I have added you to the list, and it will be seen with the next posting (probably August unless I get a big influx of info).

TAM:)

[William Rea]

Puh Leez! 350 years of undergraduate homework has exhausted Newtonian Mechanics Everything Newtonian has already been done. :p


All the cool physicists are doing field theory anyways ;)

Back atcha! :p

[PhantomWolf]

I have been accused of changing topics when I have been allegedly debunked. Nonsense! I haven't seen a serious debunking of what I said about AIDS, Oklahoma, Waco, Agent Orange, Atomic Weapons Testing, The Tuskegee Experiment, The Origin of Life.... At best, I get some statement or quote that offers some alternative OPINION and usually doesn't address my point at all! (I will say that my Apollo 11 O2 consumption issue was VERY WELL addressed, and I stand corrected on that.) [Snip childish ranting]

Lets take then one at a time shall we?

AIDS

Your claim was that it could have been created in the late 1960's, early 70's. Do you accept that people have posted, with journal referances, that HIV was found in blood serum from a case in 1959, and that genetic tracing has pointed to a separation from SIV in the 1920-30's with an introduction into Humans around the late 1930's early 1940's?

We can discuss the others after you accept that you are wrong in this, or provide evidence that counters the pervious research into the disease.

[MIKILLINI]

I do not have any credentials that would be certified as a degree, but thru My 28 years of always reading various subjects, 28 years of having worked on farm operations, factory shop floors, oil rigs, crane rigging, metal working, woodworking, welding, cutting, auto repair, auto body repair, construction, equipment operation, these experiences have taught Me a great deal. But in this forum I have learned a great deal more; The technical aspects I gain by reading through these threads gives me more knowledge. My working experience helps to understand technical applications more easily, but reading through the experience of others here in their own area of expertise educates Me a tremendously.

[beachnut]

I do not have any credentials that would be certified as a degree, but thru My 28 years of always reading various subjects, 28 years of having worked on farm operations, factory shop floors, oil rigs, crane rigging, metal working, woodworking, welding, cutting, auto repair, auto body repair, construction, equipment operation, these experiences have taught Me a great deal. But in this forum I have learned a great deal more; The technical aspects I gain by reading through these threads gives me more knowledge. My working experience helps to understand technical applications more easily, but reading through the experience of others here in their own area of expertise educates Me a tremendously.
You do not need a degree to make money, lots of money, or to think logically and rationally.

[Alt+F4]

You do not need a degree to make money, lots of money, or to think logically and rationally.

I agree with you 100%.

[R.Mackey]

Also note, this isn't a complete list of everybody, as you'll note RMackey isn't included. I'm sure there are others who didn't volunteer to have their qualifications listed, for any of several possible reasons.

In case anyone wondered, I haven't added my credentials to that list because (a) there's no need -- the depth of knowledgeable individuals here is extraordinary -- and (b) I always try to avoid the argument from authority. Yes, I have degrees in science and engineering. Yes, I work for one of the premier research institutions in the world. No, that does not make me infallible. Examine the argument, not the arguer.

Besides, it is a simple matter to find my resume and CV on-line anyway, if someone wanted. Some time ago a poster on the Loose Change forums did exactly that (to their sorrow), hoping to find that I'd falsified my record, but instead verifying my claims. Beware, evil-doers!

[T.A.M.]

ANd let it be noted I have never pressed an individual debunker for their credentials either. The list was made voluntary, and was organized into a list because a large number of people had posted their credentials, and I find lists handier than wading through tonnes of threads for the info, should it ever be requested, as it was by Rev on this occasion.

TAM;)

[Hokulele]

In case anyone wondered <snip>


I am just wondering why you are allowing NWO Kitty to play paintball with something that is clearly not a paintball gun!

[T.A.M.]

Yes, I have degrees in science and engineering. Yes, I work for one of the premier research institutions in the world. No, that does not make me infallible.

No, just an NWO Shill....

TAM;)

[R.Mackey]

It's a Toon Gun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Rabbit). It only kills people if it'd be funny.

Besides, you ever try to disarm a cat? Ain't happening.

[Corsair 115]

ETA: One of my more interesting projects was analyzing the effects on home runs by the air conditioning in the Astrodome. I can think of a couple of web sites which would be interested in that sort of thing.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

What does a sunday school teacher have to say that even approaches the value of geology?

They're quite useful for pissing off evangelical atheists and keeping them off balance.

[Brainache]

They're quite useful for pissing off evangelical atheists and keeping them off balance.

They are also quite effective at teaching young children to accept things on faith and not to seek evidence.

And (from memory) they usually have hairy legs.

[Civilized Worm]

Sunday school pissed me off when I was young and believed in it. The sermons may have been just as tedious but at least it was possible to fall asleep without being noticed.

I take it you don't have a proper answer then?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Brainache - There's never been any hard evidence that proves or disproves Gods existence. Both positions are taken on faith.

Wich is why I agree with most of you guys that Intelligent Design doesn't belong in science classrooms. The "Intelligent Designer" can't be subjected to the scientific method, ergo it has nothing to do with science.

CW - Cranky evangelical types, be they Christian, atheist or other, are all but impossible to satisfy. So aside from occasional chain-yanking, I don't bother wasting my time with them.

[Brainache]

Brainache - There's never been any hard evidence that proves or disproves Gods existence. Both positions are taken on faith.

The problem with this argument has something to do with probability. Richard Dawkins has a bit to say about it in his book (The God Delusion). It's the old orbiting Teapot argument. I can't disprove the idea of a teapot orbiting Saturn, but there is no reason why I should believe in it either. Just because there may be many large institutions devoted to the idea of space-born infusion vehicles is no proof of them. To say that their existence is equally as probable as their non-existence is a fallacy (equivocation?).


Wich is why I agree with most of you guys that Intelligent Design doesn't belong in science classrooms. The "Intelligent Designer" can't be subjected to the scientific method, ergo it has nothing to do with science.

Agreed. But as I said before, the problem with Sunday School is teaching kids that faith is a valid means of gaining knowledge or that problems can be solved by prayer. So kids are forced to choose between faith and science or else use double think. Some things are true in Scripture Class and a whole different set of things are true in Science Class.

Oh well I'm way off topic here so I'll say this: Religion is a conspiracy! Churches make money by telling lies to kids and threatening eternal violence.


CW - Cranky evangelical types, be they Christian, atheist or other, are all but impossible to satisfy. So aside from occasional chain-yanking, I don't bother wasting my time with them.

Consider my chain yanked.

[Civilized Worm]

CW - Cranky evangelical types, be they Christian, atheist or other, are all but impossible to satisfy. So aside from occasional chain-yanking, I don't bother wasting my time with them.


Well then why spend so much time fighting conspiracy theorists? Why don't their beliefs deserve respect? Why is it that when I mock conspiracy theorists then I'm a debunker who's fighting the good fight, but any jibe against religion makes me an "evangelical atheist"?

[T.A.M.]

I think because, at least for most religions, they are benign, if not benificent organizations, which try to do good for people. Of course there are exceptions. However, I see nothing good from the CTists. The reason I leave most CTs alone (Moon Hoax, Bigfoot, etc...) is because they are harmless. the 9/11 truth CTs are far from harmless. That is the reason I, me personally, do not attack religions, but do so with the 9/11 CTs.

TAM:)

[Apollo20]

So you like to "attack" people TAM...........

Interesting confession from a physician.

[T.A.M.]

So you like to "attack" people TAM...........

Interesting confession from a physician.

I attack verbally, conversationally, when it is needed. If you think because I am a physician, that I am some sort of priest, or saint, you are mistaken. I am human like the rest. Physician is my job, my career. I do not, and never will attack my patients. What I do on my off time, or outside my clinic, is my own business.

As for confessions from physicians, if you were privvy, you'd here alot worse from others...trust me.

If you were wrongly accused of murder, without proof, without evidence, would you not want people to go after those who did the accusing, to at least call them on it, and tell them they are wrong, and that they should stop with their false accusations...that is what I meant by attacking the CTers, and you know that is what I meant.

TAM:)

[uk_dave]

And TAM has access to medications a humble physical chemist can only dream of...... and probably does if TAM has got to him first.

[Apollo20]

Oh TAM... so much holier than though verbiage.....

Don't cry for me Argentina!

[rwguinn]

Oh TAM... so much holier than though verbiage.....

Don't cry for me Argentina!

Do you actually have anything to say?



I Thought not.

[T.A.M.]

Oh TAM... so much holier than though verbiage.....

Don't cry for me Argentina!

Well, I was actually pointing out that I am human, how is that "holier than thow". I am, at heart, a good person, with a good set of morals. If knowing this makes me "holier than thow" in attitude, than I am guilty.

Oh and by the way, I may have access to meds other dream about, but Dr. Greening can make poisons assassin could only dream about...lol

TAM:)

[Apollo20]

UK DAVE:

Did you know I met Aldous Huxley and Alan Ginsberg. In fact I have Aldous Huxley's autograph that I got in Copenhagen airport back in the early 60's. We had a nice chat about MIND ALTERING DRUGS.

Who needs a Doktor when you can have a Shaman?

[Apollo20]

TAM:

Please define a "good heart"

Is that a reference to your blood pressure?

[uk_dave]

C'mon Apollo20...you're a fully fledged woo aren't you?

I mean, you read a book or two about some major event and it provides you with an alternative to the 'official account' and you go...."Yeah, I'll have some of that"

But more than that you actually use your intellect as well. How does one come around to calculating the o2 useage of the first moon landing I wonder. Is that just idle speculation, or does the speculator think he sees a chink in the armour of the establishment?

How does one decide that it would be a good idea to calculate the energy required to bring down the wtc towers? Does the speculator do so because the constant warbling of the 'truthers' is just crying out for such a smackdown? Or does the speculator decide that maybe the calcs will prove that it had to be CONTROLLED DEMOLITION, just as the speccy decided that (on the basis of a couple of books he once read) WACO was some (ill defined) govt conspiracy and aids was built in a lab and evolution doesn't really explain nuffin it don't no...so our speccy sets to work on the wtc, he calculates to the left of him, he calculates to the right of him, and into the valley of woo our hero charges.......

...only to find.....what? That his calcs don't need no damned explosives!!! Curses!!

So what is our hero to do now? Should he fudge his findings like so many woo before? Or should he run with his calcs, but make is sure and clear that there is something amiss, though he doesn't know what, but it hinges on Nist, though no one knows why, and if he had his chance...... oh but what would he do? What would our hero do if NIST came knocking at his door?

I wonder......

[T.A.M.]

TAM:

Please define a "good heart"

Is that a reference to your blood pressure?

Apollo20:

My physical heart is fine.

What do you want me to say exactly. I treat people kindly when I can, I do things for people when I can. I volunteer at many organizations, I provide care for people. Yes I get paid to do the latter, but I still do it. I do not steal, I do not lie.

Like all human beings, I have my faults. I am quick to temper, and I am quick to judgement. I have no time for BS, and I have less time for people who for no other reason than their inner bias, want to see men hang with little to no evidence to put them in the gallows.

So is this your attempt analyze me, because you feel I have been analyzing you?

TAM:)

[Apollo20]

UK DAVE:

I am flattered that you would spend so much time THINKING ABOUT ME...

[Mince]

I just farted. (tee hee)

Discuss.











hey, open thread, right?

[uk_dave]

UK DAVE:

I am flattered that you would spend so much time THINKING ABOUT ME...

It didn't take very long

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I just farted. (tee hee)

Discuss.

hey, open thread, right?

Why are the softest turds the ones that hurt the most?

[TobiasTheViking]

i'm not gay

:gayflag:

[TobiasTheViking]

HEY.... :cry1

[Calcas]

Our resident 15 year old twoofer is farther off the deep end than I thought.

Poor kid.

posted by Revolutionary91@lcf

"say we need to prepare guys. Set up someplace to meet when this all goes down. My dad's friend is a truther and we might go to my local 9/11 truth group's next meeting and talk it over with them. If there was ever a time to prepare the time is now."

[T.A.M.]

:(

[Hokulele]

Since this is an open thread, I would just like to commend TAM on the unbelievable patience and optimism he has shown on this, and other, threads. One of the things that first stirred my respect for him was the thread started (and unfortunately, promptly trashed), asking various forumites to try and show a little restraint when dealing with new posters here. You may not hear this often enough, so "Yay TAM!"

[Horatius]

i'm not gay

:gayflag:

HEY.... :cry1



That's okay Tobias, we'll still have Vegas......

[LashL]

So you like to "attack" people TAM...........

Interesting confession from a physician.

Quote mining, misquoting, deliberate misinterpretation, and strawman building all in one short post. Just like a full fledged conspiracy loon. Well done, Frank.

[LashL]

Since this is an open thread, I would just like to commend TAM on the unbelievable patience and optimism he has shown on this, and other, threads. One of the things that first stirred my respect for him was the thread started (and unfortunately, promptly trashed), asking various forumites to try and show a little restraint when dealing with new posters here. You may not hear this often enough, so "Yay TAM!"

Seconded.

[LashL]

TAM:

Please define a "good heart"

Is that a reference to your blood pressure?

You misquoted TAM again, Frank. That's twice in two posts.

Have you been drinking a bit too much tonight?

[Pardalis]

Seconded.

Thirded. TAM is one of the nicest people around. :)

[Mince]

"The dollar is being badly devalued!" "Paper money is crashing!" "Gold is the new standard!" "Buy my gold before it's too late!"

If the dollar is being so horribly devalued and gold is now the new uber standard, why are sellers willing to trade their gold for dollars?

[MIKILLINI]

Thirded. TAM is one of the nicest people around. :)

Fourthed.:) Not farted, Tobius; 4thed :p

[gumboot]

For some reason I cannot shake an image of TAM dressed in a black evening suit, with bow tie, by the fire sipping a sherry while offering medical advice. I think it's because his every post just imbues gentleman-ness. A true sir.

-Gumboot

[Furcifer]

C'mon Apollo20...you're a fully fledged woo aren't you?

I mean, you read a book or two about some major event and it provides you with an alternative to the 'official account' and you go...."Yeah, I'll have some of that"

But more than that you actually use your intellect as well. How does one come around to calculating the o2 useage of the first moon landing I wonder. Is that just idle speculation, or does the speculator think he sees a chink in the armour of the establishment?

How does one decide that it would be a good idea to calculate the energy required to bring down the wtc towers? Does the speculator do so because the constant warbling of the 'truthers' is just crying out for such a smackdown? Or does the speculator decide that maybe the calcs will prove that it had to be CONTROLLED DEMOLITION, just as the speccy decided that (on the basis of a couple of books he once read) WACO was some (ill defined) govt conspiracy and aids was built in a lab and evolution doesn't really explain nuffin it don't no...so our speccy sets to work on the wtc, he calculates to the left of him, he calculates to the right of him, and into the valley of woo our hero charges.......

...only to find.....what? That his calcs don't need no damned explosives!!! Curses!!

So what is our hero to do now? Should he fudge his findings like so many woo before? Or should he run with his calcs, but make is sure and clear that there is something amiss, though he doesn't know what, but it hinges on Nist, though no one knows why, and if he had his chance...... oh but what would he do? What would our hero do if NIST came knocking at his door?

I wonder......

This is a very well written post.

[T.A.M.]

Thank you to those who have given me the cyber high five in appreciation. I am human, but I try my best. It is very hard at times to be patient, and not give in to the constant baiting techniques. Dr. Greening is harmless enough, but he is an Enigma to me, and that is fine...he seems to like it that way.

Rob Basalmo, who no longer posts here, but is now obsessed with bad mouthing me and Apathoid over at SLC Blog is a different persona entirely. He is harder to not begin a mouth off with, but none the less, I will not, as it would be a victory for him, and that I will try to avoid.

Gumboot:

A more accurate picture of me would be someone sitting in his lazyboy with a Molson Canadian Beer in his hands, watching the hockey or baseball game, enjoying a little R&R, but thanks for the complement.

TAM:)

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Oridginally posted by T.A.M.

A more accurate picture of me would be someone sitting in his lazyboy with a Molson Canadian Beer in his hands, watching the hockey or baseball game, enjoying a little R&R, but thanks for the complement.

That is great, here is where all the people in evening dress and bow ties were going last week.

http://www.creationmuseum.org/

[T.A.M.]

I am the last person you would find there...lol

TAM:)

[Rahne Everson]

That is great, here is where all the people in evening dress and bow ties were going last week.

http://www.creationmuseum.org/

lol

[OneRedEye]

TAM is indeed one of the nicest people around here.

uk_dave: regarding your assessment of Apollo20, the portion "Does the speculator do so because the constant warbling of the 'truthers' is just crying out for such a smackdown? Or does the speculator decide that maybe the calcs will prove that it had to be CONTROLLED DEMOLITION..." somewhat suggests that you approve of the former motivation for undertaking the analysis in question. It seems to me that both motivations display a similar lack of objectivity or at least predisposition towards a result. I'll not assume that you have a preference for the first stance unless you explicitly state so, rather assuming you employed it for contrast.

"Does the speculator do so because of a desire to better understand the mechanics of collapse? Or..." would have been the nose-up high ground, IMHO. This takes nothing away from your assessment; on that, I have no comment.

I apologize for the triviality of this point. Should I post again, I'll try to come up with something more useful and interesting.

PS I am thrilled that this forum is the first to ban me before even the first post. This tops my previous best of having posters in a Christian message board attempt to ban me for posting only Bible verses in response to the question posed by the thread topic (and the verses answered the question correctly though I didn't agree with the content).

[T.A.M.]

TAM is indeed one of the nicest people around here.

uk_dave: regarding your assessment of Apollo20, the portion "Does the speculator do so because the constant warbling of the 'truthers' is just crying out for such a smackdown? Or does the speculator decide that maybe the calcs will prove that it had to be CONTROLLED DEMOLITION..." somewhat suggests that you approve of the former motivation for undertaking the analysis in question. It seems to me that both motivations display a similar lack of objectivity or at least predisposition towards a result. I'll not assume that you have a preference for the first stance unless you explicitly state so, rather assuming you employed it for contrast.

"Does the speculator do so because of a desire to better understand the mechanics of collapse? Or..." would have been the nose-up high ground, IMHO. This takes nothing away from your assessment; on that, I have no comment.

I apologize for the triviality of this point. Should I post again, I'll try to come up with something more useful and interesting.

PS I am thrilled that this forum is the first to ban me before even the first post. This tops my previous best of having posters in a Christian message board attempt to ban me for posting only Bible verses in response to the question posed by the thread topic (and the verses answered the question correctly though I didn't agree with the content).


You do not appear banned to me...can you elaborate.

Thank you for the complement. I assume you lurked here for a while, as the complement would require reading a few of my posts, and your post count = 1.

Welcome aboard OneRedEye.

TAM:)

[OneRedEye]

Thank you for the welcome.

The word 'ban' was incorrectly used. I was refused an account, an entirely different thing (reminding me to review any post carefully next time). My chosen name was too R-rated for a PG forum. Not that I took it that way but I see how it could be - so was perfectly reasonable.

I have lurked a while. I've read thousands of posts in dozens of forums, many of them yours.

[T.A.M.]

Thanks for the explanation...I can only imagine your first choice for a username, if it involved "One Eye" and anything else...lol

TAM:)

[OneRedEye]

It was a play on the name Deepak Chopra, where the form is XChakra with X being the name of a shadowy Watergate figure.

[T.A.M.]

That is a Deep name choice, almost leaves a lump in my throat.

TAM:)

[apathoid]

Since this is an open thread, I would just like to commend TAM on the unbelievable patience and optimism he has shown on this, and other, threads. One of the things that first stirred my respect for him was the thread started (and unfortunately, promptly trashed), asking various forumites to try and show a little restraint when dealing with new posters here. You may not hear this often enough, so "Yay TAM!"

Sixthed.... :bigclap :hug6 :cheerleader4 :cheerleader3 :cheerleader1 :cheerleader5 :that one with the two beer glasses that I can't find

[OneRedEye]

hahaha... yuck

(fueling probabilistic gender/preference speculation)

[T.A.M.]

Thank you Apathoid, and my hats off to you too sir, as you have endured your share of slander, especially from Rob over at SLC lately...and you have taken it like a true gentleman as well.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

hahaha... yuck

(fueling probabilistic gender/preference speculation)

lol...I am a father of two, and straight...

It was a play on words in order to get my guess as to your name out there without being direct.

maybe i should have said...

"Leaves me wanting to kick you in the throat" rather than what I said...lol


TAM:)

[Rahne Everson]

A lucky seventh'd for TAM!