Thom Hartmann radio 9/11 debate [Archive]

The Doc

16th July 2007, 04:21 AM

Unfortunately he can't find anyone to defend the official conspiracy theory. The debunkers are obviously scared.Your leap in logic is bordering pathetic.

How do you go to the conclusion that "debunkers haven't been heard from... therefore debunkers are scared"? That would first assume that:

a) Debunkers had even heard of this challenge (which I doubt many have)
b) Debunkers had declined the challenge

So please, which debunkers have declined the challenge so far. Also, what reasons did they give.

Please, take your propaganda elsewhere.

Someone quote me on this, seeing as Rev91 ignored me as soon as I started applying pressure to his theories.

Gravy

16th July 2007, 04:23 AM

Gravy

16th July 2007, 04:25 AM

Someone quote me on this, seeing as Rev91 ignored me as soon as I started applying pressure to his theories.I'd quote you, but I'm also on ignore.

Interesting that the first two people who responded to him have put a LOT of their research in writing, and he's chosen to ignore them.

So who's afraid again?

Revolutionary91

16th July 2007, 04:28 AM

Oh dear...2 responses from people on my ignore list.

Here is some more information, which I assume is what you have asked for, in between the insults and condescension.

Hartmann tasked his producer approximately 6 months ago to find a well-known defender of the OCT to accept the terms of the debate, and not a single one would. On Friday, June 15, Hartmann renewed his challenge on air, and noted that the problem seems to lay with the OCT defenders, who won't come on the show at the same time as the skeptics, and won't take calls from the public following a few rounds of debate.
On Monday, June 18, Hartmann renewed the call again;
"I mentioned on the program a couple days ago that we tried to put together a program about 9/11 where we wanted to get on the folks from Popular Mechanics, or some variation, someone who would take the position of the 9/11 Commission... and get some representatives from the 9/11 Truth community of one of its variations, and Dave, my producer came on and said we couldn't find anybody who would come on and debate.
First of all we can't find anybody, NOBODY has contacted us (on the OCT side), and we've contacted a number of them, the magazine (Popular Mechanics) wouldn't do it... would come on and take that position, and so... to have somebody come on and say, "it was a controlled demolition", and not to have somebody on the other side say, "no, wait a minute, here", it wouldn't be a discussion, it just be... bad.
It's amazing, I've gotten several hundred emails over the last couple days in consequence of that, many of them people saying, "I'd be glad to come on", I'd be glad to debate... all of them on the conspiracy side of it...

http://www.911blogger.com/node/9431

uk_dave

16th July 2007, 04:28 AM

Don't worry, I'm sure Rev91 has read all three posts.

uk_dave

16th July 2007, 04:29 AM

DGM

16th July 2007, 04:30 AM

I'd quote you, but I'm also on ignore.

Interesting that the first two people who responded to him have put a LOT of their research in writing, and he's chosen to ignore them.

So who's afraid again?
I'm on ignore also. Make that three.

And about manning up. How about you?

Gravy

16th July 2007, 04:32 AM

Revolutionary91

16th July 2007, 04:35 AM

Gravy

16th July 2007, 04:37 AM

The Doc

16th July 2007, 04:41 AM

I am sure Ron Wieck and Gravy would have a few words about Griffin and Ryan accepting debates! They were both invited onto Hardfire, and the only reason Griffin finally accepted is because he was simply being interviewed, and not facing opposition. Even then, he is still trying to weasel his way out of it.

Now I know you are reading mine and Gravy's posts, so make sure you tell your little friends that one of us has accepted.

CptColumbo

16th July 2007, 05:28 AM

Oh dear...2 responses from people on my ignore list.

Here is some more information, which I assume is what you have asked for, in between the insults and condescension.

http://www.911blogger.com/node/9431

So where does it say who specifically was contacted, and that their reason was that they are "scared?" It seems to say that no one has responded to them from the Popular Mechanics, with no names given. As hard as it may be for people who spend much of their time on internet forums to understand, the writers for Popular Mechanics have jobs and families, and considering the amount of grief they have to endure everytime this subject comes up I can't imagine anyone being very anxious to go through it again. Unless you are willing to pay for their time (this is true for people like DRG as well), why should they waste it?

MarkyX

16th July 2007, 05:30 AM

Wait, AirAmerica was trying to host a debate?

Crap marketing is CRAP!

T.A.M.

16th July 2007, 05:56 AM

Thom Hartmann of Air America radio is trying to organize a debate on his show between CT's and debunkers. Unfortunately he can't find anyone to defend the official conspiracy theory. The debunkers are obviously scared.

Would anyone here like to man up?

Rev:

I know you are only 15, but if you are going to come here and try to argue like an adult, with adults, could you try and act a little more grown up. Noone here is afraid to debate. Most of us, unlike the CTers such as Griffin and Fetzer etc..., do not make 9/11 our career. I have a job that keeps be busy Mon-Fri 9-5.

Several times now, you have acted very juvenile, calling people scared, declaring victory for others, etc, and it is neither becoming, nor does it help your cause. Granted you certainly will encounter alot of hostility here, but you have come to 9/11 debunking forum, so that is to be expected, but to retaliate with childishness is not going to do anything but make you feel better. If we wanted to encounter your type of behavior, we would go over to the LCF, where such comments and actions are common place.

TAM:)

The Doc

16th July 2007, 05:58 AM

Rev:

I know you are only 15, but if you are going to come here and try to argue like an adult, with adults, could you try and act a little more grown up. Noone here is afraid to debate. Most of us, unlike the CTers such as Griffin and Fetzer etc..., do not make 9/11 our career. I have a job that keeps be busy Mon-Fri 9-5.

Several times now, you have acted very juvenile, calling people scared, declaring victory for others, etc, and it is neither becoming, nor does it help your cause. Granted you certainly will encounter alot of hostility here, but you have come to 9/11 debunking forum, so that is to be expected, but to retaliate with childishness is not going to do anything but make you feel better. If we wanted to encounter your type of behavior, we would go over to the LCF, where such comments and actions are common place.

TAM:)

Well said.

However, seeing as you have posted a statement of fact, I feel that Rev91 will probably now have a tantrum and ignore you (if he hasn't already).

Dave Rogers

16th July 2007, 06:03 AM

Griffin and Ryan? I'm in. You run over there and let them know.

Quoted for R91 - as far as I know I'm not on his ignore list because I've never had any interaction with him at all. R91, Mark Roberts has offered to come on the program - your move.

Dave

Revolutionary91

16th July 2007, 06:09 AM

Quoted for R91 - as far as I know I'm not on his ignore list because I've never had any interaction with him at all. R91, Mark Roberts has offered to come on the program - your move.

Dave

What do you mean its my move? I don't have any affiliation with him. If Gravy wants to go on he can easily contact Mr Hartmann.

I doubt Gravy will do it though, when he will be taking calls from the public.

On second thoughts I will tell Hartmann. What is Gravys email?

Dave Rogers

16th July 2007, 06:15 AM

Would anyone here like to man up?

Mark Roberts has offered to come on the program - your move.

What do you mean its my move?

You asked a question. You got an answer to that question. It's up to you what you want to do with that answer.

On second thoughts I will tell Hartmann. What is Gravys email?

I suggest you take him off ignore and ask him yourself.

Dave

T.A.M.

16th July 2007, 06:18 AM

Well said.

However, seeing as you have posted a statement of fact, I feel that Rev91 will probably now have a tantrum and ignore you (if he hasn't already).

He says he has put me on ignore. We were in another thread and TC329 called someone an "idiot" so I reported it, along with DGM who also did so. I guess, in some act of chest pounding, Rev decided that this was reason enough to put me on ignore. Oh well...whether he read it or not, I doubt he will change, but you never know, one can always hope.

TAM:)

Revolutionary91

16th July 2007, 06:25 AM

I found Gravys email. I have emailed David, the producer of the show, with Gravys details and a copy of this thread.

T.A.M.

16th July 2007, 07:55 AM

Even though I know Gravy can take them all on by himself, it would be nice to get one of our engineers or physics majors to sign on...only time will tell. Has anyone asked Newton's Bit? Rwguinn? etc...

TAM:)

Par

16th July 2007, 08:03 AM

I think I'm on ignore, but has anyone shown Revolutionary91 the Gravy vs. The Loose Change Boys debate?

lapman

16th July 2007, 08:05 AM

I emailed Air America and got no response back. I'd love to join in. This will be fun.

T.A.M.

16th July 2007, 08:10 AM

Well, let Rev know, and maybe they can get you involved through him...Also, they probably need sometime before they get back to you.

TAM:)

lapman

16th July 2007, 08:20 AM

Well, let Rev know, and maybe they can get you involved through him...Also, they probably need sometime before they get back to you.

TAM:)
I emailed them weeks ago. More than enough time for them to at least acknowlege receipt of the email.

So rev, how about it? Pass on the word that there are several OTers that want to be a part of the debate.

Revolutionary91

16th July 2007, 08:23 AM

I emailed them weeks ago. More than enough time for them to at least acknowlege receipt of the email.

So rev, how about it? Pass on the word that there are several OTers that want to be a part of the debate.

I have emailed the link to this thread to the producer. If you emailed them weeks ago did you not think to tell your fellow debunkers that the debate was planned?

Stellafane

16th July 2007, 08:36 AM

Thom Hartmann of Air America radio is trying to organize a debate on his show between CT's and debunkers. Unfortunately he can't find anyone to defend the official conspiracy theory. The debunkers are obviously scared.

Would anyone here like to man up?

Hi Revolutionary91. I'm not here to debate you. As I indicated in another thread, I don't debate children, unless the child in question is particularly mature, equipped with facts, and interested in learning -- traits (if you'll forgive me for speaking bluntly) you have yet to indicate you possess in any abundance. Instead, I'd like to offer you a bit of advice so in the future you'll look a little less...well, dorky, not to put too fine a point on it.

Here it is: When attempting to intimidate/challenge a group of people you don't know, I'd suggest avoiding terms like "man up," simply because a lot of your potential audience aren't -- men, that is. I suppose it's understandable that you might forget this, if your previous forum experience consists primarily of 9/11 CTer sites such as Loose Change, where teenage boys seem to predominate and females are relatively few and far between. But here, you can't take for granted that the person you're conversing with isn't a woman. Thus a term like "man up" excludes and even insults a very large percentage of the people you're trying to reach.

So in the future, you might want to pay a little more attention to the female gender. It's the first step in getting them to reciprocate.

Revolutionary91

16th July 2007, 08:43 AM

I emailed them weeks ago. More than enough time for them to at least acknowlege receipt of the email.

So rev, how about it? Pass on the word that there are several OTers that want to be a part of the debate.

I don't think you are important enough. Read the small print:

Arguably, David Ray Griffin and Kevin Ryan are two of the most well-known and articulate proponents of skepticism of the OCT, therefore, any OCTer willing to go on Hartmann's show should come from the OCT "A-list": NIST, the 9/11 Commission, the US government, or Popular Mechanics.
The "B-list" would be published authors like The Progressive's Matthew Rothschild, Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi, or Counterpunch's Alexander Cockburn. These authors in particular have abused their pulpits, putting out very biased pieces in condemnation of 9/11 skeptics

Revolutionary91

16th July 2007, 08:45 AM

Hi Revolutionary91. I'm not here to debate you. As I indicated in another thread, I don't debate children, unless the child in question is particularly mature, equipped with facts, and interested in learning -- traits (if you'll forgive me for speaking bluntly) you have yet to indicate you possess in any abundance. Instead, I'd like to offer you a bit of advice so in the future you'll look a little less...well, dorky, not to put too fine a point on it.

Here it is: When attempting to intimidate/challenge a group of people you don't know, I'd suggest avoiding terms like "man up," simply because a lot of your potential audience aren't -- men, that is. I suppose it's understandable that you might forget this, if your previous forum experience consists primarily of 9/11 CTer sites such as Loose Change, where teenage boys seem to predominate and females are relatively few and far between. But here, you can't take for granted that the person you're conversing with isn't a woman. Thus a term like "man up" excludes and even insults a very large percentage of the people you're trying to reach.

So in the future, you might want to pay a little more attention to the female gender. It's the first step in getting them to reciprocate.

I like the way you assume i'm heterosexual.

I'm afraid I will have to put you on ignore. I am sure you can see why.

Stellafane

16th July 2007, 08:52 AM

I like the way you assume i'm heterosexual.

I'm afraid I will have to put you on ignore. I am sure you can see why.

I assumed you're heterosexual?? Where? Because I advised you to include the female members of your potential audience? Or was it the suggestion that you should pay attention to women, so they may eventually reciprocate that attention? Do you assume all attention must necessarily be sexual?? (OK, you're 15, I'll make allowances in your case.)

And now you've put me on ignore? Well, that's a first, I think. Generally, people find me pretty inoffensive, but whatever...

Stellafane

16th July 2007, 08:55 AM

I don't think you are important enough. Read the small print:

Oh, and by the way: According to this "fine print," few if anyone here would qualify as "important enough" to be accepted in this debate. Thus there was never any point in your coming here and challenging us to "man up." Sorry, but that's being a troll.

Par

16th July 2007, 08:57 AM

I assumed you're heterosexual?? Where? Because I advised you to include the female members of your potential audience? Or was it the suggestion that you should pay attention to women, so they may eventually reciprocate that attention? Do you assume all attention must necessarily be sexual?? (OK, you're 15, I'll make allowances in your case.)

And now you've put me on ignore? Well, that's a first, I think. Generally, people find me pretty inoffensive, but whatever...

It seems that R91’s got half the forum on ignore. Anyone who poses a difficult question or raises certain evidence seems to get the treatment. I suppose the best course of action would be for everyone to return the favour.

Revolutionary91

16th July 2007, 08:57 AM

Insults should at least be original. Just a few hours ago, Dr Adequate realised he couldnt beat me with arguments so he reasorted to saying "eventually you will get laid". Rather pervy that so many adults are discussing sex with a 15 year old on the web.

Incidentally, I reported Dr Adequate's creepy remarks to me and nothing has been done.

maccy

16th July 2007, 09:00 AM

I assumed you're heterosexual?? Where? Because I advised you to include the female members of your potential audience? Or was it the suggestion that you should pay attention to women, so they may eventually reciprocate that attention? Do you assume all attention must necessarily be sexual?? (OK, you're 15, I'll make allowances in your case.)

And now you've put me on ignore? Well, that's a first, I think. Generally, people find me pretty inoffensive, but whatever...

And, if Revoultionary91 was trying to score some nice gay action, I suspect that the phrase "man up" would be equally detrimental to his chances.

Revolutionary91

16th July 2007, 09:01 AM

Par, heres the reasons I have people on ignore:

Markyx - Told me to go $%^& myself in his very first post

Gravy - Constant references to my age

Dr Adequate - Reasons given above

etc etc

As you can see, nothing to do with arguments.

Stellafane

16th July 2007, 09:05 AM

...Rather pervy that so many adults are discussing sex with a 15 year old on the web.

No more "pervy" than a flustered 15 year old suddenly injecting sexuality into a discussion where absolutely none existed. You really have no clue about the difference between "sexist" and "sexual" do you?

Damn, I should have known better than get involved in a thread started by a child. I am so outa here.

lapman

16th July 2007, 09:09 AM

I don't think you are important enough. Read the small print:Then that makes your OP and their claim a lie. It also shows that they are really not interested in a debate. They want to create the environment to make the debunkers look stupid. It probably won't be broadcast live so they can perform some creative editing. So the whole thing is probably bogus.

mortimer

16th July 2007, 09:10 AM

No less "pervy" than a flustered 15 year old suddenly injecting sexuality into a discussion where absolutely none existed. You really have no clue about the difference between "sexist" and "sexual" do you?

Damn, I should have known better than get involved in a thread started by a child. I am so outa here.

<Nigel Tufnel>What's wrong with being sexy?</Nigel Tufnel>

Arkan_Wolfshade

16th July 2007, 09:14 AM

Thom Hartmann of Air America radio is trying to organize a debate on his show between CT's and debunkers. Unfortunately he can't find anyone to defend the official conspiracy theory. The debunkers are obviously scared.

Would anyone here like to man up?
Problem 1 with your post
P1: If the debunkers are scared then Thom Hartmann won't find anyone to defend the official conspiracy theory.
P2: Thom Hartmann can't find anyone to defend the official conspiracy theory.
C: Therefore, the debunkers are scared.

This is called affirming the consequent and is a logical fallacy. This is because there are any number of possible causes for P2. In general form:
P1: If A then B
P2: If C then B
P3: B
C: ?

Problem 2 with your post
There is no "official conspiracy theory" as a conspiracy theory is not the same as a theory that includes a conspiracy (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2262992#post2262992)

Revolutionary91

16th July 2007, 09:19 AM

CHF said Griffin must be scared not to go on Hardfire. What logical fallacy is he committing?

TruthSeeker1234

16th July 2007, 09:23 AM

Call 'em out Rev.

Frank Greening is on JREF, he's Apollo20.

Arkan_Wolfshade

16th July 2007, 09:31 AM

CHF claimed that Griffin was scared to debate and that is why he is stalling with the Hardfire debate. Well, Griffin has agreed to do this and noone from the debunker side will do it. Kevin Ryan has also said he will do it but Popular Mechanics refused to debate him, even though they happily debated Dylan and Jason. It is obvious which side is scared.
Problem 1
CHF has not posted in this thread. You'll have to provide a link to substantiate that claim.

Problem 2
Even if CHF made such a statement, your choice to bring that up, rather than address the flaws in your OP is argumentum ad hominem tu quoque, or the "you too" logical fallacy.

Problem 3
". . . Griffin has agreed to do this and noone from the debunker side will do it . . . " is a strawman as Griffin only agreed to go on Hardfire if it was not a debate.

negativ

16th July 2007, 09:32 AM

As far as I know, in my region Air America isn't on any broadcast stations with enough wattage to push a signal across the street. It's a shame, too, because I hear that the programming really, really sucks.

Revolutionary91

16th July 2007, 09:49 AM

Problem 1
CHF has not posted in this thread. You'll have to provide a link to substantiate that claim.

Problem 2
Even if CHF made such a statement, your choice to bring that up, rather than address the flaws in your OP is argumentum ad hominem tu quoque, or the "you too" logical fallacy.

Problem 3
". . . Griffin has agreed to do this and noone from the debunker side will do it . . . " is a strawman as Griffin only agreed to go on Hardfire if it was not a debate.

No I have accepted my fallacy. Im asking you what fallacy CHF committed.

If you refuse to say then is there a fallacy describing bias and hypocrisy?

Kage

16th July 2007, 09:49 AM

I believe bill o'reilly uses this tactic as well. He invites people onto his show and when they don't come, he says that they are scared.

Also, the list of people they want to come on the show in order to defend the "official CT" is telling.

T.A.M.

16th July 2007, 09:55 AM

Rev:

You allegedly put me on ignore simply because I reported another poster for calling someone an idiot.

You are acting more and more juvenile by the minute.

You original post indicated that the debunkers here were "scared" yet Gravy has offered, and so has Lapman. Now we find out that the entire thing is irrelivent as noone here seems to meet the elitists "A" list.

But that is ok, as we here realize that despite not being "A" listers (seems odd given that DRG and Kevin Ryan are known for nothing on the planet except this 9/11 crap), we are, and will continue to be, the ones who keep them in check.

JREF is a curse, a bad word amongst them, and I am proud to say I am a part of that, and will continue to be.

TAM:) (proud member of Rev's ignore list)

Arkan_Wolfshade

16th July 2007, 10:06 AM

No I have accepted my fallacy. Im asking you what fallacy CHF committed.

If you refuse to say then is there a fallacy describing bias and hypocrisy?
As you have refused to provide a link to the supposed comment, I will treat it as a hypothetical. In your summary you said, "CHF claimed that Griffin was scared to debate and that is why he is stalling with the Hardfire debate." This breaks down as follows:
P1: If Griffin is scared to debate then he will stall.
P2: Griffin is scared.
C: Therefore he is stalling.

Though not affirming the consequent, it is likely begging the question as the summary suggests that evidence has not been provided to substantiate P2. This differs from your statement where you base your P1 off of your P2 and draw a conclusion based upon this post hoc, ergo promptor hoc type of rationalization.

Again, let me reinforce, that your choice to focus on this supposed comment, from a different thread, is argumentum ad hominem tu quoque.

Revolutionary91

16th July 2007, 10:09 AM

As you have refused to provide a link to the supposed comment, I will treat it as a hypothetical. In your summary you said, "CHF claimed that Griffin was scared to debate and that is why he is stalling with the Hardfire debate." This breaks down as follows:
P1: If Griffin is scared to debate then he will stall.
P2: Griffin is scared.
C: Therefore he is stalling.

Though not affirming the consequent, it is likely begging the question as the summary suggests that evidence has not been provided to substantiate P2. This differs from your statement where you base your P1 off of your P2 and draw a conclusion based upon this post hoc, ergo promptor hoc type of rationalization.

Again, let me reinforce, that your choice to focus on this supposed comment, from a different thread, is argumentum ad hominem tu quoque.

My point is that you only mention logical fallacies that CTs make and skip right over the ones made by "skeptics".

ConspiRaider

16th July 2007, 10:36 AM

Rev91 (still driving on a learner's permit, given his age of 15) has already got the Big Hammer known as Gravy to commit. Get that locked down, sonny. Then mow the lawn and we'll buy you an ice cream.

Hartmann is a twoofer and so he has to be considered a member of the loon squad inside jobber types in this proposed "debate". Let's hope he is as fair as pomeroo was, in the Hardfire debates, in declaring such.

I used to like Air America a lot, when it first came out. Then host after host shot themselves in the footsies with this 9/11 Inside Job stupidity. Only one left that I listen to - sometimes - is Randi Rhodes. She has avoided going off the deep end on this, but barely.

Arkan_Wolfshade

16th July 2007, 10:48 AM

My point is that you only mention logical fallacies that CTs make and skip right over the ones made by "skeptics".
Your "point" is without merit as:
1) You have not linked to the claimed post where CHF made the statement in question.
2) You have not shown that I participated in that thread; ergo I could not have consciously "skip[ped]" over that post.
3) Your continued argumentum ad hominem tu quoque has become a red herring.

Additionally, I will point out that since your OP is logically fallcious, and you have conceded such, this thread serves no further purpose.

Revolutionary91

16th July 2007, 10:52 AM

For anybody who wants to see it, this is the email I sent to the producer:

Hi David,

I understand you have been looking for a Official Story defender for your upcoming 911 debate. Mark Roberts, a notorious debunker, has said he will appear and has asked me to contact you on his behalf. I am sure you are aware of him, he has appeared on Hardfire debating Fetzer and the Loose Change guys. Here is the thread on the JREF forum where he has said he will appear on your show, including against Dr Griffin or Kevin Ryan.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=87440

Note: Mr Roberts posts as Gravy.

You can contact Mr Roberts at nyctours@gmail.com

uk_dave

16th July 2007, 10:58 AM

ConspiRaider

16th July 2007, 11:07 AM

I love how Mark Roberts gets described as a 'notorious debunker'.

To be called such would mean that not only is he successful at debunking 'truther' claims, but that he is also notorious within 'truther' circles for successfully debunking their claims.

Unsurprisingly, I can't actually think of a 'truther' about which you could make the same claim of success. Anyone?
Other than Violeta McWhifferkugel, I can think of no one. That woman could talk the ears off a wooden elephant, she's notorious for that. You end up agreeing with her just so that when she turns to pat herself on the back, you can effect a quick escape.

stateofgrace

16th July 2007, 11:32 AM

Thom Hartmann of Air America radio is trying to organize a debate on his show between CT's and debunkers. Unfortunately he can't find anyone to defend the official conspiracy theory. The debunkers are obviously scared.

Would anyone here like to man up?

Far be it for me to point out the obvious to you REV 911 but most OCTers or debunkers or whatever else you wish to call us actually have full time jobs, lifes away from the internet and don't spent all day long worrying about crazy conspiracies.

The debunkers I know do it many as an an hobby rather than an obsession and do so because they are simply appalled at the complete trashy way 911 conspirators twist and bend this dreadful event to further their own agenda and egos.

See, Rev 91, when you are all grown up and actually go out into the real world and meet real people , with real jobs, and real families and real concerns , you will learn all about this. Until the you will whinge on and on about how you are winning and how everybody is scared of you and will not man up. Reality is sunbeam you are dismissed by the vast majority of sane people and trashed by those that even bother to look beyond your wild dreams.

This is why when you go on and on about 911, most people will simply mock you, the mockery continues when people actually take the time to look at what you are saying and really do see how people just like yourself are being conned by those with the agendas. You go on and on about how people shoudl ask questions but you never, ever apply the same standards to your own theories, of course to do so , is to stop being the anti establishment rebel and realise that most people have been there before you, done it all, seen it all and actually grown out of it.

Manning up sunbeam means accepting responsibility, contributing and actually providing for your loved oned and standing on your own two feet, not making silly childish remarks on internet forums.

Revolutionary91

16th July 2007, 11:36 AM

See, Rev 91, when you are all grown up.......not making silly childish remarks on internet forums.

Oh the irony.

stateofgrace

16th July 2007, 12:00 PM

Oh the irony.

Oh the predictabilty, it becomes oh so tiresome. Tell you Rev, why don't you man up and tell us all what happened on 911?

No more JAQ, just a summary , in your own words. here you go they look something like this.

19 guys hijacked four planes, two hit the towers, one hit teh Pnetagon , one crashed after the passengers fought back. The towers collpased after being hit by the planes and suffering massive uncontrolled fires. they fell onto to other buildings which also collpased .

Al Qaeda have repeatly admitted responsibilty for this terroist attack.

Now Big nasty Bush didn't tell me this, the nasty US contolled media didn't tell me I kinda simply accept this as a basic summary of the events of this day. So Rev, are you man enough? Rather than have a go at my summary, produce your own. Nothing massive, no links, just a few sentences to sum it up for me.

The Silver Shadow

16th July 2007, 01:41 PM

Oh the predictabilty, it becomes oh so tiresome. Tell you Rev, why don't you man up and tell us all what happened on 911?

No more JAQ, just a summary , in your own words. here you go they look something like this.

19 guys hijacked four planes, two hit the towers, one hit teh Pnetagon , one crashed after the passengers fought back. The towers collpased after being hit by the planes and suffering massive uncontrolled fires. they fell onto to other buildings which also collpased .

Al Qaeda have repeatly admitted responsibilty for this terroist attack.

Now Big nasty Bush didn't tell me this, the nasty US contolled media didn't tell me I kinda simply accept this as a basic summary of the events of this day. So Rev, are you man enough? Rather than have a go at my summary, produce your own. Nothing massive, no links, just a few sentences to sum it up for me.
Dare I predict something along the lines of "I don't know exactly what happened, it just did not match the movies I've seen and all I know right now is that we need a new investigation."

I'm assuming I'm now on ignore ;). Have it your way Rev...

HyJinX

16th July 2007, 02:00 PM

I smell the :socks: of P'doh.

Geedubya

16th July 2007, 02:26 PM

Wouldn't a far more interesting and ultimately fair format be for some of these CTists to simply sign up and invite any and all to debate here on JREF? They seem fearless when it comes to going on the radio with a friendly host, where they will fulfill their goal of drawing attention and money to their websites, books, etc., but to actually put their theories to the test, to allow people to respond to and scrutinize them without interruption, seems simply not to be on their list of things they're willing to do.

So I would suggest that Rev or anyone reading this pass on that challenge to Griffin, Ryan, etc. -- to sign up here and back up their claims. I'm sure they will be treated politely if they are polite. After all, if they can't get past JREF, how do they ever expect to make it into the pages of a legitimate scientific or engineering journal?

Twood be a good stepping stone.

nicepants

16th July 2007, 02:28 PM

So if Gravy's acceptance is ignored, would that mean that Thom Hartmann, etc are too scared to debate him?

qarnos

16th July 2007, 02:37 PM

Is this gonna be the usual truther thing of setting debate terms they know no sane person would (or could) accept, and then claim victory when no-one accepts?

The Almond

16th July 2007, 02:45 PM

I don't think you are important enough. Read the small print:
Arguably, David Ray Griffin and Kevin Ryan are two of the most well-known and articulate proponents of skepticism of the OCT, therefore, any OCTer willing to go on Hartmann's show should come from the OCT "A-list": NIST, the 9/11 Commission, the US government, or Popular Mechanics.
The "B-list" would be published authors like The Progressive's Matthew Rothschild, Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi, or Counterpunch's Alexander Cockburn. These authors in particular have abused their pulpits, putting out very biased pieces in condemnation of 9/11 skeptics

I was interested to find out that the A-List OCT people are professionals, licensed engineers and leaders in their respective fields. Why hasn't the radio host applied such requirements to his CT guests? How about:
1) Must be an employed professional in good standing with a reputable, well known engineering or scientific research body.
2) Must be currently employed by a major technical college as a researcher and/or professor, preferably as an emeritus, adjunct or tenured professor.

Now, I could find many OCT types who fit the bill, but I wonder how many CTers I could find to match?

Drudgewire

16th July 2007, 02:46 PM

TAM:) (proud member of Rev's ignore list)
Geez, pretty soon this guy is going to be posting here just to read his own posts...

...which is the standard for his ilk. Keeps them from having to deal with pesky things like "evidence" and "science" that gets in the way of their theories. :D

SezMe

16th July 2007, 03:03 PM

Hartmann is a twoofer and so he has to be considered a member of the loon squad inside jobber types in this proposed "debate". Let's hope he is as fair as pomeroo was, in the Hardfire debates, in declaring such.
I strongly disagree. As far as I can tell, he is agnostic regarding the events of 911. Do you have evidence that he actually subscribes to any twoofer theories?

Yes, his agnosticism disappoints me. But I find Hartmann to be one of the most knowledgeable talk hosts I've listened to. His grasp of American history is quite impressive. Ditto economics. He routinely invites people on his show with whom he has strong disagreements and conducts lively and informative debates with them. One can actually learn from both sides by listening.

That is why I PM'ed Gravy about the Hartmann opportunity about a month ago. It seems to be a good, civilized platform to get out the reality-based position. I'm disappointed nothing came of it.

I used to like Air America a lot, when it first came out. Then host after host shot themselves in the footsies with this 9/11 Inside Job stupidity. Only one left that I listen to - sometimes - is Randi Rhodes. She has avoided going off the deep end on this, but barely.

Again, I disagree. I think Rhodes is further along the nutbar scale than Hartmann. Worse, she just talks over people she disagrees with.

That said, I am puzzled by some on the left buying into this nuttery. We have a local host who is proud of his liberalism yet has had Griffen on his show for an extensive interview (Griffen lives in my hometown) but allowed me ½ hour then refused to let me come back on with Griffen. He also cites Nostradamus and the Mayan calendar. Sickening. What gives with these types?

leftysergeant

16th July 2007, 03:17 PM

So far, Thom Hartmann does not seem to be taking a position. He is actually, more intellectually curious and a lot more open to disesent from his position than any right-wing talker I have heard. His debates with people from the Ayn Rand Foundation and American Enterprise are actually quite informative and cordial, though he does utterly colostomize the positions of the right wing thionk tanks later in the show.

I thin a big problem is that thinking people just assume, after years of Rush, Hannity and OReilly, that all political talk radio is ambush sohwmanship.

I would be glad, myself, to stuff Avery's childish drivel back in his face. What appeared to happen obviously did. The political angle to how the prerps were able to pull it off, why nobody seemed interested in stopping it, and the appropriateness of W's response are quite another matter.

I would be happy to see every member of PNAC shackled and frog-marched off to the Hague for war crimes, but if you present Dylan Avery's or Thierry Meyssan's drivel to a jury of rational citizens, the most guilty perp in the world would walk.

The CTs have this either/or mentality that suggests to me that they are not so much interested in getting the Bush/PNAC cartel on this, but to destroy all public confidence in government. This is more in line with the goals of the white nationalists than it is with the goals of progressive poolitical theorists like Hartmann.

Rational people are not really happy debating ranting lunatics. It's too much like teaching pigs to sing.

T.A.M.

16th July 2007, 03:31 PM

I was interested to find out that the A-List OCT people are professionals, licensed engineers and leaders in their respective fields. Why hasn't the radio host applied such requirements to his CT guests? How about:
1) Must be an employed professional in good standing with a reputable, well known engineering or scientific research body.
2) Must be currently employed by a major technical college as a researcher and/or professor, preferably as an emeritus, adjunct or tenured professor.

Now, I could find many OCT types who fit the bill, but I wonder how many CTers I could find to match?

IMO, this is why their list of "A-Listers" consists of professional Engineers, Physicists, etc...

David Griffin is neither, and Kevin Ryan is barely. They will likely get these tricked professionals to come to the debate, naive to most of the CT nonsense. They will then lambaste the professionals with their CT nonsense, switching from topic to topic, avoiding at all costs the actual area of expertese the A-List professional is trained in, and then at the end declare victory.

They are, IMO, completely avoiding Mark Roberts because they know he has a fantastic knowledge of all their CTs, and all the real data on 9/11, and will not be fooled by any debating tactics such as the switch, etc...

TAM:)

T.A.M.

16th July 2007, 03:36 PM

I thin a big problem is that thinking people just assume, after years of Rush, Hannity and OReilly, that all political talk radio is ambush sohwmanship.

This may be true, but in the case of extreme left wing radio, from what I have seen, assumption bares fruit.

I would be glad, myself, to stuff Avery's childish drivel back in his face. What appeared to happen obviously did. The political angle to how the prerps were able to pull it off, why nobody seemed interested in stopping it, and the appropriateness of W's response are quite another matter.

This is sort of borderline LIHOI/LIHOP (Let It Happen Out of Incompetence/Ignorance -vs- Let It Happen On Purpose). I subscribe to the former, not the latter.

I would be happy to see every member of PNAC shackled and frog-marched off to the Hague for war crimes, but if you present Dylan Avery's or Thierry Meyssan's drivel to a jury of rational citizens, the most guilty perp in the world would walk.

While the Iraq War and the War on Terror are related, by all accounts, the 9/11 attacks are not the same issue, and I always keep them seperate. I do not support the invasion, now in hindsight.

The CTs have this either/or mentality that suggests to me that they are not so much interested in getting the Bush/PNAC cartel on this, but to destroy all public confidence in government. This is more in line with the goals of the white nationalists than it is with the goals of progressive poolitical theorists like Hartmann.

I agree. For most CTists it is about the "Rage Against the Machine", it is "fighting Big brother" regardless of political sides.

Rational people are not really happy debating ranting lunatics. It's too much like teaching pigs to sing.

agreed

TAM:)

Brainster

16th July 2007, 04:00 PM

ConspiRaider

16th July 2007, 04:32 PM

I strongly disagree. As far as I can tell, he is agnostic regarding the events of 911. Do you have evidence that he actually subscribes to any twoofer theories?
He was part of the book, Ultimate Sacrifice, along with Lamar Waldron, about the JFK shooting. Hired gunmen on the order of Mafia dons did it, Oswald was a CIA agent and patsy, Ruby's job was to eliminate Oswald, yada yada yada...

And of course he did sign this:
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041026093059633

Pretty much of which we've thoroughly debunked. He is signer # 42 (alphabetical)

Civilized Worm

16th July 2007, 04:36 PM

I don't think you are important enough. Read the small print:

Here's a crazy idea, but maybe NIST, Popular Mechanics et all don't think that Griffin and Ryan are important enough?

I'm afraid I will have to put you on ignore. I am sure you can see why.

If you're going to get upset by the slightest teasing maybe you should try being more polite yourself. Do as you would be done by.

Drudgewire

16th July 2007, 04:39 PM

If you're going to get upset by the slightest teasing maybe you should try being more polite yourself. Do as you would be done by.
You just made his ignore list buddy! <:mad:>

WildCat

16th July 2007, 04:58 PM

Wouldn't a far more interesting and ultimately fair format be for some of these CTists to simply sign up and invite any and all to debate here on JREF? They seem fearless when it comes to going on the radio with a friendly host, where they will fulfill their goal of drawing attention and money to their websites, books, etc., but to actually put their theories to the test, to allow people to respond to and scrutinize them without interruption, seems simply not to be on their list of things they're willing to do.
You will never, ever see any of the CT big shots (those with books, dvd's and other merch to peddle) post here because they have no interest at all in stopping their gravy train. They will go on the radio and spout their nonsense, switching topics as often as is necessary to avoid being pinned down.

On the rare occasions they do post here (I'm talking to you William Rodriquez) they quickly find an excuse to be insulted and run off. Charlatans, frauds, and scheisters all of them.

Brainster

16th July 2007, 05:05 PM

He was part of the book, Ultimate Sacrifice, along with Lamar Waldron, about the JFK shooting. Hired gunmen on the order of Mafia dons did it, Oswald was a CIA agent and patsy, Ruby's job was to eliminate Oswald, yada yada yada...

And of course he did sign this:
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041026093059633

Pretty much of which we've thoroughly debunked. He is signer # 42 (alphabetical)

Good catch, CR! I'm also amused at the comment about the B-List debunkers somehow abusing their influence; assuming that's from Hartmann or his producer they've rather given the game away.

ConspiRaider

16th July 2007, 05:11 PM

I wrote Hartmann over a month ago offering to debate the 9-11 Deniers, with my credentials --cited in Time, US News & World Report, Vanity Fair, interviewed on the BBC World Today, and numerous radio shows, etc. No response. And this topic has come up before.
I think that is inexcusable. Clearly you've done your work and are also very effective at verbal debate - I've heard you on a previous show. You're more than qualified. And Gravy's fully qual'ed, as is Big Ron Pomeroo and of course others.

But you won't probably get on Hartmann's show, nor Randi Rhodes's show, nor Mike Malloy's show out of there on Nova M in Phoenix. All lean, in varying degrees, towards 9/11 twooferism. They will not be interested in facts, proof, evidence, analysis or any such triflings.

The Griffster, Uncle Fetz, Jonesy and so forth - c'mon in boys, the water's fine!

Civilized Worm

16th July 2007, 05:17 PM

The Griffster, Uncle Fetz, Jonesy and so forth - c'mon in boys, the water's fine!

Maybe Kevin should test it just to be sure.

David Wong

16th July 2007, 05:18 PM

I actually listened to Hartmann's show for a while (a compliment, since I'm further to the middle of the political spectrum). He seemed pretty rational and knowledgeable...

...Then he said on the air that the Bush administration mailed out the Anthrax virus, so that no one in the Senate would have a chance to read the Patriot Act. Because they had to evacuate the building, you see.

I turned him off. Never went back to it. No one who can believe something so mind-numbingly stupid deserves my time.

CHF

16th July 2007, 06:02 PM

beachnut

16th July 2007, 06:17 PM

Thom Hartmann of Air America radio is trying to organize a debate on his show between CT's and debunkers. Unfortunately he can't find anyone to defend the official conspiracy theory. The debunkers are obviously scared.

Would anyone here like to man up?
You should do it. Or are you lacking facts and believe the disinformation of 9/11 truth?

Griffin, the king of hearsay on 9/11.

leftysergeant

17th July 2007, 01:06 AM

To address TAM's comments re LIHOI/LIHOP, I would definitely ascribe LIHOP to GWB. The man is not cut out to hold authority of any kind, and especially not to be commander-in-chief.

Invading Iraq while the campaign in Afghhanistan was still far from finished was every bit as brilliant as was cancelling Operation Seeloewe to start Operation Barbarosa. It may, in the end, work as well for GWB as it did for Hitler. And telling General Shinseki how many troops to send in made as much sense as the decision to let the Luftwaffe finish up the encirclemnt of Dunkirk, or leaving Rommel twiddling his thumbs on the Pas de Calais waiting for the REAL invasion.

GWB is just brain-damaged. You can hear it when he tries to ad-lib. You can almost hear the confabulation occurring.

Cheney and Rumsfeld are just plain evil. They probably figured "What's the worst that can happen? We're geniuses and can deal with it."

The existance of the Project for a New American Century in itself is some evidence of LIHOP. PNAC is sometimes dismissed as just another conspiracy theory, but they do exist and there is a website to prove it. They actually gloat about putting their plan into action, and insist that the only Plan B they need is to make Plan A work. (Isn't this considered slightly psychotic behavior?)

What Hartmann has signed onto is the LIHOP end of the arguments. He is rational enough not to buy into the CD bullflops.

It does seem curious to be that the Twoofers get especially shrieky every time GWB is embarrassed in some way. They seem especially active now that Gonzales is getting examined with a protoscope. Any connections we might draw as to who is really behind the inside-job BS?

Gravy

17th July 2007, 01:24 AM

To address TAM's comments re LIHOI/LIHOP, I would definitely ascribe LIHOP to GWB. The man is not cut out to hold authority of any kind, and especially not to be commander-in-chief.Not sure I get your point. He's not cut out to lead, so he and all the people around him allowed a terrorist attack that killed thousands? And no one's leaked a word of this? And there isn't a shred of evidence to support it? So what, exactly, is the basis for your ascribing these actions to these people? It seems like you're affirming a consequent.

...Cheney and Rumsfeld are just plain evil. They probably figured "What's the worst that can happen? We're geniuses and can deal with it."That's not an incisive analysis.

The existance of the Project for a New American Century in itself is some evidence of LIHOP. PNAC is sometimes dismissed as just another conspiracy theory, but they do exist and there is a website to prove it. They actually gloat about putting their plan into action, and insist that the only Plan B they need is to make Plan A work. (Isn't this considered slightly psychotic behavior?)You are mistaken about what PNAC was and what Rebuilding America's Defenses says. Please read the document. And no, no one thinks it's "just another conspiracy theory." The PNAC wrote public policy papers.

What Hartmann has signed onto is the LIHOP end of the arguments. He is rational enough not to buy into the CD bullflops.It's two sides of the same irrationality. Believing in LIHOP based on pure conjecture is no better than believing in CD based on pure conjecture.

It does seem curious to be that the Twoofers get especially shrieky every time GWB is embarrassed in some way. They seem especially active now that Gonzales is getting examined with a protoscope. Any connections we might draw as to who is really behind the inside-job BS?Not sure what you mean. The 9/11 deniers are politically motivated, and come from the left, the right, and (to a lesser extent) the center.

Alareth

17th July 2007, 01:24 AM

And now you've put me on ignore? Well, that's a first, I think. Generally, people find me pretty inoffensive, but whatever...

He appears to have gone to the 28th Kingdom school of forum interaction.

Gravy

17th July 2007, 01:35 AM

That is why I PM'ed Gravy about the Hartmann opportunity about a month ago. It seems to be a good, civilized platform to get out the reality-based position. I'm disappointed nothing came of it.I had forgotten that that was Hartmann. Hmmm. I'll contact Griffin and Ryan, challenge them to debate on Hartmann's show, and if they agree, that will put pressure on Hartmann to include a c-lister like me. Of course, I don't think they will agree, and that will illustrate their Catch-22: "We'll gladly debate anyone who won't debate us!"

Mince

17th July 2007, 01:50 AM

Thom Hartmann, typically, is about two years behind what is relevant. Go ahead, keep listening to, and believing all that you hear, as long as it is anti-Bush.

leftysergeant

17th July 2007, 01:51 AM

PNAC wanted a war in iraq to establish a base from which to establish hegemony over the Middle East. It's in the manifesto. They also realized it would take a Pearl Harbor type attack to get the American people on board with such a war.

In that light, LIHOP looks like an effective strategy. It makes about as much sense as anything else Rummy thought up, militarily, in response.

Since when was war for the purpose of hegemony over a foreign territory a legitimate part of modern American foreign policy? It's aggression, pure and simple.

Actually, I have seen far fewer liberals than libertarians and Anarchists trying to sell MIHOP. A lot of the MIHOPers post to and link to white nationalist sites. If you have read The Turner Diaries, you would understand their motivation.

But there are a lot of "former" Bush supporters selling MIHOP as well. I smell disinfo operatives.

Mince

17th July 2007, 02:39 AM

PNAC wanted a war in iraq to establish a base from which to establish hegemony over the Middle East.

So, by PNAC's pronouncement of "A new Pearl Harbor" they were giving away there plans for 9/11? Why would they announce their crimes before executing them?

Gravy

17th July 2007, 02:44 AM

PNAC wanted a war in iraq to establish a base from which to establish hegemony over the Middle East. It's in the manifesto. Document and page number, please.

But there are a lot of "former" Bush supporters selling MIHOP as well. I smell disinfo operatives.Good grief. I smell paranoia.

Comsat Angel

17th July 2007, 03:24 AM

Hmm. Sudden lack of Rev91 yarking on about OCTers being scared of debating. Perhaps he's scared by the debating on this thread?

I Am He

17th July 2007, 06:17 AM

Comsat Angel

How can Rev91 reply?? He has everyone on ignore. :D

I Am He

Arkan_Wolfshade

17th July 2007, 07:43 AM

Revolutionary91,

I think it's very revealing that you think the best indicator of one's fear is their refusal to debate kooks.

In the scientific world, a far better indicator is submissions of research for peer-review.

Yet we find Griffin refusing Hardfire and your entire movement refusing peer-review.

As for Gravy vs. Griffin/Ryan, you'll seriously regret organizing that debate should it ever happen (ask Dylan and Jason about that).
I don't believe journals mention what has been turned down for publication, or has not passed peer review. That being said, I'm sure if DRG or others were turned down they would be all over that like flies on $#!7, so I doubt that has occurred.

lapman

17th July 2007, 11:12 AM

PNAC wanted a war in iraq to establish a base from which to establish hegemony over the Middle East. It's in the manifesto. They also realized it would take a Pearl Harbor type attack to get the American people on board with such a war.
We already have a 50+ page thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=84473)on this subject. Go spend a few days to read it and see how absurd your statement is.

BillyRayValentine

17th July 2007, 11:40 AM

And now you've put me on ignore? Well, that's a first, I think. Generally, people find me pretty inoffensive, but whatever...

He doesn't actually put anyone on ignore. For some reason he's feels empowered by making the threat. The very definition of a petulant child.

The Silver Shadow

17th July 2007, 11:48 AM

Well, he hasn't responded to anything yet. I would assume that he's had his stint here...

uk_dave

17th July 2007, 12:18 PM

He's got competition over on LCF. Apparently sureshot is also a 15 year old who has been made admin.

Looking forward to some interesting threads over there.

Revolutionary91

17th July 2007, 12:36 PM

Well, he hasn't responded to anything yet. I would assume that he's had his stint here...

My apologies for having a life. I have been busy with some family stuff. What am I mean't to respond to though? I let you all know about the debate and I contacted the producer. I full accept Gravy would do the debate, and if they won't then shame on them. I haven't heard from the producer by the way.

Alferd_Packer

17th July 2007, 12:44 PM

Rev91, can you put me on ignore too?

I really don't want you reading or responding to anything I post, if it's all the same to you.

T.A.M.

17th July 2007, 01:39 PM

LOL...nice Alferd

TAM:)

T.A.M.

17th July 2007, 01:42 PM

lefty:

PNAC, if you read the document, which I am currently wading through, does indicate that those who wrote it wish to have America continue in a position of world dominance in terms of military and economic might. They also say that an increase in defense spending is needed, and a large one, to maintain this position. What I do not see is any reference made to beginning a war, or taking control by force, areas of the middle east. I also do not see any reference to an increase in defense spending related to increasing the amount of military equipment that presently exists, but rather it seems to indicate that the focus should be on the design and production of high tech, advanced weaponry. It is this, the advancement of high tech weaponry, and investment by the american taxpayer in such, that the PNAC refers the "New Pearl Harbour" comment to.

Read the document, see what you think.

TAM:)

Viper Daimao

17th July 2007, 01:55 PM

I would definitely ascribe LIHOP to GWB.

Lefty, I would definitely listen to the people here, you seem like a logical enough truther, so I hope you can put aside your political hatred enough to look at this levelheaded.

Also, I'm a bit new here, can anyone point me toward the video/mp3 of gravy debating the loose change boys?

BillyRayValentine

17th July 2007, 02:10 PM

My apologies for having a life. I have been busy with some family stuff.

Earlier in the day...

"Young man, I said get down here and mow that lawn...RIGHT NOW."

"Aw, moooommm...why can't I just put you on ignore."

"Because I feed you, provide for you, wash the crap stains from your underwear, and most definitely decide if and when you ever get a learner's permit."

"You suck mom". (muttered under his breath)

"What was that?!?"

"I said I'm coming...geesh, calm down!"

uk_dave

17th July 2007, 02:27 PM

Also, I'm a bit new here, can anyone point me toward the video/mp3 of gravy debating the loose change boys?

Well I could..... but I'm not gonna, coz I'm a sadistic s.o.b .... and before you complain just remember who writes your NWO paycheque... no, those owl prints aren't real...I have to use a bloody quill pen (plucked from the arse of a bald eagle no less...oh yes) and the ink squeezed from a giant squid (and that aint a five minute job either)...so don't talk to me about job satisfaction...pah, if it wasn't for the immortality and the orgies I'd pack the bloody gig in and become a vole farmer in cornwall.

Anyway....ahem.... welcome to the forum. :D

Viper Daimao

17th July 2007, 02:42 PM

Well I could..... but I'm not gonna, coz I'm a sadistic s.o.b .... and before you complain just remember who writes your NWO paycheque... no, those owl prints aren't real...I have to use a bloody quill pen (plucked from the arse of a bald eagle no less...oh yes) and the ink squeezed from a giant squid (and that aint a five minute job either)...so don't talk to me about job satisfaction...pah, if it wasn't for the immortality and the orgies I'd pack the bloody gig in and become a vole farmer in cornwall.

Anyway....ahem.... welcome to the forum. :D

Thanks, it's cool, I found it while looking through Gravy's 911lies google pages for an unrelated item. I swear there's so much info there I find something new every time I look at it.