Oh, Noes! I'm on more of Kevin Barrett's lists.

[Gravy]

Kevin Barrett contacted me after he heard that Kevin Ryan backed out of a debate opportunity with me. Barrett wanted to know if I was interested in debating him on his radio show, or perhaps in a live debate when he is in New York.

In his email to me, he copied a response he had sent to a listener, in which he said that I was complicit in mass murder and a candidate for a war crimes tribunal, with the gallows perhaps in my future. I guess that's his idea of an inducement to debate. I replied,

Sorry, but Kevin Ryan claims to have specific knowledge about why the WTC towers should not have collapsed, based on his correspondence with U.L. and his analysis of the NIST and other reports. That's worth a detailed discussion, which he has declined.

You're just a mentally ill person who fantasizes about the violent death of your perceived enemies. Not much to debate there, except the type and quantity of medication you need, and that's outside my area of knowledge. Please get help.To which he replied,

"I suspected you were a coward. I'll put you on the coward's list."
I don't know if I can take being on so many lists!



Edit: Oh, and now I see that Ace Baker is again challenging me to a televised debate to take place in the TV studio in his head. Didn't we go through this, like, a year ago? Oh, September 11 must be approaching. I hear the plaintive cry of the loon.

[Young Union Square]

Breach of Rule 12 removed.

DO NOT use personal attacks to argue your point. If you cannot abide by the forum rules you will be suspended and/or banned.

[Pardalis]

Let's just stick to the facts people. I'm getting tired of this getting personal.

Ignore the personal issues, critical thinkers should know better than to play the infantile games of these truthers.

[Lisa Simpson]

Do not turn this thread into mudslinging between forum members or it will very quickly be sent to AAH.

[T.A.M.]

The sweeping hand of mod justice.

So anyway, YUS do you wish to debate someone on this forum in a debate, or discuss an issue, or not?

TAM:)

[Drudgewire]

Sowwy Lisa. :bgrin:

[JamesB]

Kevin Barrett contacted me after he heard that Kevin Ryan backed out of a debate opportunity with me. Barrett wanted to know if I was interested in debating him on his radio show, or perhaps in a live debate when he is in New York.

In his email to me, he copied a response he had sent to a listener, in which he said that I was complicit in mass murder and a candidate for a war crimes tribunal, with the gallows perhaps in my future. I guess that's his idea of an inducement to debate. I replied,

To which he replied,

I don't know if I can take being on so many lists!



Edit: Oh, and now I see that Ace Baker is again challenging me to a televised debate to take place in the TV studio in his head. Didn't we go through this, like, a year ago? Oh, September 11 must be approaching. I hear the plaintive cry of the loon.

Oh man, I am only on his "people who are like Nazi propagandists" list!

[T.A.M.]

I wonder if I will ever make any of his lists...I feel so...so...inadequate...lol

TAM:)

[MWare]

Oh man how did I get sucked into this mess? Thank you mods for the newspaper nose-rapping on my post. I was headed for a dark dark place. I'm back now :)

[Anti-sophist]

We should start compiling a list of all the people Barrett has directly or indirectly threatened with the gallows once the revolution comes... I know he basically did the same to that local reporter who covered his Madison "conference".

I am reminded of...

40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.)

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

[Drudgewire]

I wonder if I will ever make any of his lists...I feel so...so...inadequate...lol

TAM:)
At least there was a fake version of you on the LC forums. :)

[T.A.M.]

At least there was a fake version of you on the LC forums. :)

oh yah....now I feel important.;)

TAM:)

[HyJinX]

TAM the Mole!!!

[leftysergeant]

That there are people like Barret who hope to someday reshape society is one of the reasons liberals like me are buying firearms.

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

That there are people like Barret who hope to someday reshape society is one of the reasons liberals like me are buying firearms.

The 2nd amendment is for us all. Left and Right.

[Drudgewire]

My ACLU card is right behind my NRA card in the wallet. :cool:

[kookbreaker]

What is it about kooks and their dang 'lists'. Its like a mark of a particularly emotionally unstable person to run around bragging about making 'lists'. Half the kooks on USENET used to obsess about making 'lists' of one kind or another.

Can't they just remember who they don't like?

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

Every truther has a "People To Die When The Time Comes.xls" in their My Documents directory.

That's what my boss at the CIA told me. /s

[The Pig]

Why is it, whenever I take my "complicit in mass murder and a candidate for a war crimes tribunal" list to the supermarket and leave my shopping list on the fridge, I always forget the cottage cheese?

[Drudgewire]

What is it about kooks and their dang 'lists'. Its like a mark of a particularly emotionally unstable person to run around bragging about making 'lists'. Half the kooks on USENET used to obsess about making 'lists' of one kind or another.

Can't they just remember who they don't like?
Again, it goes back to projecting their own personalities onto the people in the shadows oppressing everyone else. "Who cares if I have a list? Are you going to tell me Cheney doesn't?"

[Hamradioguy]

My ACLU card is right behind my NRA card in the wallet. :cool:

Hey, same here! (My Dad has all but disowned me because I am a member of the "communist ACLU" and my liberal friends think I'm a crypto-Nazi because I'm a life member of the NRA. Guess I must be doing something right....)

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

My brother in law is convinced that all guns have the ability to magically go off for no reason at all.

It's really sad when people get an idea stuck in their head and won't listen to reason... *cough*truthers*cough*

[Mr. Skinny]

What is it about kooks and their dang 'lists'. Its like a mark of a particularly emotionally unstable person to run around bragging about making 'lists'. Half the kooks on USENET used to obsess about making 'lists' of one kind or another.
Well, I know a certain Danish skeptic on this forum that has a fondness for lists.

Are you saying he's a kook? :D

[Drudgewire]

Hey, same here! (My Dad has all but disowned me because I am a member of the "communist ACLU" and my liberal friends think I'm a crypto-Nazi because I'm a life member of the NRA. Guess I must be doing something right....)
Yeah, when I joined I wrote them and told them my positions on most things and how a big reason I joined was because they got Limbaugh off. They sent it directly to the ACLU president and I got an awesome return letter. :)

It's great having a card that you can pull out to annoy someone with no matter what company you're keeping at the time.

[Brainster]

By the same sort of "logic" these guys use, shouldn't the government be rounding up the "Truthers" and executing them? Aren't they just as guilty in trying to cover up the real guilty parties?

No? Ah, well, at least there's the consolation that I'll be in good company among the folks on Death Row; all the structural engineers, most of the FDNY and NYPD, Larry Silverstein, Mark Roberts and the JREF forum members, James B and Stephen Lemons, the Popular Mechanics guys, the Left Gatekeepers like Chomsky and Cockburn....

They're going to need those Chinese guillotines to get rid of us all!

[16.5]

"In his email to me, he copied a response he had sent to a listener, in which he said that I was complicit in mass murder and a candidate for a war crimes tribunal, with the gallows perhaps in my future."

Gravy, can you tell if his attaching the earlier e-mail was intentional or an unintentional oversight?

[Gravy]

Why is it, whenever I take my "complicit in mass murder and a candidate for a war crimes tribunal" list to the supermarket and leave my shopping list on the fridge, I always forget the cottage cheese?:D

[Gravy]

"In his email to me, he copied a response he had sent to a listener, in which he said that I was complicit in mass murder and a candidate for a war crimes tribunal, with the gallows perhaps in my future."

Gravy, can you tell if his attaching the earlier e-mail was intentional or an unintentional oversight?Intentional. It was a whole discussion, with links to my work (which link to his previous statement (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/semiliterateparanoiacswhofantasizeaboutt) that I'll be executed alongside Larry Silverstein).

What a silly goose.

[NYCEMT86]

Intentional. It was a whole discussion, with links to my work (which link to his previous statement (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/semiliterateparanoiacswhofantasizeaboutt) that I'll be executed alongside Larry Silverstein).

What a silly goose.


So what would your famous last words be?

Mine would be..."Make sure that guillotine falls at freefall speed, we wouldn't want it to be a conspiracy now."

[Gravy]

So what would your famous last words be?

Mine would be..."Make sure that guillotine falls at freefall speed, we wouldn't want it to be a conspiracy now."Mine would be, "The NWO is Soylent Green!" Which should keep them busy for a while.

[Drudgewire]

"Hey guys wait, the guy on the grassy knoll was..."

It only works if you're watching the release hatch. :D

[qarnos]

Mine would be, "The NWO is Soylent Green!" Which should keep them busy for a while.

I'd prefer to go with something like, "Dylan! Help me! Come on, man, we're in this together, remember?". :D :D :D

[beachnut]

Breach of Rule 12 removed.

DO NOT use personal attacks to argue your point. If you cannot abide by the forum rules you will be suspended and/or banned.
I missed the facts?

Gravy,

Thanks for sharing the exchange.

[Stellafane]

Well, according to Barrett, journalists who criticize the TM deserve to die "on the scaffold." Since I qualify as a journalist and have written two Letters to the Editor to my local newspaper blasting the TM (and the paper for publishing what I thought was a very supportive piece on them, on the fifth anniversary of 9/11 no less), I guess that means I'm going to be hung someday if he gets his way. Glad to know I'll have plenty of quality company as they slip the noose around my neck!

Kevin Barrett is sick, and frankly, at least potentially dangerous. I don't know if that's considered ad hominem or something, but it's true, and in my view relevant to this thread.

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

"Hey guys wait, the guy on the grassy knoll was..."

It only works if you're watching the release hatch. :D

Bonus points if any truthers lose fingers or limbs trying to stop the blade from falling...

[mjd1982]

Wait, he's accusing me of avoiding questions? This out-Averys Avery! My irony meter explodeth!

Also, I think there's a teensy difference between ignoring someone because you don't find interacting with them productive, and declaring that they should be tried for war crimes and executed.
Though Barrett's comments are reprehensible, the whole situation is indicative of an evident fact- it is very easy to debunk TT implosions, no plane at Shankville, or those such theories. When it comes to the facts about 9/11, such as foreknowledge, the PNAC doc, WTC7, and others, you have nothing to offer, and decline serious debate. In that respect, you are no better than Kevin Ryan, and, if one can do so..., you do share complicity.

Please keep it civil.

[CptColumbo]

Well, Barrett is off my Christmas card list! He is also moved lower in my list of coolest people on Earth, to 4,269,649,798. Right after Jackie Collins, and before that guy who stepped ahead of me in line at the supermarket.

[Regnad Kcin]

...When it comes to the facts about 9/11, such as foreknowledge...Evidence, please.

the PNAC doc...The one about the "new Pearl Harbor?" Please tell me you don't mean that non-starter.

WTC7...What about it? It was massively damaged by a series of events, to the point it was not going to be able to stand. Then it didn't.

and others..."Others?"

you have nothing to offer, and decline serious debate.Nonsense. From what I've seen, Gravy has offered to debate time and time again. It is others who run away. And bleat from the safety of their keyboard. And threaten his life.

In that respect, you are no better than Kevin Ryan, and, if one can do so through stupidity, you do share complicity."Complicity?" Please stop. It's embarrassing.

[Unsecured Coins]

Though Barrett's comments are reprehensible, the whole situation is indicative of an evident fact- it is very easy to debunk TT implosions, no plane at Shankville, or those such theories. When it comes to the facts about 9/11, such as foreknowledge, the PNAC doc, WTC7, and others, you have nothing to offer, and decline serious debate. In that respect, you are no better than Kevin Ryan, and, if one can do so through stupidity, you do share complicity.

This coming from a guy with an 80 page thread about "facts" that still hasn't gotten off the PNAC tarmac yet. Bud Light Salutes YOU, Captain of The Oblivious.

[Brainster]

Though Barrett's comments are reprehensible, the whole situation is indicative of an evident fact- it is very easy to debunk TT implosions, no plane at Shankville, or those such theories. When it comes to the facts about 9/11, such as foreknowledge, the PNAC doc, WTC7, and others, you have nothing to offer, and decline serious debate. In that respect, you are no better than Kevin Ryan, and, if one can do so through stupidity, you do share complicity.

I'm always a little nonplussed when 9-11 Deniers bring up the "foreknowledge" issue. Did the Czech equivalent of the CIA warn the US that the neocons were planning a false-flag attack? The PNAC document? Amazing how our bosses at the NWO always make things so hard for us to cover up by publishing their plans online, isn't it? WTC7? You haven't read Mark's rather exhaustive treatment (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/introduction) of that issue, then?

[mjd1982]

I'm always a little nonplussed when 9-11 Deniers bring up the "foreknowledge" issue. Did the Czech equivalent of the CIA warn the US that the neocons were planning a false-flag attack? The PNAC document? Amazing how our bosses at the NWO always make things so hard for us to cover up by publishing their plans online, isn't it? WTC7? You haven't read Mark's rather exhaustive treatment (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/introduction) of that issue, then?
Yes, in fact I went through all of his quotes on that site, and dealt with every one. I think its on my 911 Commission thread. He has refused to deal, in any serious manner, with the quotes that decimate his story, as on my WTC7 testimonies thread. You should also read the CF thread, where I have again, dismantled his PNAC rebuttal on his LC guide, which he also refused rational counter, and I believe, though I can't remember for sure, that he has done the same on teh 911 CR thread.

As I have said, his behaviour is a parallel to the people in the TM who propound fervent beliefs which they cannot defend. The parallels between the OT movement, and the misguided parts of the TM, are unbelievably stark.

[HyJinX]

<snip>where I have again, dismantled his PNAC rebuttal on his LC guide<snip>

:crazy:

[Gravy]

He has refused to deal, in any serious manner, with the quotes that decimate his story, as on my WTC7 testimonies thread.It is immature to lie. Please do not do it.

[jaydeehess]

Does he keep an actual list of "traitors", if so can we view it online?

Amazing that the people who most tout freedom express the desire to silence those who oppose their views.

[PhantomWolf]

You shouldn't lie. It makes you look bad.

Awww, but that's what he's good at, especially by cherry picking single line sumaries and then calling people lairs when they post the entire sumary and point people to the three page details to show that his interpretation of the single line is loopy. hence why he's on my ignore. Ignorance I can deal with. Willful ignorance, that's a difference story. Willful ignorance combined with an inflated ego, well that's ignore territory.

[jberryhill]

It's great having a card that you can pull out to annoy someone with no matter what company you're keeping at the time.

The $35 investment in a National Organization for Women card was the best money I ever spent.

I use it to annoy my wife when she calls me a sexist slob.

[Unsecured Coins]

I trust that the more discerning readers of this thread will come to the evident conclusion.

If by this you mean I have come to the conclusion you enjoy getting your ass tore out the frame and mailed back to you in monthy installments, then yes, you are right

[Spins]

Your observations are reasonable and your question is legitimate. Unfortunately, it has nothing to do with Kevin Barrett, his nefarious list, nor Gravy, so I am prevented from addressing it.
Ah I get it, so if you are (almost nauseatingly) polite you feel you can dodge the question?

Also I don't know if you noticed but you didn't answer my question in the reply previously (was this an intentional dodge?), even though you quoted that last bit of my post, all you did was comment on the pictures of the wreckage I'd posted.

[RedIbis]

Ah I get it, so if you are (almost nauseatingly) polite you feel you can dodge the question?

Also I don't know if you noticed but you didn't answer my question in the reply previously (was this an intentional dodge?), even though you quoted that last bit of my post, all you did was comment on the pictures of the wreckage I'd posted.

Why would civility sicken you? This is why I support the OP and stated that it's not a strong rhetorical position for Barrett to put Mark on any list, avoiding debate. And why it's not a strong position for Mark to ignore me, arbitrarily.

I'm not trying to cause trouble here and the mods have split this thread. If you have a direct question unrelated to this topic, I'll answer it in the other thread. Thanks.

[Katana]

OK. So I responded to several requests for a thread split. I did the best I could to find a way to do so. I also moved several posts to AAH that had no role in either resulting thread (things like bating, requests for the split, etc). Please try to stay on topic from this point forward.

[Gravy]

This thread was intended as a quickie humorous/sad post, but I'd like to solicit opinions about my decision to not debate Barrett. I gave my reasons in the OP,
You're just a mentally ill person who fantasizes about the violent death of your perceived enemies. Not much to debate there, except the type and quantity of medication you need, and that's outside my area of knowledge. Please get help.and I'm quite serious about them. I think Barrett is a mentally ill attention-seeker whose illness will only be fed by giving him what he wants. I spent more than enough time with the shape-shifting Fetzer, and only did so because he's been influential: for example, students at my alma mater who were inspired and advised by him started "Student Scholars for 9/11 Truth," which remains active.

People like Ryan, Steven Jones, and Griffin are sane enough to know that they'll be annihilated in a debate with someone who's both well-read in 9/11 issues and who knows their claims, tactics, and misrepresentations. People like Barrett, Fetzer, and Ace Baker don't care about that. Any attention is a win for them.

Some people think that any opportunity to stomp one of these crackpots into the ground should be taken. But based on what I've heard of Barrett's radio show, there's no question in my mind that any attempt at discussing, say, evidence for controlled demolition, would result in a Barrett rant about why I'm a shill for Rupert Murdoch and why do I support U.S. soldiers drinking the blood of Iraqi babies. Hell, in his invitation to debate me he included his charge that I should be tried and probably executed for war crimes. Yet he has never bothered to point out anything I've gotten wrong. I don't know that there are many people on any side of this issue who take him seriously.

It's my opinion that arguing with these people is no more productive – for anyone – than arguing with the poor wretch who paces the sidewalk festooned with "The End is Nigh" sandwich boards.

What's your opinion?


For people not familiar with Barrett's opinons, here's a sampler from a letter I sent to him in December:

Dr. Barrett, I have my checkbook out and and am ready to write what I hope is the first of many $1,000 annual MUJCA "Benefactor" checks.

There are just a few things I'd like to know before I send my payment.

1) I notice that the first words on the MUJCA website are a quote from Exodus: "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor."

Yet you call Larry Silverstein a traitor, a mass murderer, and an insurance fraudster.

When I asked you by email for evidence of these crimes, you refused to provide it and said that I would be executed alongside Mr. Silverstein. You said that you were saving my emails to be used as evidence against me at my trial.

Why did you say those things?

2) On your website, you say about Larry Silverstein,

"9/11 insurance-fraudster Larry Silverstein, like the Poe narrator, was apparently confounded by the noise of his own lying heartbeat when he confessed on national TV to making "a decision to pull (WTC-7)...and we made that decision to pull, and we watched the building collapse."

When I asked you, more than once, to fix that glaring error and provided the actual Silverstein quote,

"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse." –Larry Silverstein

You refused to make that simple, but very important correction. Of course it was the FDNY who decided to pull its men away from building 7, as Chief of Operations Daniel Nigro makes clear: "The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged [WTC 7] building. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building's integrity was in serious doubt." [Fire Engineering magazine, 10/2002]"

Why do you refuse to correct that error?

3) You said that Larry Silverstein hasn't built anything at Ground Zero. When I pointed out to you the 52-story WTC building 7, which opened in May, 2006, you refused to correct your error. Why?

Regarding the issues I raised above, do you not think that you are bearing false witness against Larry Silverstein? Please put my mind at ease.

4) About video analysis of the WTC collapses you said, "Scientists aren't necessarily the best people to look at this footage and understand what they are seeing." Do you believe that?

5) On your radio show you said, "Every single bombing of a mosque or a market in Iraq has been done by false flag terrorism. There are no indigenous Muslim resistance people doing that."

Please provide the evidence to back this claim. My check-writing hand is raring to go!

6) Of the film "United 93" you said, "Flight 93 [sic] is a Goebbels-style propaganda flick designed to incite war crimes. The people who made it should be put on trial."

Can you be more specific about exactly what laws were broken by the makers of "United 93" and what court or tribunal should hear the case? Will you be presenting your evidence against them to a prosecutor? Finally, do you think the filmmakers have been successful at inciting war crimes?

7) Of the NIST report on WTC 1 and 2 you said, "I haven’t read the whole thing I doubt if anyone ever has or will."

Yet I have read the whole thing, and I know that you mischaracterize its conclusions. I suggest that you at least read the NIST FAQ and the executive summaries of the reports.

8) When people ask you to correct your factual errors, you compare them to Nazis, government agents, cultists, and traitors. Why do you do that?

9) Why did you say that it's a "Zionist Big Lie" that the "Germans hated the Jews for no reason."

10) Why did you say "the Holocaust as it is taught in the US is a hideously destructive myth"?

11) Why did you name one of the most egregious white-supremicist neo-Nazis, Ernst Zundel, as someone whose work deserves consideration? In case you've forgotten about Zundel's work, here's a quote by him:

"Wherever we look, we White people find ourselves besieged by peoples of other races who compete aggressively against us for jobs, food, housing, education and above all -- power! The Jews are particularly adept at seizing or insinuating themselves into strategic positions in our society where they wield power far beyond the extent of their numbers....Through us, the White majority of Europe and America, the Jewish minority have obtained their advantages, including their Israel, their Federal Reserve, their World Bank and their International Monetary Fund. In exchange for these advantages, the Jews give us -- their White hosts -- wars, depressions, inflation, unemployment, energy shortages, higher and higher taxes and air piracy. Like sheep, they expect us to go down the road with them -- all the way to the kosher slaughterhouse. We White people of America have done nothing so far which would frustrate the Jews' expectations or their ambitions of becoming the world's slavemasters."


Dr. Barrett, if you will give me evidence that you are not bearing false witness against your neighbors, including me, and not supporting anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial, I'll get that check right out to you.

I'm sure you appreciate my desire to know that you're not just another hate-obsessed nutjob who's filled with violent fantasies of revenge against his imagined enemies.

Your friend and hopeful benefactor,

Mark Roberts

[Sabrina]

While I think you overdosed on the sarcasm just a bit, I don't see anything horribly wrong with what you said. I share your opinion that we should not acknowledge these weirdos because that is exactly what they are looking for and what feeds their delusions of grandeur. Not all twoofers are suffering from paranoid schizophrenia, but I'd say quite a few are definitely suffering from at least the tendencies. Their inability to grasp the logic presented to them indicates their clear mental instability, at least to me, and I prefer not to feed it. I'll admit I've failed in that respect on several occasions (my recent exchange with mjd comes to mind) but I have for the most part stopped and confined my exchanges to simple questions and attempts to clarify their ravings. That's pretty much the only way to deal with them at this point; they're so lost in their paranoid delusions (in my opinion) that it's best to not feed them.

[T.A.M.]

Overdosed on Sarcasm...nah...When it comes to the truthers and sarcasm, Mark is like a long time drug addict...he needs to use more now to get the same effect...lol

Mark, I think you hit the nail on the head. Arguing with Barrett would not only be pointless (he seems to have very little knowledge in 9/11, and what he does have is along the lines of Fetzer drivel), but might put your life in direct danger if you make him to angry...you are likely on his gallows list as well.

Good call...save the debating for those you can embarrass intellectually, and make a real difference to your audience with.

TAM:)

[Stellafane]

Nothing at all wrong with your reply as far as I'm concerned. Barrett isn't merely sick, he's potentially dangerous. I wouldn't want that person to know who I am or where I live, never mind meeting him face to face, a rather disturbing prospect. (Even if he didn't come after me personally, I can easily see him sending over one of his pimply faced minions to do it.) And being a coward has nothing to do with it, unless one is equally "cowardly" when they take care to avoid things like being shot in a back alley or getting AIDS.