Alex Jones' Endgame

[Hyperviolet]

Trailer for new Alex Jones film:
Endgame
Released 26th October 2007.

f20EIt4QYsI

The actual production of the film looks pretty good.
However, Jones' uber-apocalyptic narration borders on comical.

This film seems to be built around the notion of Eugenics & Population Reduction (specifically 80% of us).
One wonders how AJ will back this wild assertion up. Then again, they've apparantly 'admitted' it in secret documents.

Whatcha think, folks?

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

Looks like something to be shown on Sci Fi network at 3AM... as a 30 minute infomercial.

Seriously... Why kill off 80% of the world's population. I mean really. Who's gonna do the menial labor? People at the top can't be at the top without thousands of other people doing their jobs, who rely on thousands of others doing their jobs, and so on and so on.

From the migrant worker picking strawberries to the auto manufacturer to the starbucks clerk.

I've read somewhere before that really only 2% of the population can't work and be productive (and therefore technically expendable) These are the very young children, those with extreme physical or mental impairments, and talk show hosts in Austin, TX. And no one is advocating their extermination.

So what he's saying is that this NWO wants to kill 80% of the world with super secret weapons and technology... and then live like it's 1420 AD.

And people follow this guy?

[CHF]

This film seems to be built around the notion of Eugenics & Population Reduction (specifically 80% of us).

And yet the world's population continues to surge.

Go figure.

[dudalb]

So what he's saying is that this NWO wants to kill 80% of the world with super secret weapons and technology... and then live like it's 1420 AD.

And people follow this guy?

Wow,Jones thinks that Ras Al Ghul and the League of Shadows..who want to kill off most of the human race in the "Batman" comics..is for real?
I have real problems how anybody can take this kook serously. He actually makes other Truthers look halfway sane.
Thank The Flying Spagehtti Monster,though,that the Truthers keep embracing kooks like Jones,though. It clearly labels them as a kook movement.

[GreNME]

Did this guy just finish reading Atlas Shrugged and not realize it's a work of fiction?

[Brainster]

Trailer for new Alex Jones film:
Endgame
Released 26th October 2007.

f20EIt4QYsI

The actual production of the film looks pretty good.
However, Jones' uber-apocalyptic narration borders on comical.

This film seems to be built around the notion of Eugenics & Population Reduction (specifically 80% of us).
One wonders how AJ will back this wild assertion up. Then again, they've apparantly 'admitted' it in secret documents.

Whatcha think, folks?

This seems to be a staple of CT nuttery. The idea is that we're nearing "Peak Oil" and that the only way for the global elites to continue to get cheap gasoline for them is to kill most of us. Or something like that.

[T.A.M.]

AJ is FOS, on this topic, and on all topics he tackles.

End Of Story.

TAM:)

[NikZeta302]

So this NWO has existed since Ancient Rome, and has been controlling the Earth since that time.Why didn't they just prevent 80% of todays population from being born and turn the Earth into one world government?

[Hyperviolet]

This seems to be a staple of CT nuttery. The idea is that we're nearing "Peak Oil" and that the only way for the global elites to continue to get cheap gasoline for them is to kill most of us. Or something like that.


Thing is, Brainster, Jones believes peak oil to be a globalist hoax. That is, artificial scarcity. Simply an attempt to boost the prices of gas.

It's extraordinary.

[Undesired Walrus]

Brown? What has Comrade Brown got to do with this?

[dudalb]

So this NWO has existed since Ancient Rome, and has been controlling the Earth since that time.Why didn't they just prevent 80% of todays population from being born and turn the Earth into one world government?


God, I think Jones heard Liam Neeson as Ras Al Ghul's speech in "Batman Begins" ("We Caused The Fall Of Rome,We Sent the Plague Ships into Europe,We Caused The Great Fire Of London,etc") and thought it was for real.

[Hyperviolet]

Brown? What has Comrade Brown got to do with this?

Don't you know?
He is a bilderberger, ever since 1991!

:boggled:

[HyJinX]

Don't you know?
He is a bilderberger, ever since 1991!

:boggled:

This is what they do at their meetings. Not a big deal.



http://www.gameops.com/spot/assets/image/burger/burger_1.jpg

[Hyperviolet]

This is what they do at their meetings. Not a big deal.



http://www.gameops.com/spot/assets/image/burger/burger_1.jpg

And with this information you think Mad Cow Disease was just an accident?

Wake up!
www.prisonplanet.com

[Unsecured Coins]

the only think missing from that was a "Sunday, Sunday SUNDAY!!!!!!!" at the end

[DarkMagician]

I've read somewhere before that really only 2% of the population can't work and be productive (and therefore technically expendable) These are the very young children, those with extreme physical or mental impairments, and talk show hosts in Austin, TX.

Ba-dum, CRASH!

[sesshin]

Did this guy just finish reading Atlas Shrugged and not realize it's a work of fiction?

Probably, right after he had finished reading '1984' and watching 'The Matrix'. Alex is a big fan of non-fiction.

[Totovader]

Did this guy just finish reading Atlas Shrugged and not realize it's a work of fiction?

Um... I don't think anything Alex Jones said could be construed as similar to Rand.

[gumboot]

This is Alex Jones's bread and butter. He's clung to the depopulation CT for years. He just jumped on the 9/11 train for the heck of it.

-Gumboot

[Chedda]

At the current rate it's taking them to take over the world, I estimate they'll be in control by 4063AD. We can only imagine the level of stupidity the Bush genes would of produced by then. Oh mighty Flying Spaghetti Monster, help our children.

[Bell]

Probably, right after he had finished reading '1984' and watching 'The Matrix'. Alex is a big fan of non-fiction.

Did you catch www.whatistheendgame.com there at the end?

:dl:

[Bell]

Happy happy joy! Queen Beatrix appears to be part of the NWO. Which means I'm save, since I work with the Dutch police. And we have a big portret of her hanging in the lobby. I mean, because of all that, they wouldn't kill me. Now would they?

[Oliver]

Happy happy joy! Queen Beatrix appears to be part of the NWO. Which means I'm save, since I work with the Dutch police. And we have a big portret of her hanging in the lobby. I mean, because of all that, they wouldn't kill me. Now would they?


Bell, do you know what the trilateral conspiracy is about?
I still don't get it ... :boxedin:

[Bell]

Bell, do you know what the trilateral conspiracy is about?
I still don't get it ... :boxedin:

Serious... I have no idea?
Please enlighten (or scare?) me :)

[ryanebelhar]

How are they going to kill 80% of the population if they can't even get Alex Jones to stop making movies?

[Hyperviolet]

Bell, do you know what the trilateral conspiracy is about?
I still don't get it ... :boxedin:


In the NWO:
Bilderberg is The Congress
Trilateral Commission is The Senate
The Council On Foreign Relations is the Whitehouse.

Each working together for a One World Government!

No, but seriously, as far as i know, the Trilateral Conspiracy is just another arm of the New World Order. Obviously.

[Hyperviolet]

Happy happy joy! Queen Beatrix appears to be part of the NWO. Which means I'm save, since I work with the Dutch police. And we have a big portret of her hanging in the lobby. I mean, because of all that, they wouldn't kill me. Now would they?


Part of the NWO? Are you kidding?
She's right on top with Lord Rothschild according to AJ.
Illuminati Goddess, she is.

[Bell]

How are they going to kill 80% of the population if they can't even get Alex Jones to stop making movies?

Doesn't 80% of the world population (or something like that - whatever) believe that 9/11 was an inside job? There's your target!

[Bell]

Part of the NWO? Are you kidding?
She's right on top with Lord Rothschild according to AJ.
Illuminati Goddess, she is.

Let it be known that I kiss and worship the ground she walks on. Please don't kill me?

[Oliver]

Serious... I have no idea?
Please enlighten (or scare?) me :)

In the NWO:
Bilderberg is The Congress
Trilateral Commission is The Senate
The Council On Foreign Relations is the Whitehouse.

Each working together for a One World Government!

No, but seriously, as far as i know, the Trilateral Conspiracy is just another arm of the New World Order. Obviously.


The trilateral Commission is a world conspiracy - as Hyperviolet
pointed out ... the question is how ConspiracyTheorists came to
the conclusion that this is part of the NWO...

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

[Hyperviolet]

Let it be known that I kiss and worship the ground she walks on. Please don't kill me?

No, no, Bell.
For you are well in with the high-priestess.
Stick to what you're doing and you'll be patrolling Bohemian Grove before you can say "Molech!"

[Hyperviolet]

The trilateral Commission is a world conspiracy - as Hyperviolet
pointed out ... the question is how ConspiracyTheorists came to
the conclusion that this is part of the NWO...

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

It was started by David Rockefeller.
'Nuff said.

;)

[Bell]

No, no, Bell.
For you are well in with the high-priestess.
Stick to what you're doing and you'll be patrolling Bohemian Grovebefore you can say "Molech!"


:iloveusign:

[Oliver]

:iloveusign:


http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/ad/wootrock.gif:p

[NickUK]

What does AJ have against clearing his throat?

[GreNME]

Um... I don't think anything Alex Jones said could be construed as similar to Rand.

Except for the "bat-poo deranged" part.

No, I mean did he read the book and think that this was somehow non-fiction? He's got that same "they're out to control us and make us all mediocre lemmings" as the "eeble gub'mints" in the story.

[GreNME]

What does AJ have against clearing his throat?

The same thing that Limbaugh has against it. It makes him sound tougher to his fans.

[Totovader]

Except for the "bat-poo deranged" part.

No, I mean did he read the book and think that this was somehow non-fiction? He's got that same "they're out to control us and make us all mediocre lemmings" as the "eeble gub'mints" in the story.

I don't recall anything Rand ever said as being "bat-poo deranged". Did you read Atlas Shrugged? The ideas that could be stretched to "they're out to control us" are not at all similar to who/what/why AJ thinks is out there.

I'm sorry, but you're just plain wrong, here. These two individuals are on opposite ends of the spectrum and you don't help your case by comparing them. AJ is an idiot, compare him with other idiots.

[Pardalis]

I have never seen Alex' Jones' videos for more than a few seconds, and I can't even endure a few seconds of a trailer for this one...

[Hyperviolet]

I have never seen Alex' Jones' videos for more than a few seconds, and I can't even endure a few seconds of a trailer for this one...


You're missing out on a prime conspirafest, Pardalis.
AJ's documentaries are only surpassed by David Icke lectures.

[GreNME]

I don't recall anything Rand ever said as being "bat-poo deranged". Did you read Atlas Shrugged? The ideas that could be stretched to "they're out to control us" are not at all similar to who/what/why AJ thinks is out there.

I'm sorry, but you're just plain wrong, here. These two individuals are on opposite ends of the spectrum and you don't help your case by comparing them. AJ is an idiot, compare him with other idiots.

I consider Rand an idiot, but that's beside the point to anything I was talking about.

AJ has a history of taking even the smallest bit of "they're out to control us" musings and making mountains of molehills. The fact that the book (which I did read, yes) also implies that vying for mediocrity is useless and a waste, the way AJ was talking about having the majority of the population culled sounded like the kind of "logic" he uses to come to such conclusions. In fact, AJ's "trailer" reminded me of a funny Bob the Angry Flower comic, actually...

http://image.grenme.com/fun/atlass.gif (http://www.angryflower.com/)

Link goes to the comic's website, image copied and hosted by me, copyright angryflower.com.

If that makes you mad, all I can suggest is that you not take it personally. There are a lot of philosophies out there I find to be ludicrous, and you have just as much a right to find whatever you want ludicrous as you see fit. I highly doubt Rand is taking it personally (you know... considering...). :)

[Totovader]

I consider Rand an idiot, but that's beside the point to anything I was talking about.

On the contrary- your ignorance on the matter is exactly the point. What you "consider" is none of my concern, it's what you state as fact that you're unable to back up. In case you didn't notice- you've stepped into AJ's realm, now... you're just making claims and trying to draw parallels between two people you don't like and trying to use that as a scare tactic to avoid the issues themselves. Calling Rand an idiot does not make you a genius, and it doesn't make AJ an idiot, either.

AJ has a history of taking even the smallest bit of "they're out to control us" musings and making mountains of molehills. The fact that the book (which I did read, yes) also implies that vying for mediocrity is useless and a waste, the way AJ was talking about having the majority of the population culled sounded like the kind of "logic" he uses to come to such conclusions.

Again, the analogy you're trying to draw simply does not exist. Now you're trying to claim that AJ is saying things he did not say. Obviously you have a need to draw two things that you do not like into the same category, but it doesn't work- it just makes you look like you're reaching and ignorant on the issues.

In fact, AJ's "trailer" reminded me of a funny Bob the Angry Flower comic, actually...

Minus the fact that you hate both people, I don't even see how the two can possibly be connected. What is it specifically in AJ's trailer that reminded of you of this comic? (I'll ignore the absurdity of the comic as I've seen it a dozen times before and it demonstrates that ignorance I was referring to).

If that makes you mad, all I can suggest is that you not take it personally.

I'm not taking it personally- your ignorance doesn't offend me. I'm simply pointing out the obvious: trying to draw a parallel between two individuals who are nothing alike just because you hate both of them makes you look silly.

There are a lot of philosophies out there I find to be ludicrous, and you have just as much a right to find whatever you want ludicrous as you see fit. I highly doubt Rand is taking it personally (you know... considering...). :)

Nor is that my point. You obviously have a need to draw people into political discussions- so I don't buy this whole "don't take it personally" bid. If you're going to make statements, I expect you to be able to back them up, not just sidestep them with strawman tactics. Instead of just claiming that there are parallels or that you "see" parallels or that one "reminds you" of the other- why not provide some examples to support your case? What you have done so far demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of Rand's principles- and in fact a very poor attack on AJ's tactics.

[GreNME]

I seem to have stepped on someone's hero.

On the contrary- your ignorance on the matter is exactly the point. What you "consider" is none of my concern, it's what you state as fact that you're unable to back up. In case you didn't notice- you've stepped into AJ's realm, now... you're just making claims and trying to draw parallels between two people you don't like and trying to use that as a scare tactic to avoid the issues themselves. Calling Rand an idiot does not make you a genius, and it doesn't make AJ an idiot, either.

My, this is rich. You take me expressing an opinion ("I consider") and turn it into me being the equivalent of a conspiracy theorist. I'm not sure I see what you're requiring I back up. I already stated the motifs that exist in the book that I think AJ tends to latch onto in every news report, speech, political paper, and interview he's ever used in his 'crusade' against The Man. I don't see how I have to explain the whole nook and how it wouldn't look that way to people who aren't scouring everything they read for cherry-pickable ideas to fit a paranoid conspiracy like AJ does.

And like I said, my personal opinion of Rand's ideas have no bearing on the matter. This is a discussion about AJ's latest trailer, not a book review or a discussion on what I think the failings of Objectivism are.


Again, the analogy you're trying to draw simply does not exist. Now you're trying to claim that AJ is saying things he did not say. Obviously you have a need to draw two things that you do not like into the same category, but it doesn't work- it just makes you look like you're reaching and ignorant on the issues.

What issues? Jones' trailer states clearly that they want a lowered population that can be controlled. A controlled population is exactly what was implied is happening in the book I mentioned. I don't know what "need" you're projecting, because I was mostly making a teasing comment in passing. I could have just as easily said AJ must have just read 1984 by Orwell, due to the gravitas behind his claims. The main thing I was joking about is the tired use of the dystopian element in trying to make wild claims about today's world, and Rand's book describes one of the most popular types of distopias.


Minus the fact that you hate both people, I don't even see how the two can possibly be connected. What is it specifically in AJ's trailer that reminded of you of this comic? (I'll ignore the absurdity of the comic as I've seen it a dozen times before and it demonstrates that ignorance I was referring to).

Yes, because people who place different values than you do on works of fiction are obviously ignorant and hateful. What reminded me of the comic? Flawed use of dystopia in both of their arguments.

Incidentally, have you harrassed the creator of BtAF comics as much as you are me over your demands to interpret Rand's work in the way you feel is The Right Way? Just curious, because your decision that I must obviously hate that which I disagree with seems pretty knee-jerk of you, and you seem fairly dead set on being "right" on this interpretation, almost to the level of dogmatic.


I'm not taking it personally- your ignorance doesn't offend me. I'm simply pointing out the obvious: trying to draw a parallel between two individuals who are nothing alike just because you hate both of them makes you look silly.

You claim you're not taking it personally, yet you're claiming I must hate people in order to not agree with or like their works of fiction. Are you sure you're not personally invested in this at all?


There are a lot of philosophies out there I find to be ludicrous, and you have just as much a right to find whatever you want ludicrous as you see fit. I highly doubt Rand is taking it personally (you know... considering...). :)
Nor is that my point. You obviously have a need to draw people into political discussions- so I don't buy this whole "don't take it personally" bid. If you're going to make statements, I expect you to be able to back them up, not just sidestep them with strawman tactics. Instead of just claiming that there are parallels or that you "see" parallels or that one "reminds you" of the other- why not provide some examples to support your case? What you have done so far demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of Rand's principles- and in fact a very poor attack on AJ's tactics.

You completely miss the point. My opinion of Rand's "principles" doesn't have a bearing on what I think Jones' reaction would have been. You see, Jones could read a love letter and come up with some nefarious purpose behind it. He has repeatedly displayed this religious determination in every video of his I've seen. He's also shown himself adept at picking up secondary aspects of anything, whether in text, audio, or video, and latch on to them as if they are the primary focus while building his whole argument around them (kind of like you're doing with my disapproval of Rand, but he's more vicious about it). In the book I mention none of the elements that would be attractive to Jones are the aspects that Rand is justifying or portraying in a heroic light, though the aspects that Jones has historically chosen to grab and use in his 'crusade' as 'proofs' of the New World Order are present in the book. Frankly, I can't think of a time where AJ has looked at anything and represented it for what it was actually saying or showing. The reason I chose Atlas Shrugged instead of, say, The Fointainhead is because the former has elements in it that could be misconstrued and not part of the message that Rand consistently tries to portray. I could have equally used Anthem in my original post, except I think Rand was being a bit too heavy-handed with her message, and Atlas Shrugged had more subtlety in its writings.

You need to get off your defense of Rand and Objectivism, though. A whole list of authors and books would have fit in there, ranging from Frank Herbert to Robert Heinlein to L. Ron (or, as I call him, L-Ron) Hubbard to Aldus Huxley. Many authors, especially in science fiction (and let's not quibble, Atlas Shrugged is sci-fi), write their work with a message in mind. This isn't about AJ "getting" what the authors are trying to say, but about AJ's habit of picking and choosing elements of dystopia that he wants to get. Rand's works would be a goldmine for him, because Rand demonized the idea of socialized federalism in each of her books. That demonizing, not Rand's development of Objectivism evident in her writing, is what would be pretty blatantly attractive to Jones.

Is it reductionism on my part? Yep. Is it personal? Not in the slightest. You're the one who is making acusations of emotion, which seems to me like you're taking it way more personally than I am. If that makes you think ill of me because you disagree, then good for you. I'm simply pointing out that my personal opinion of Rand's ideology has little to do with the situation and that her use of a dystopian government in the book has most to do with what I said.

Jokes that you can't seem to find funny aside, Jones' material focuses on an 'enemy' that is usually a mix between the government of Brave New World, Hitler, and Dr. Evil (or some other amalgam of Bond-movie-villians that give away their plans for Total Domination to the hero).

[Totovader]

I seem to have stepped on someone's hero.

No, you attempted to mix in a political discussion and were unable to support your comments so you've tried to make it personal. I've ignored that and will continue to do so.

My, this is rich. You take me expressing an opinion ("I consider") and turn it into me being the equivalent of a conspiracy theorist. I'm not sure I see what you're requiring I back up. I already stated the motifs that exist in the book that I think AJ tends to latch onto in every news report, speech, political paper, and interview he's ever used in his 'crusade' against The Man.

I see. Now opinions are untouchable? You don't need to support any statements that are just opinions?

I'm not sure "rich" is the word for that.

I don't see how I have to explain the whole nook and how it wouldn't look that way to people who aren't scouring everything they read for cherry-pickable ideas to fit a paranoid conspiracy like AJ does.

That doesn't even make any sense.

And like I said, my personal opinion of Rand's ideas have no bearing on the matter. This is a discussion about AJ's latest trailer, not a book review or a discussion on what I think the failings of Objectivism are.

Whatever you think are the failings of Objectivism and Rand and AJ are the result of your ignorance on all of these issues; your desire to back away from your statements and just reduce them to the realm of out-of-bounds "opinions" demonstrates this.

What issues? Jones' trailer states clearly that they want a lowered population that can be controlled. A controlled population is exactly what was implied is happening in the book I mentioned.

Not even close. Besides the fact that this is a far cry from what you were stating in your original post- a "controlled population" is such a watered down ambiguity that you might as well toss in Ghandi, Pol Pot, Clinton, and Captain Kirk into people who fit your definitions. Again, the fact that you feel the need to bring two complete opposites into the same category when they clearly do not belong is a significant failure on your part. That's not my fault- it's yours. Deal with it.

I don't know what "need" you're projecting, because I was mostly making a teasing comment in passing.

A comment which you then had to follow up with an attempt to bring in some more folks with a strike at Limbaugh because you can't argue your points on the intellectual level- so you have to reduce your disagreements down to petty "bat poo" flinging and hope that someone steps in your way.

I could have just as easily said AJ must have just read 1984 by Orwell, due to the gravitas behind his claims.

And much like your other comments- I doubt you would have been able to draw any meaningful parallel. You were trying to assert that AJ and Rand are similar, unless you look highly upon Jones, I wouldn't suggest comparing him to Orwell.

You're peeing on your own feet, there.

The main thing I was joking about is the tired use of the dystopian element in trying to make wild claims about today's world, and Rand's book describes one of the most popular types of distopias.

When did it become about distopias? And, was it a tired use back 25 years ago when the book was published? If it was a "popular type", then why has the book been so popular? Yet again, your criticism falls short of being anything meaningful- it's trivial and bland, which leads me to believe that you are speaking on matters you know nothing about. What's next, you going to complain that Rand has too many vowels in her name?

Yes, because people who place different values than you do on works of fiction are obviously ignorant and hateful.

People who invent strawman are desperate and stretching. Your "value" placed on the work we are discussing is based on ignorance- not the other way around.

You tried to compare Alex Jones to Ayn Rand- when I asked you a very basic question as to why, you started doing the shuffle. It's not that difficult to see that you're out of your league. Criticism I'm eager to find- but I am not going to agree that red is blue just because you call it an "opinion".

What reminded me of the comic? Flawed use of dystopia in both of their arguments.

That much is obvious. Their names also both start with A.

Incidentally, have you harrassed the creator of BtAF comics as much as you are me over your demands to interpret Rand's work in the way you feel is The Right Way?

No need. He's not the one here making these absurd statements. Throwing others underneath the bus won't change that. Neither will trying to make me look like a zealot.

Just curious, because your decision that I must obviously hate that which I disagree with seems pretty knee-jerk of you, and you seem fairly dead set on being "right" on this interpretation, almost to the level of dogmatic.

So you're taking my criticism of your statements and trying to make it your own? Wow. I think I've spent a lot of patience and care in explaining to you how your parallels are less than obvious- I'm not sure how you think you can get away with the comment that my decision was "knee-jerk" when you admitted it in the 2nd post... Again, personally attacking me and trying to claim that I'm "dogmatic" is not going to excuse you from having to justify your statements with some sort of an argument. I think it's obvious to anyone who is bored enough to read this that you're pulling out all the stops to avoid a relatively simple question: explain yourself. Your replies thus far have been to whip out the "it's just an opinion" card, reduce your claims to that of extremely general principles which have no relevant characteristics to your original claim, and then to try and accuse me of being this and that. Just knock it off. If you can't answer the question then just say so- all the dancing makes you look worse.

You claim you're not taking it personally, yet you're claiming I must hate people in order to not agree with or like their works of fiction. Are you sure you're not personally invested in this at all?

You're again inventing a strawman- you admitted your thoughts on the issues quite early. I see no need to justify my recognition of what you've already admitted- and trying to reword your begging of the question will not change my answer.

You completely miss the point. My opinion of Rand's "principles" doesn't have a bearing on what I think Jones' reaction would have been.

Thus completely contradicting everything you have said up until this point. Kudos on that.

You see, Jones could read a love letter and come up with some nefarious purpose behind it. He has repeatedly displayed this religious determination in every video of his I've seen. He's also shown himself adept at picking up secondary aspects of anything, whether in text, audio, or video, and latch on to them as if they are the primary focus while building his whole argument around them (kind of like you're doing with my disapproval of Rand, but he's more vicious about it).

Please, please explain how I am like Alex Jones. Do you enjoy arming red herrings with shotguns, or is it a subconscious thing?

In the book I mention none of the elements that would be attractive to Jones are the aspects that Rand is justifying or portraying in a heroic light, though the aspects that Jones has historically chosen to grab and use in his 'crusade' as 'proofs' of the New World Order are present in the book.

Name one. This I would pay money to see.

Frankly, I can't think of a time where AJ has looked at anything and represented it for what it was actually saying or showing. The reason I chose Atlas Shrugged instead of, say, The Fointainhead is because the former has elements in it that could be misconstrued and not part of the message that Rand consistently tries to portray. I could have equally used Anthem in my original post, except I think Rand was being a bit too heavy-handed with her message, and Atlas Shrugged had more subtlety in its writings.

Congrats- you did a Wikipedia search on Rand to show that you know the names of each of her books. Not sure how that answered my question, though- except to compound evidence that you have no idea as to what you're talking about. You tried to draw a parallel between these two individuals, and so far your only description of their work has been entirely unspecific and could have easily been pulled out of thin air. Whether you've read the material or not I cannot say- I can't even say as to whether you understood it or not- but clearly, you're unable to answer any questions about your statements regarding it. Which I would consider supports my assertion that you're wrong.

You need to get off your defense of Rand and Objectivism, though.

Not personal, remember? I'm not defending Rand or Objectivism- I'm pointing out that your statements regarding AJ, Rand and Rand's work are entirely inaccurate and are not supported by any modicum of understanding. Instead, your "criticism" is based entirely off of useless scraps which you have pieced together in order to throw everyone you hate into one big pot that you can boil to keep yourself content. The only thing similar about these individuals is that you don't like them. You can't get any more specific than that.

A whole list of authors and books would have fit in there, ranging from Frank Herbert to Robert Heinlein to L. Ron (or, as I call him, L-Ron) Hubbard to Aldus Huxley. Many authors, especially in science fiction (and let's not quibble, Atlas Shrugged is sci-fi), write their work with a message in mind.

You're again babbling to avoid the discussion. At this point I just have to ignore your red herring.

This isn't about AJ "getting" what the authors are trying to say, but about AJ's habit of picking and choosing elements of dystopia that he wants to get. Rand's works would be a goldmine for him, because Rand demonized the idea of socialized federalism in each of her books. That demonizing, not Rand's development of Objectivism evident in her writing, is what would be pretty blatantly attractive to Jones.

Wow. I'm watching your claims morph into completely different shapes from one post to the next. It's an army of red herrings with shotguns. See what gets hit, right?

Now it's that Jones would like... things that he likes from dystopia? Shows a keen understanding of the material...

Is it reductionism on my part? Yep.

Or ignorance. To your credit though- you have reduced your argument down the the point where you aren't even in the realm of your original statement, and that becomes quite obvious in the fact that you're trying to throw more authors into the mix to save yourself now. It's no longer about Rand or her book in particular, but what you claim is the over-used distopian world... now it's just a general critique on literature and Jones... doesn't even really fit in except that you call him religious and claim he would... like distopian stories.

At this point you've just shaved away so much from your argument that I have nothing left to criticize.

Is it personal? Not in the slightest. You're the one who is making acusations of emotion, which seems to me like you're taking it way more personally than I am.

It would seem like that to you- which is exactly why you keep extending jabs like calling me dogmatic and implying that I'm like Jones in order to see just how personal you can make it. On the contrary, however. My argument is strictly with the ignorance of your statements and your unwillingness to support them. If you can't move that piece on the board, then the game is over. Calling my queen a slut or saying that I just do whatever the rook tells me to is not going to put you out of check.

If that makes you think ill of me because you disagree, then good for you.

If you're going to submit that I feel ill of you- at least understand it's for the right reasons. We aren't on the same side just because we can both call AJ stupid. Frankly, I don't want people on "my side" that can't defend their position with a bit of class.

I'm simply pointing out that my personal opinion of Rand's ideology has little to do with the situation and that her use of a dystopian government in the book has most to do with what I said.

Despite the fact that this was not your original comment? Like I said- you've shaved so much off of your original statement that you're now right: it has nothing to do with Rand or Atlas Shrugged or even AJ. Now it's just about distopias... which has nothing to do with this topic. It's kind of silly that you had to reduce your argument past the point of anything specific just so you could avoid supporting it- but I guess if you have to chop off your leg just to avoid peeing on it, that's what you've got to do...

Jokes that you can't seem to find funny aside, Jones' material focuses on an 'enemy' that is usually a mix between the government of Brave New World, Hitler, and Dr. Evil (or some other amalgam of Bond-movie-villians that give away their plans for Total Domination to the hero).

What an astute observation. Is your desire to reduce the argument even further- now it's just good versus bad? Jones bad. Us win. Good.

[parky76]

Why does the NWO allow the continued expansion of life saving drugs? The expansion of quality health care? Healthier diet knowledge?

If the NWO is so powerful, and they want there to be less people, they are doing a crappy job.

[GreNME]

No, you attempted to mix in a political discussion and were unable to support your comments so you've tried to make it personal. I've ignored that and will continue to do so.

Sure you will. Except for where you quote it, call me an idiot for it, rinse, repeat. Yep. Except for all that attention you continue to foist upon it, you're ignoring it completely.


I see. Now opinions are untouchable? You don't need to support any statements that are just opinions?

I'm not sure "rich" is the word for that.

It's the word for me, and it's the gift that keeps on giving with you. I didn't say my opinions were untouchable, I said they were irrelevant to why I posted what I did that you have decided to make a big deal about.


I don't see how I have to explain the whole nook and how it wouldn't look that way to people who aren't scouring everything they read for cherry-pickable ideas to fit a paranoid conspiracy like AJ does.
That doesn't even make any sense.

I'm sorry you don't "get it." Let's try again: I don't see how I have to write a book report on the novel in order to display for you (and so far only you) exactly which aspects I think Jones in his habitual practices would have used for cherry-picking sentences to add to his list of claims to 'proof' of his New World Order.


Whatever you think are the failings of Objectivism and Rand and AJ are the result of your ignorance on all of these issues; your desire to back away from your statements and just reduce them to the realm of out-of-bounds "opinions" demonstrates this.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? I'll repeat myself: my opinions of Ayn Rand and Objectivism are irrelevant to what I think AJ would latch on to in the book. I don't care what you think of my personal view of the book, because debating the book is out of the scope of this thread (yet you persist).


What issues? Jones' trailer states clearly that they want a lowered population that can be controlled. A controlled population is exactly what was implied is happening in the book I mentioned.
Not even close. Besides the fact that this is a far cry from what you were stating in your original post- a "controlled population" is such a watered down ambiguity that you might as well toss in Ghandi, Pol Pot, Clinton, and Captain Kirk into people who fit your definitions. Again, the fact that you feel the need to bring two complete opposites into the same category when they clearly do not belong is a significant failure on your part. That's not my fault- it's yours. Deal with it.

I'm really beginning to have a cause for doubt to your reading comprehension. My first statement was "does he realize this book was fiction?" When you asked for an explanation, I do recall saying the following:No, I mean did he read the book and think that this was somehow non-fiction? He's got that same "they're out to control us and make us all mediocre lemmings" as the "eeble gub'mints" in the story.

Hrm... looks like exactly what I've been saying. Yes, I reduced the concept because I was talking about the dystopia with regard to the Alex Jones trailer, not actually providing a critical review of the book written by Rand. Considering this was originally a discussion of the trailer by Jones, that seems pretty relevant to the topic, whereas your demands for literary observation seem to belong on a different subforum.


A comment which you then had to follow up with an attempt to bring in some more folks with a strike at Limbaugh because you can't argue your points on the intellectual level- so you have to reduce your disagreements down to petty "bat poo" flinging and hope that someone steps in your way.

No poo was flung. I think her ideas in the book are irrational, but once again that's beside the point. I actually explain my point, to which you keep jumping back to a demand of literary interpretation.

As for the Limbaugh remark, it has to do with the gutteral throaty vocalization technique that both of them employ. Many radio personalities who wish to make their voices sound deeper (because in radio a deeper voice is preferable) use a similar technique. Jones simply does it poorly and Limbaugh was used as a well-known example of an individual who does it regularly. To Limbaugh's credit, he doesn't tend to do it when on telelvision (unless it's a taping of his radio broadcast). I suppose since Jones does it all the time I could also have used Alice Cooper as an example, but Alice Cooper also doesn't effect the voice when he's not performing.


And much like your other comments- I doubt you would have been able to draw any meaningful parallel. You were trying to assert that AJ and Rand are similar, unless you look highly upon Jones, I wouldn't suggest comparing him to Orwell.

You're peeing on your own feet, there.

Flinging poo and peeing on feet-- you have some vivid imagery in your rhetoric. I did not compare Rand to Jones. I have maintained that my personal opinion of Rand is irrelevant. The book had a dystopia. Dystopias are Alex Jones' bread and butter.

Perhaps I should direct you to the Zeitgeist thread where I have explicitly pointed out that similarity does not imply a relationship, because the only conclusion you can draw on is that I have expressed the opinion that Jones' and Rand's work both contain irrational conclusions. I never even said they had the same irrational conclusions, just that I though each were nutty. You're assuming a huge stretch in logic that I never made, and I'll get back to this momentarily. [note 1]


When did it become about distopias?

This is a thread about Alex Jone's latest trailer, where he's warning everyone of an evil gub'mint plan for a dystopia. You might have missed that part.


And, was it a tired use back 25 years ago when the book was published? If it was a "popular type", then why has the book been so popular? Yet again, your criticism falls short of being anything meaningful- it's trivial and bland, which leads me to believe that you are speaking on matters you know nothing about. What's next, you going to complain that Rand has too many vowels in her name?

Need I remind you that this isn't a lit-crit thread? Would it be even funnier to point out to you that the book we're talking about was first published in 1957, not 1982? If you're going to constantly attack my statement claiming I "know nothing about" the book, you should at least check your publishing dates for accuracy.


People who invent strawman are desperate and stretching. Your "value" placed on the work we are discussing is based on ignorance- not the other way around.

You tried to compare Alex Jones to Ayn Rand- when I asked you a very basic question as to why, you started doing the shuffle. It's not that difficult to see that you're out of your league. Criticism I'm eager to find- but I am not going to agree that red is blue just because you call it an "opinion".

I find it ironic that you accuse me of a strawman argument, when you are accusing me of making an argument I have not, up to this point, ever made.


What reminded me of the comic? Flawed use of dystopia in both of their arguments.
That much is obvious. Their names also both start with A.

More irony. In more than one post you've accused me of a strawman argument, and yet this is at least the second time in one post where you've used a straw man argument against something I've said. I said that I find both Jones' and Rand's use of dystopias in their work to be flawed, and you come at me with some ridiculous accusation about their names. Remember that thing I would get back to momentarily? Keep this one in mind as well. [Note 2]


No need. He's not the one here making these absurd statements. Throwing others underneath the bus won't change that. Neither will trying to make me look like a zealot.

I don't have to try anything. I happen to feel you excel in doing that yourself.


Just curious, because your decision that I must obviously hate that which I disagree with seems pretty knee-jerk of you, and you seem fairly dead set on being "right" on this interpretation, almost to the level of dogmatic.
So you're taking my criticism of your statements and trying to make it your own? Wow. I think I've spent a lot of patience and care in explaining to you how your parallels are less than obvious- I'm not sure how you think you can get away with the comment that my decision was "knee-jerk" when you admitted it in the 2nd post... Again, personally attacking me and trying to claim that I'm "dogmatic" is not going to excuse you from having to justify your statements with some sort of an argument. I think it's obvious to anyone who is bored enough to read this that you're pulling out all the stops to avoid a relatively simple question: explain yourself. Your replies thus far have been to whip out the "it's just an opinion" card, reduce your claims to that of extremely general principles which have no relevant characteristics to your original claim, and then to try and accuse me of being this and that. Just knock it off. If you can't answer the question then just say so- all the dancing makes you look worse.

I dare you to show a single quote of me ever stating that I hate Ayn Rand. Ever. You don't even have to limit yourself to this thread. I dare you to come up with a single quote of me stating I hate Alex Jones. Once again, you do not have to limit yourself to this thread.

The reality is that you cannot find such a quote, as I've never said I hated either of them. You are so focused on trying to claim everything I say is absolutely wrong and that your claims are absolutely right that you have gone past the realm of reasonable and into the realm of making outrageous claims. You assume I'm implying a relationship where there is non (see note 1), you are attacking something I say with a ridiculous statement about their names (see note 2), and as shown above, you are attempting to claim that I have an emotional reaction to one or both of them that does not exist and cannot be reasonably ascertained from anything I have stated about either of them. Yet again, I'll address this momentarily. [Note 3]



You claim you're not taking it personally, yet you're claiming I must hate people in order to not agree with or like their works of fiction. Are you sure you're not personally invested in this at all?
You're again inventing a strawman- you admitted your thoughts on the issues quite early. I see no need to justify my recognition of what you've already admitted- and trying to reword your begging of the question will not change my answer.

You are the one who seems convinced that I hate Ayn Rand and Alex Jones, and yet cannot supply a single quotation from me claiming I hate either of them. You are the one who began the emotional appeals, so I am asking you to explain how you justify these emotional appeals with your claims of my logical faults.


You completely miss the point. My opinion of Rand's "principles" doesn't have a bearing on what I think Jones' reaction would have been.
Thus completely contradicting everything you have said up until this point. Kudos on that.

I've contradicted something I stated all the way back in post #36 in this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3053405#post3053405)? Interesting, because you seem focused on Rand's ideals while I have maintained that the focus of my comment was on Jones. You are weakening your credibility by asserting this.



Please, please explain how I am like Alex Jones. Do you enjoy arming red herrings with shotguns, or is it a subconscious thing?


See [Note 1] above in this post. You are assuming that I am somehow implying a stretch in logic that I have not, in any of my posts, attempted to make. This is similar to Jones in that he also implies stretches in logic to come to his conclusions.
.
See [Note 2] above in this post. Instead of countering what I actually said, you respond with a ridiculous claim that is completely unrelated to what I originally said. This, in and of itself, is not solely in the realm of Jones, but it is a tactic that Jones uses repeatedly and is one that you have used at least twice in the post I am responding to.
.
See [Note 3] above in this post. You accuse me of holding an emotional stance on two individuals even though no evidence of my making such a claim exists. This is similar to Jones in that he also includes accusations of emotion-- most notably hatred-- that are without basis in any known fact and can only be determined within the false context that Jones places the emotions. Since I give no reason to assume hatred of either, you are engaging in the same type of faulty reasoning to support your conclusion.


Does this mean you are a conspiracy theorizing blowhard like Jones? No, but it does mean you are making a lot of the same mistakes in reaasoning.


In the book I mention none of the elements that would be attractive to Jones are the aspects that Rand is justifying or portraying in a heroic light, though the aspects that Jones has historically chosen to grab and use in his 'crusade' as 'proofs' of the New World Order are present in the book.
Name one. This I would pay money to see.

So how much money does it cost you to consider that Alex Jones would equate his conspiracy theory preaching to that of Galt in the book?


Congrats- you did a Wikipedia search on Rand to show that you know the names of each of her books. Not sure how that answered my question, though- except to compound evidence that you have no idea as to what you're talking about. You tried to draw a parallel between these two individuals, and so far your only description of their work has been entirely unspecific and could have easily been pulled out of thin air. Whether you've read the material or not I cannot say- I can't even say as to whether you understood it or not- but clearly, you're unable to answer any questions about your statements regarding it. Which I would consider supports my assertion that you're wrong.

I am unable to answer your demands implying that I equated Jones and Rand because I never made such a claim. Just because you choose to swing between believing I've read the books and assuming I might of read them and didn't "understand" (nice lit-student criticism from you) does not lend any credence to your arguments, and are just more examples of how you're determined to attack me personally than criticize what I actually said.


Not personal, remember? I'm not defending Rand or Objectivism-

Wrong. You constantly say I don't "understand" her writings, even though I have not ever given a literary critique of the novel.


I'm pointing out that your statements regarding AJ, Rand and Rand's work are entirely inaccurate and are not supported by any modicum of understanding.

There's that "understanding" thing again. You continue to demand I give an "accurate" literary criticism in a thread talking about a movie trailer. My original statement, in fact, implied the possibility of misinterpreting the book as a contributing invluence for the new claims.


Instead, your "criticism" is based entirely off of useless scraps which you have pieced together in order to throw everyone you hate into one big pot that you can boil to keep yourself content. The only thing similar about these individuals is that you don't like them. You can't get any more specific than that.

Ah, more appeals to emotion. I don't hate any of them. My original comment actually stated that Jones may have interpreted a work of fiction as if it were not fiction, and from there you've allowed it to snowball into your demanding I give a literary criticism of a book.


A whole list of authors and books would have fit in there, ranging from Frank Herbert to Robert Heinlein to L. Ron (or, as I call him, L-Ron) Hubbard to Aldus Huxley. Many authors, especially in science fiction (and let's not quibble, Atlas Shrugged is sci-fi), write their work with a message in mind.
You're again babbling to avoid the discussion. At this point I just have to ignore your red herring.

Sure. Wouldn't want pesky things like what I'm actually saying getting in the way of your elaborate misconceptions of what I hate and don't hate.


This isn't about AJ "getting" what the authors are trying to say, but about AJ's habit of picking and choosing elements of dystopia that he wants to get. Rand's works would be a goldmine for him, because Rand demonized the idea of socialized federalism in each of her books. That demonizing, not Rand's development of Objectivism evident in her writing, is what would be pretty blatantly attractive to Jones.
Wow. I'm watching your claims morph into completely different shapes from one post to the next. It's an army of red herrings with shotguns. See what gets hit, right?

Now it's that Jones would like... things that he likes from dystopia? Shows a keen understanding of the material...

What? Exactly what part of "Did this guy just finish reading Atlas Shrugged and not realize it's a work of fiction?" (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3052276#post3052276) is completely different from saying that Jones blatantly misinterprets stuff?


Or ignorance. To your credit though- you have reduced your argument down the the point where you aren't even in the realm of your original statement, and that becomes quite obvious in the fact that you're trying to throw more authors into the mix to save yourself now. It's no longer about Rand or her book in particular, but what you claim is the over-used distopian world... now it's just a general critique on literature and Jones... doesn't even really fit in except that you call him religious and claim he would... like distopian stories.

At this point you've just shaved away so much from your argument that I have nothing left to criticize.

You are far away from criticizing what I actually said in my post that you have turned into such a huge issue. Let's get a few things out of the way:

Do you or do you not agree that Atlas Shrugged takes place in a dystopian setting?
Do you or do you not agree that Alex Jones' "warnings" describe a dystopian future?
Do you or do you not see where the joke was made that Jones could have read a work of dystopian fiction and misinterpreted as non-fiction?


The first two are separate from each other in that they do not follow logically into one another. No one is implying a relationship between the two, outside of you persisting in accusing me of doing so. The third is the actual comment I made, taking the two unrelated things and placing them in an unremarkable but humorous context. Hell, it wasn't even that funny to begin with, but your rabid over-literalization has pretty much squeezed all intended humor out completely. The only issue now is that you are accusing me of equating the two, of hating Rand and Jones, and of not performing a critical analysis of the book I mention that fits some criteria you are demanding.


It would seem like that to you- which is exactly why you keep extending jabs like calling me dogmatic and implying that I'm like Jones in order to see just how personal you can make it. On the contrary, however. My argument is strictly with the ignorance of your statements and your unwillingness to support them. If you can't move that piece on the board, then the game is over. Calling my queen a slut or saying that I just do whatever the rook tells me to is not going to put you out of check.

To extend that metaphor, everyone else is playing checkers while you're demanding I play by the rules of chess.

I can use metaphors, too. Unfortunately, you can't see the humor originally used.


If you're going to submit that I feel ill of you- at least understand it's for the right reasons. We aren't on the same side just because we can both call AJ stupid. Frankly, I don't want people on "my side" that can't defend their position with a bit of class.

Screw your "sides" as far as I'm concerned. This whole concept of "sides" is one of the things I have been repeatedly critical of in this forum, and what I've chastized conspiracy theorist and "debunker" alike for falling habitually into. I'm not talking about "sides" except for what I order with my meal at a restaurant. You go ahead and call AJ stupid all you want, I'm going to continue calling him paranoid, outrageous, and prone to preaching excessively about things that there is no evidence of in the first place. You get to be content in feeling intellectually superior, and I'll go ahead and continue to question where he's getting his ideas from. We get to both be content, someone decides to buy the world a Coke, and everyone's happy.


I'm simply pointing out that my personal opinion of Rand's ideology has little to do with the situation and that her use of a dystopian government in the book has most to do with what I said.
Despite the fact that this was not your original comment?

My "original comment" was jokingly speculating that Jones read a work of fiction and didn't realize it was fiction. Sweet Baby Jesus on a pogo stick, you're the one who has added all this other baggage to my original comment.


Like I said- you've shaved so much off of your original statement that you're now right: it has nothing to do with Rand or Atlas Shrugged or even AJ. Now it's just about distopias... which has nothing to do with this topic. It's kind of silly that you had to reduce your argument past the point of anything specific just so you could avoid supporting it- but I guess if you have to chop off your leg just to avoid peeing on it, that's what you've got to do...

It has nothing to do with your demand for literary criticism. This thread is about Jones' latest video about how there are forces in the world who are planning to control the population. I highly recommend sticking to that as a subject instead of accusing people of hating other people and demanding a literary critique when you don't get the stupid joke.


What an astute observation. Is your desire to reduce the argument even further- now it's just good versus bad? Jones bad. Us win. Good.

You really have a reading comprehension problem. Alex Jones repeatedly has equated the "New World Order" that he claims is trrying to take over the world with Hitler's Nazi Germany, the Big Brother of 1984, and a whole host of other references. He claims that, through his ability to filter information and disseminate such information, that he's fighting these evil powers.

[Totovader]

Sure you will. Except for where you quote it, call me an idiot for it, rinse, repeat. Yep. Except for all that attention you continue to foist upon it, you're ignoring it completely.

I'm ignoring you- when you get off topic like this and try and make it personal.

It's the word for me, and it's the gift that keeps on giving with you. I didn't say my opinions were untouchable, I said they were irrelevant to why I posted what I did that you have decided to make a big deal about.

Thus ignoring my point- and dodging the question.

I'm sorry you don't "get it." Let's try again: I don't see how I have to write a book report on the novel in order to display for you (and so far only you) exactly which aspects I think Jones in his habitual practices would have used for cherry-picking sentences to add to his list of claims to 'proof' of his New World Order.

Didn't ask for a book report- I just asked you to support your absurd statements. You haven't been able to do that, and I don't think you will.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? I'll repeat myself: my opinions of Ayn Rand and Objectivism are irrelevant to what I think AJ would latch on to in the book. I don't care what you think of my personal view of the book, because debating the book is out of the scope of this thread (yet you persist).

I didn't ask for your personal opinions- you offered them and then claimed you never gave them. Now you're claiming they're irrelevant... You're arguing with yourself.

I'm really beginning to have a cause for doubt to your reading comprehension. My first statement was "does he realize this book was fiction?" When you asked for an explanation, I do recall saying the following:

Which I replied to, did I not?

Hrm... looks like exactly what I've been saying.

On the contrary. You have changed your charge several times- even admitting to reducing it down to absurdity. Why would you do that unless: 1) you actually did it, and 2) you're avoiding the original question?

Yes, I reduced the concept because I was talking about the dystopia with regard to the Alex Jones trailer, not actually providing a critical review of the book written by Rand.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. On the one hand you are trying to criticize Rand and compare her to Jones, on the other you're trying to claim you're only criticizing... distopias. It makes no sense. I'll say this again- by reducing your argument to the point that you have- you have negated your original statement.

Considering this was originally a discussion of the trailer by Jones, that seems pretty relevant to the topic, whereas your demands for literary observation seem to belong on a different subforum.

I never asked for a "book report" or a "literary criticism". Indeed, you have tried to change it to that in order to avoid the topic, but I feel I've done a pretty good job of demanding that you stay on topic.

No poo was flung. I think her ideas in the book are irrational, but once again that's beside the point. I actually explain my point, to which you keep jumping back to a demand of literary interpretation.

I never once demanded a literary interpretation- in fact you're using my words because I was pointing out that the long passages you're giving me in order to avoid the question are unnecessary and transparent. Quit whining about how you've dodged the issue and just answer the question. It should not be that difficult.

As for the Limbaugh remark, it has to do with the gutteral throaty vocalization technique that both of them employ.

No, it had to do with you making a remark to try and start a political slap-fest. You didn't simply use Rush as an example of people with deep voices- such parallels are useless and aren't even worth a post, it's the association you try to draw which is silly and unnecessary- and makes you look quite incapable (especially when asked to explain yourself). You followed up your Rush comment with a little quip about it making him sound tougher for his fans... Again, comparing two people who really have no business being compared. Say what you want about Rush or Rand or anyone else- but to comparing them to AJ at this point is just asinine.

Many radio personalities who wish to make their voices sound deeper (because in radio a deeper voice is preferable) use a similar technique. Jones simply does it poorly and Limbaugh was used as a well-known example of an individual who does it regularly. To Limbaugh's credit, he doesn't tend to do it when on telelvision (unless it's a taping of his radio broadcast). I suppose since Jones does it all the time I could also have used Alice Cooper as an example, but Alice Cooper also doesn't effect the voice when he's not performing.

Again, you ramble to avoid the point. You did not simply use Rush as an example of someone with a rough sounding voice- you used him as an example of someone with a rough sounding voice who does so because you feel that he is intentionally trying to sound rougher to his fans. The fact that you shy away from these statements after you've made them is quite telling- and it's really the only point I need to make since it means you're unwilling to support your original statement without modifying it to the point where it no longer has any meaning whatsoever.


Flinging poo and peeing on feet-- you have some vivid imagery in your rhetoric. I did not compare Rand to Jones. I have maintained that my personal opinion of Rand is irrelevant. The book had a dystopia. Dystopias are Alex Jones' bread and butter.

You've skirted around the question by modifying your statement. You have been unable to support your original statement, and I don't see you being able to.

Perhaps I should direct you to the Zeitgeist thread where I have explicitly pointed out that similarity does not imply a relationship, because the only conclusion you can draw on is that I have expressed the opinion that Jones' and Rand's work both contain irrational conclusions. I never even said they had the same irrational conclusions, just that I though each were nutty. You're assuming a huge stretch in logic that I never made, and I'll get back to this momentarily.

I thought this wasn't about your opinions? Now it's logic, too? You need to work on being more consistent, and sticking to the topic.

This is a thread about Alex Jone's latest trailer, where he's warning everyone of an evil gub'mint plan for a dystopia. You might have missed that part.

On the contrary- I think it's you who has missed the topic, here- and instead tried to insert your own political statements which you were entirely unable to support. That's your own fault- not mine.

Need I remind you that this isn't a lit-crit thread? Would it be even funnier to point out to you that the book we're talking about was first published in 1957, not 1982? If you're going to constantly attack my statement claiming I "know nothing about" the book, you should at least check your publishing dates for accuracy.

How is it even relevant? I said 25 instead of 50- I wasn't thinking. I can admit- and can point to- evidence which is objective and will indicate what is right. I have no problem admitting that I was wrong- and I don't see how it means I don't understand the principles, or how it means that you're right. If all it takes for you to have to avoid the question is for me to commit a typo- then I should go back and see who made the first spelling mistake. Perhaps then you'll just admit you were wrong first and we can move on...

I find it ironic that you accuse me of a strawman argument, when you are accusing me of making an argument I have not, up to this point, ever made.

Difference being, your statements are quite clearly inconsistent with what you are now trying to say- and your strawman claims are so far off base from what I have been saying that it's obvious you're stretching. What you claim as strawman arguments coming from me clearly are not when compared to what you have said in this thread.

More irony. In more than one post you've accused me of a strawman argument, and yet this is at least the second time in one post where you've used a straw man argument against something I've said. I said that I find both Jones' and Rand's use of dystopias in their work to be flawed, and you come at me with some ridiculous accusation about their names. Remember that thing I would get back to momentarily? Keep this one in mind as well.

Where did I say that you actually made this statement?

Then is it a strawman? Shall we check the definition, or is this just going to continue?

I don't have to try anything. I happen to feel you excel in doing that yourself.

That doesn't even make any sense. If you're unwilling to support your statements- then I suggest you don't make them. Or- at least be willing to accept criticism from individuals who are more versed on the issues than you.

I dare you to show a single quote of me ever stating that I hate Ayn Rand. Ever.

You don't need to state it- nor did I say that you did. You refuse to admit it because you can't admit that I'm right, but you also aren't challenging what I'm saying. You said she was an idiot and that Atlas Shrugged was "bat-poo deranged"- how does that support your case? Are you going to tell me that you like Rand after these statements? No? Then what's your point? Just trying to score some points with an equivocation?

You don't even have to limit yourself to this thread. I dare you to come up with a single quote of me stating I hate Alex Jones. Once again, you do not have to limit yourself to this thread.

See above- quote where I said that you did. You're trying to claim a strawman where there isn't one because you're desperate and because you're trying to dodge the issue.

The reality is that you cannot find such a quote, as I've never said I hated either of them. You are so focused on trying to claim everything I say is absolutely wrong and that your claims are absolutely right that you have gone past the realm of reasonable and into the realm of making outrageous claims.

Quote where you said you liked either of them- or quote where you have given a positive review of either of their work and then I will concede to your point- otherwise it's just the same old equivocation. I never said that you made these statements, I'm pointing it out as a fact. You dislike these individuals and that's the only criteria you have to lump them together. You were caught making an absurd statement and now you're trying to back out if it with an equivocation. Once again- your fault, not mine. Don't trying and cry strawman when there isn't one there.

You assume I'm implying a relationship where there is non (see note 1),

There's no assumption needed- when you compare two people, that's called a comparison. If you truly don't understand this- then you need to seek the help of an English professor. Drawing a comparison between two different people who are nothing alike and then admitting that they're nothing alike only makes you look silly. I realize that you think you've narrowly escaped by trying to change your statement, but people see through that- and you just look even more ridiculous because of it. Good luck next time you decide to speak on matters you are not very well versed in.

you are attacking something I say with a ridiculous statement about their names (see note 2),

Stop your whining- it's not a strawman.

and as shown above, you are attempting to claim that I have an emotional reaction to one or both of them that does not exist and cannot be reasonably ascertained from anything I have stated about either of them. Yet again, I'll address this momentarily.

No need to- your statements easily show that you're contradicting yourself. Perhaps you need to review your own statements- take special note of when you said that Rand was an idiot, and that Atlas Shrugged was bat-poo deranged. What conclusion is one supposed to draw from your statements? What is a reasonable person (since you have asserted that I am not such a person) supposed to conclude, and based on what?

You are the one who seems convinced that I hate Ayn Rand and Alex Jones, and yet cannot supply a single quotation from me claiming I hate either of them.

Why would I need to? This isn't a courtroom- things are not suddenly only true if you have specifically stated them. I am making an observation based on your argument and your position. How you can think that you're going to get out of it by equivocation is beyond me- it's quite frankly, childish. You certainly aren't willing to present yourself as in favor of either of these individuals- so I fail to see where you're going with this except to whine and use it as a method of avoiding the topic.

You are the one who began the emotional appeals, so I am asking you to explain how you justify these emotional appeals with your claims of my logical faults.

And allow you to dodge the issue even further? No thanks. If you need this level of help, then I suggest a psychiatrist- in the mean time, let's stick to the topic.

I've contradicted something I stated all the way back in post #36 in this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3053405#post3053405)? Interesting, because you seem focused on Rand's ideals while I have maintained that the focus of my comment was on Jones. You are weakening your credibility by asserting this.

I don't think you're in any position to comment on my credibility considering you have had to change your statement just to avoid a simple question. How you can claim that you have only been talking about Jones when the original comparison was Rand and Atlas Shrugged boggles the mind. It's as if you actually think that you can just pretend you never made these statements and you are not accountable to them. Quite unlucky- I suppose- that this is a public message board and your statements are still available for everyone to see.

You are assuming that I am somehow implying a stretch in logic that I have not, in any of my posts, attempted to make. This is similar to Jones in that he also implies stretches in logic to come to his conclusions.

So the only comparison you can make is that Jones and I both make "stretches of logic"... I'm betting you won't be able to support that statement either- but since you're obviously trying to attack me in order to get me personally involved, I'm going to ignore it.


Instead of countering what I actually said, you respond with a ridiculous claim that is completely unrelated to what I originally said. This, in and of itself, is not solely in the realm of Jones, but it is a tactic that Jones uses repeatedly and is one that you have used at least twice in the post I am responding to.

And instead of admitting that I did respond and recognizing that response, you instead focus on what came after that response and tried calling it a strawman. If we're going to draw comparisons to Jones, he's a big fan of crying strawman when it makes no sense. Clearly, you have done that- but it's not because you're like Jones at all, it's just because you're desperate- and when people are desperate and want to avoid the topic, they come up with stupid and nonsensical ways of attacking the other individual in order to get the spotlight off them.

You accuse me of holding an emotional stance on two individuals even though no evidence of my making such a claim exists. This is similar to Jones in that he also includes accusations of emotion-- most notably hatred-- that are without basis in any known fact and can only be determined within the false context that Jones places the emotions. Since I give no reason to assume hatred of either, you are engaging in the same type of faulty reasoning to support your conclusion.

So anyone who accuses their opponent of being emotional (which is a word you inserted by the way, I just said that you didn't like these people) they are "like Jones". This is getting pathetic.

Do you even realize that you're just proving my point by comparing me to Jones? Is this not clicking in your head? People that you don't like get tossed into one big pot- regardless of why you don't like them (or even if you're educated enough on the issues to draw a conclusion) and then you try and connect these people in ridiculous and nonsensical ways. You could say that anyone accuses their opponent of being emotional- hell, it's even a logical fallacy- but that's not what makes Alex Jones ALEX JONES.

Does this mean you are a conspiracy theorizing blowhard like Jones? No, but it does mean you are making a lot of the same mistakes in reaasoning.

Hardly- it just means you want to draw a parallel without actually drawing a parallel. You want to toss out the accusations and then pretend like you're not actually doing exactly what I pointed out. It's an amazing contradiction- but I don't think you're doing it on purpose. I think your apophasis gives more away than you'd like- which is why you had to sort of draw it away as nothing more than a list.

So how much money does it cost you to consider that Alex Jones would equate his conspiracy theory preaching to that of Galt in the book?

No money at all- just a very sound argument. You have not provided anything of the sort. Whatever parallel you were trying to draw you quickly abandoned and are not willing to admit that your original statements were absurd and unsupported- I'm not expecting that to suddenly change, but I'm also not going to bite on your personal attack bait just so you can feel better about yourself.

I am unable to answer your demands implying that I equated Jones and Rand because I never made such a claim. Just because you choose to swing between believing I've read the books and assuming I might of read them and didn't "understand" (nice lit-student criticism from you) does not lend any credence to your arguments, and are just more examples of how you're determined to attack me personally than criticize what I actually said.

You admit I'm criticizing what you said- but then claim I'm not. Which is it? If you did not attempt to draw any parallels between Rand and Jones, then what was your answer of "bat poo deranged" in reference to?

If you were- in fact- drawing parallels, then what were they based on?

It's a relatively simple question- and you're putting way too much effort into dodging it. At this point I just have to keep asking and ignore your personal attacks because I feel it's obvious that you're struggling and if I feed into your attempts to bring this down to the personal level, you'll walk away without answering my question.

Wrong. You constantly say I don't "understand" her writings, even though I have not ever given a literary critique of the novel.

Nor would you need to in order for me to draw that conclusion.

If I were to state that maybe Jones should try harder to understand that when Bill Clinton wrote the book "My Life" he wasn't referring to Jones... and upon expounding upon that parallel I stated that I think Clinton is an idiot and the book is bat-poo deranged- but was entirely unable to get specific as to what it is that would draw a parallel between Jones and Clinton/My Life- I think any reasonable person would be able to see that I was just making stupid political statements which have no real basis in fact, and are not supported by anything substantial. I think it's pretty obvious this is exactly what you've done and you're not strong enough to admit it. You haven't made any specific statements about Rand or Atlas Shrugged that would lead anyone to conclude that you're actually familiar with the material- which is 2 steps away from explaining how you could draw the parallel. At best you've given a comparison which doesn't even make any sense, certainly isn't specific, and is so simple that it could have been based off the jacket of the book.

I don't think you understand that if you take away the individuals you were trying to compare and instead try to claim that you were just talking about distopias- that it makes no sense. Your entire claim just suddenly has no real meaning because you've abandoned it and just replaced it with words. To top it off it just makes it obvious that you were speaking on matters you were unfamiliar on and are now trying to reduce your statement to something way too simplistic- which you freely admit to.

There's that "understanding" thing again. You continue to demand I give an "accurate" literary criticism in a thread talking about a movie trailer. My original statement, in fact, implied the possibility of misinterpreting the book as a contributing invluence for the new claims.

I never asked for such a thing. At this point it's silly to try and back out from the statement as read- you were not presenting a position in favor of Atlas Shrugged, to now try and defend the book from Jones is a scenario that does not make sense and just makes you look even more ridiculous. You implied that Jones was somehow confused as to whether the book was fiction or not- not whether he just didn't get the book. That kind of projection of your own failures is something that I can't begin to resolve for you. As a method of countering my position- however- it makes no sense.

Ah, more appeals to emotion. I don't hate any of them. My original comment actually stated that Jones may have interpreted a work of fiction as if it were not fiction, and from there you've allowed it to snowball into your demanding I give a literary criticism of a book.

It's obvious that this just sparked into your head and you think it's a way out. I never demanded that you provide literary criticism of the book- I demanded that you support your statements, which you have refused to do. Instead, you attempt these strawman arguments, attack me personally, and then accuse me of doing exactly what you're doing. Either answer my question or just move on. I'm not going to bite.

Sure. Wouldn't want pesky things like what I'm actually saying getting in the way of your elaborate misconceptions of what I hate and don't hate.

What you're actually saying contradicts what you have said. This is a troubling position for you to be in, I'm sure.

What? Exactly what part of "Did this guy just finish reading Atlas Shrugged and not realize it's a work of fiction?" (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3052276#post3052276) is completely different from saying that Jones blatantly misinterprets stuff?

The difference is huge. In your original post he's not misinterpreting the story at all- only that it's not a work of fiction... now all the sudden you see this as a way out of supporting your statements, and you're trying to hop over the line and be a buddy of Rand and defend her from Jones' evil misunderstanding of her work- all this while trying to maintain that the only parallel you were really drawing is one of distopias- which you claim Jones would like- and the fact that it's Atlas Shrugged or Rand has nothing to do with it...

It's pretty ridiculous.

You are far away from criticizing what I actually said in my post that you have turned into such a huge issue. Let's get a few things out of the way:

Do you or do you not agree that Atlas Shrugged takes place in a dystopian setting?

Do you or do you not agree that Alex Jones' "warnings" describe a dystopian future?

Do you or do you not see where the joke was made that Jones could have read a work of dystopian fiction and misinterpreted as non-fiction?

Do you still beat your wife?

It's not my job to defend your position for you- and I can't answer these questions without leading into the line that you're trying to support right now- which is that you never said what you actually said. Meanwhile, you avoid my question altogether and contradict yourself by coming up with these alternative scenarios of what you actually said.

If you were actually trying to defend Rand's work- then why attack it in such a stupid way? If you are actually claiming that Jones' beliefs are anything like that which is contained in Atlas Shrugged- then why are you unable to provide a single example beyond "it's a dystopia". And- if it is only a comparison that Jones would... like it for that reason... which still makes no sense- but anyway, then why use Atlas Shrugged in the first place? Arguably it sort of takes place in a dystopia- but that's not really the main focus of the book. To call it as such really sort of again points to your ignorance on the topic. Furthermore, you could use a more relevant example- much like you indicated earlier: 1984 would have drawn the right analogy if that's what you were actually going for. Since you already mentioned this it's safe to assume you're familiar with the book and instead chose Atlas Shrugged specifically- that assumption is supported by your statements. You're only now trying to back out of that because you can't answer my question.

The first two are separate from each other in that they do not follow logically into one another. No one is implying a relationship between the two, outside of you persisting in accusing me of doing so.

Holy whopping contradiction Batman. If they do not "follow logically into one another" (whatever you think that means) then why are you asking those questions in order to direct a specific answer? Whether I agree that Atlas Shrugged is a dystopia and Alex Jones often makes descriptions which could be categorized as a dystopia is so incredibly ambiguous that it becomes painfully obvious that you're trying to change the original meaning of your statements as to avoid having to support them. If it's that unspecific then it's absurd and it makes no sense. Really, you're stuck looking like a fool either way: either you can't support what you were really saying, or you fumbled up your statement so poorly that what you want to pretend you were saying really has no meaning. For some reason you see it as beneficial to continue to try and change what you said as if no one will notice. I don't think it helps your case at all.

The third is the actual comment I made, taking the two unrelated things and placing them in an unremarkable but humorous context.

Thus contradicting what you said above.

Hell, it wasn't even that funny to begin with, but your rabid over-literalization has pretty much squeezed all intended humor out completely. The only issue now is that you are accusing me of equating the two, of hating Rand and Jones, and of not performing a critical analysis of the book I mention that fits some criteria you are demanding.

You're guilty of more than just being really poor at telling jokes- this mea culpa isn't going to save you because it doesn't address my argument at all. I'm not asking for a book report- and I never said anything like that. I simply asked you to support your statement, and you're entirely unwilling- or incapable- of doing so.

To extend that metaphor, everyone else is playing checkers while you're demanding I play by the rules of chess.

I can use metaphors, too. Unfortunately, you can't see the humor originally used.

It's what's not there that I have trouble seeing. Again, you're trying to morph your original statement into something else in order to avoid my question. It's obvious and it's not going to work. I will just keep demanding that you address my point- attacking me and trying to make it an emotional argument will only make it obvious that you're avoiding the issue.

Screw your "sides" as far as I'm concerned. This whole concept of "sides" is one of the things I have been repeatedly critical of in this forum, and what I've chastized conspiracy theorist and "debunker" alike for falling habitually into. I'm not talking about "sides" except for what I order with my meal at a restaurant. You go ahead and call AJ stupid all you want, I'm going to continue calling him paranoid, outrageous, and prone to preaching excessively about things that there is no evidence of in the first place. You get to be content in feeling intellectually superior, and I'll go ahead and continue to question where he's getting his ideas from. We get to both be content, someone decides to buy the world a Coke, and everyone's happy.

Nothing in this paragraph is worth commenting on. Yet again I find that you're babbling to avoid the issues.

My "original comment" was jokingly speculating that Jones read a work of fiction and didn't realize it was fiction. Sweet Baby Jesus on a pogo stick, you're the one who has added all this other baggage to my original comment.

On the contrary- if you review your own comments you will find that you have scrambled to try and change your own meaning in order to avoid your original statement.

It has nothing to do with your demand for literary criticism.

I never made such a demand- and your continued attempts to claim I did is nothing more than a pathetic attempt to divert attention from the issues.

This thread is about Jones' latest video about how there are forces in the world who are planning to control the population. I highly recommend sticking to that as a subject instead of accusing people of hating other people and demanding a literary critique when you don't get the stupid joke.

I don't need to be reminded of what this thread is about. You- however- need to stop stalling and just answer my question. All this rambling about your "botched joke" is not helping your case, just like attacking me didn't work, and just like inventing strawmans didn't work.

You really have a reading comprehension problem. Alex Jones repeatedly has equated the "New World Order" that he claims is trrying to take over the world with Hitler's Nazi Germany, the Big Brother of 1984, and a whole host of other references. He claims that, through his ability to filter information and disseminate such information, that he's fighting these evil powers.

Please quote where Alex Jones references anything like Rand's work of Atlas Shrugged. If you can do that, then I will concede. Until then- try supporting your own statements. I'm really at a loss as to why you think you can just avoid your own statements as if you never made them. Attacking me, trying to divert attention away from the issues, rambling on incessantly about things which are not related, inventing these strawmans, trying to claim I am like Jones- none of these things will work. You need to stop pulling this crap and just answer the question. It's really just that simple. The more you continue to dodge it- the worse you look.

[Totovader]

Just so there's no confusion- I need for you to explain what parallels you think there is between Jones' beliefs and that of Ayn Rand- or more specifically Atlas Shrugged (although you claimed you could have used any of her fiction work).

What is it that makes Atlas Shrugged this dystopia you keep referring to?

How is that dystopia similar to what Jones barks on about?

To use the very principles we're essentially talking about, what is Atlas Shrugged qua Atlas Shrugged that you think needs comparison with Jones and his beliefs?

Or are you capable of admitting that there really is no comparison there- that the individuals really are on opposite ends of the spectrum?

I'm looking for specifics- I need to believe that you're not just dodging the question again- answering stuff like "it's a dystopia, Jones likes dystopias" is not good enough- and neither is just calling both individuals irrational or illogical. I need you to support your case with specifics- not this shape-shifting ambiguous nonsense you've been spewing out all day.

You see- regardless of whether you agree with Rand or think she's an idiot or won't defend her- it's stupid and childish to just lump together people you don't like... especially when you don't know why. It doesn't help your case and it makes you look petty. Jones is nowhere close to the level of popularity that Hitler is- but it's similar to the intellectual laziness we see in Reductio ad Hitlerum: comparing whoever you don't like with Jones in a manner that doesn't even make any sense just so you can start a political battle.

It's stupid- and I am pretty sure you realize that by now, but for some reason you're not a good enough person to admit it- and instead you want to drag it out by attacking me, claiming I'm like Jones, and going on and on- even going to such lengths as to try and change your original statement, trying to find your own ambiguity...

Enough is enough- you've been given plenty of rope. Now you can just answer the question.

[GreNME]

How is it even relevant? I said 25 instead of 50- I wasn't thinking.

About a whole lot more than just dates.

You've reached the point now where you're harrassing. I made a joke, I have explained the joke more than once, and yet you continue to call what I said a strawman while doing crap like "do you still beat your wife?" in reply. Really classy of you, who claims to be arguing solely on the concept of my joke not being classy enough for your supposed ideals.

I make a joke about Jones having read some book.

You get all touchy about the book in question.

I point out that I don't think highly of the book anyway, but that I mentioned it because of the dystopian theme.

You persist in defending the book, ignoring the context in which I used it.

I state I don't really care for your defense of the book, which I didn't like anyway, and that there's no reason I should be taking into account your defense of the book in my original statement.

You continue to persist that the problem is that I obviously don't understand the book, that you are obviously my intellectual superior, and that I'm stupid and should shut up.

I tell you that you need to get off the review of the book crap and point out again that I made the joke at this new endeavor by Jones, not because I don't particularly care for the book.

You're going all over the place, attributing my statement of not liking the book to hating the author, accusing me of hating Alex Jones, somehow managing to bring up what you think I feel about Rush Limbaugh in order to continue your armchair psychoanalysis, and coming up with strawman after strawman while accusing me of such.

I'm not going to put you on ignore because while I find your crusading to be annoying I don't think you're a troll. Instead, I'm simply going to tell you that you have every right to not like my joke, but if you continue with this after I've made what I feel to be a good faith effort in actually addressing your complaints-- which you have summarily ignored-- I'm going to complain about harrassment. You don't like the joke. I get that. You don't think I have represented whatever you think I should have represented. I get that. Go feel intellectually superior about it for all I care, but I have reached the conclusion that there's nothing I can say to actually reason with you. You've gone beyond simply disagreeing with my original statement to now attempting to oppose everything I say in response. Your belligerence does you no good as an actual debate tactic, except to make you look belligerent.

You don't necessarily have to let it go at this point, but I'd like to make it fairly clear that I've stated my position more than once, you're clearly not interested in reasoning out your differences of opinion and are instead in full-blown battle mode, and as such continued attempts to make accusations of me regarding who you think I hate, whether you think I "understand" the book I mentioned like you do, or anything other than the topic of this thread (regarding Alex Jones' new documentary) is going to be construed by me as harrassment.

Now, go ahead and post your follow-up telling me what a stupid/cowardly/ignorant/lying/silly/whatever person I am and get it out of your system. If it continues or happens to find itself following me to other parts of the forum, you're going to get reported for trolling.

[GreNME]

I'll give you this one:
Just so there's no confusion- I need for you to explain what parallels you think there is between Jones' beliefs and that of Ayn Rand- or more specifically Atlas Shrugged (although you claimed you could have used any of her fiction work).

I never claimed there were similarities. You keep saying I did, but I continue to point out that I didn't.

What is it that makes Atlas Shrugged this dystopia you keep referring to?

Not the dystopia. A dystopia.

How is that dystopia similar to what Jones barks on about?

Go look up the damned definition of dystopia. I'm sure you're smart enough to understand why that is a definitive piece of Jones' work.

To use the very principles we're essentially talking about, what is Atlas Shrugged qua Atlas Shrugged that you think needs comparison with Jones and his beliefs?

None! It's a work of fiction. The only comparison is that Jones' work is also fiction.

Or are you capable of admitting that there really is no comparison there- that the individuals really are on opposite ends of the spectrum?

Are you capable of admitting that the only person who has claimed I made such a comparison is you?


Enough is enough- you've been given plenty of rope. Now you can just answer the question.

You have an awfully high opinion of yourself. I imagine that is very good for you, so this is the last I'm going to bother in disabusing you. Either you can accept that your entire argument was completely irrelevant to what I was saying and we can end this as rhetorical equals, or you can continue the harrassment. I've answered these questions because they did seem like they were asked in good faith, so I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt.

[Roadtoad]

You know, Clive Cussler is probably more accurate. And a hell of a lot more fun to read.

Besides that, the bad guys (and girls) always get theirs in the end. Not to mention that Dirk Pitt winds up with a pretty snazzy ride at the end.

[GreNME]

You know, Clive Cussler is probably more accurate. And a hell of a lot more fun to read.

Besides that, the bad guys (and girls) always get theirs in the end. Not to mention that Dirk Pitt winds up with a pretty snazzy ride at the end.

:)

Don't think I've ever read any of his stuff. I'll have to take your word for it.

Does that mean that, in the end, the NWO will get what's coming to them?

[Roadtoad]

I'm not sure. Let's see: Min Koryo got tossed down an elevator shaft. The Wolf kids got forced out the door in light clothing to die on the Ross Ice Shelf. Another villain turned out to be a guy in drag, and his/her daddy wound up being eaten by a sea serpent. (I think. Gotta reread that one.)

Hmmmm. The NWO's got some 'splainin' to do.

[GreNME]

I'm not sure. Let's see: Min Koryo got tossed down an elevator shaft. The Wolf kids got forced out the door in light clothing to die on the Ross Ice Shelf. Another villain turned out to be a guy in drag, and his/her daddy wound up being eaten by a sea serpent. (I think. Gotta reread that one.)

Woah. That's some freaky stuff right there. You might be right that it fits better.

Hmmmm. The NWO's got some 'splainin' to do.

Are you implying that Lucille Ball was part of the NWO? She was awarded a medal by George HW Bush. Coincidence? I think not!

[Roadtoad]

No, but the Mertzes were.

[Totovader]

About a whole lot more than just dates.

You've reached the point now where you're harrassing.

Boy, these two statements really demonstrate your inconsistency...

Harassing? Really? What is this, 6th grade? Tell you what- if you honestly think I'm harassing you, then report me to the Mods- we'll let them sort it out. Until then- you're just using it as an excuse to avoid the issue.

I made a joke, I have explained the joke more than once, and yet you continue to call what I said a strawman while doing crap like "do you still beat your wife?" in reply. Really classy of you, who claims to be arguing solely on the concept of my joke not being classy enough for your supposed ideals.

No, you made a statement you were unable to support and believe that claiming it's a joke makes it suddenly untouchable. Your "joke" defense makes no sense- and it certainly doesn't provide an answer to the question I have presented in regards to your statement. "Do you still beat your wife" is a demonstration of a begging the question fallacy- as I explained. If you took offense to that, it's because you're not very bright.

I make a joke about Jones having read some book.

For the last time- you did not. You made a joke about Jones having read Atlas Shrugged and acting upon the book as if it were not a fictional story. You think that just calling it "an opinion" or "a joke" suddenly makes it as if you have no argument to support. It's kind of stupid to just reduce your argument down to literally nothing and then yell at me for making you do that. It's your own fault you can't support your statements- stop blaming it on me.

You get all touchy about the book in question.

Touchy nothing. You made a stupid comment you were unable to support and you tried your best to make it personal- I refused to allow you to do that but you just kept right on pretending like it was. This is an invention of your own and I can't help you with it.

I point out that I don't think highly of the book anyway, but that I mentioned it because of the dystopian theme.

Which makes no sense.

You persist in defending the book, ignoring the context in which I used it.

I did nothing to defend the book. Nowhere in my entire argument is the content of the book even mentioned. You- again- are desperate to avoid the issues so you invent a strawman and then try and somehow shift the burden of proof in the middle of it.

Amazing. Still not an answer to my question, though.

I state I don't really care for your defense of the book, which I didn't like anyway, and that there's no reason I should be taking into account your defense of the book in my original statement.

Again- I never said anything in regards to the content of the book. This is another one of your ridiculous strawmans.

You continue to persist that the problem is that I obviously don't understand the book, that you are obviously my intellectual superior, and that I'm stupid and should shut up.

I said that you were clearly ignorant on the topic- which is true. You haven't been able to support your assertions. I never once told you to shut up. You are again trying to make the argument personal in order to avoid the issues.

I tell you that you need to get off the review of the book crap and point out again that I made the joke at this new endeavor by Jones, not because I don't particularly care for the book.

Since I never requested a book review I ignored your demands.

You're going all over the place, attributing my statement of not liking the book to hating the author, accusing me of hating Alex Jones, somehow managing to bring up what you think I feel about Rush Limbaugh in order to continue your armchair psychoanalysis, and coming up with strawman after strawman while accusing me of such.

Name one strawman I committed during this entire conversation. You tried claiming one before and I explained- quite clearly- why you were wrong.

I'm not going to put you on ignore because while I find your crusading to be annoying I don't think you're a troll. Instead, I'm simply going to tell you that you have every right to not like my joke, but if you continue with this after I've made what I feel to be a good faith effort in actually addressing your complaints-- which you have summarily ignored-- I'm going to complain about harrassment.

Feel free- in fact I suggest you do that because I am quite confident I have not violated the membership agreement or the forum policies. I would like you to do this because I don't want you to threaten me and think it's an appropriate method of dodging the issue. You have not even come close to answering my question- but obviously are not willing to admit that you're not going to. Instead, you continue to try to make the argument personal and attack me- to which I can only respond "answer the question". It will go on forever unless you actually answer the question or literally ignore it. At this point I don't see how you could do anything but ignore it. Saying I'm "harassing" you is silly and childish, however. This is a public message board and I am responding to your posts directed at me. I have never messaged you privately, and I never would. If you can't handle it- then the problem is on your end.

You don't like the joke. I get that.

You obviously don't- because that's not the issue... and I'm pretty sure you know it. Once again, you're left with no other option but to invent a strawman to avoid the issues.

You don't think I have represented whatever you think I should have represented. I get that.

Clearly- from this statement- you don't get it. I've explained it enough times that it's intentional on your part.

Go feel intellectually superior about it for all I care, but I have reached the conclusion that there's nothing I can say to actually reason with you. You've gone beyond simply disagreeing with my original statement to now attempting to oppose everything I say in response. Your belligerence does you no good as an actual debate tactic, except to make you look belligerent.

I have represented my position well- I have been calm, patient, and precise. Your projection of your inexcusable behavior onto me and this sudden claim that you can't be reasonable with me demonstrates the very thing I have been talking about this entire time. Instead of actually answering the question- you've tried very hard to make it personal. Despite the fact that I didn't bite- you still pretend like it's personal.

You don't necessarily have to let it go at this point, but I'd like to make it fairly clear that I've stated my position more than once, you're clearly not interested in reasoning out your differences of opinion and are instead in full-blown battle mode, and as such continued attempts to make accusations of me regarding who you think I hate, whether you think I "understand" the book I mentioned like you do, or anything other than the topic of this thread (regarding Alex Jones' new documentary) is going to be construed by me as harrassment.

You could call it a strawberry pancake it makes no difference to me- I am not harassing you by any definition of the term. All you're doing is trying to again sink the argument down to the personal level in order to avoid a very simple question. Attacking me hasn't worked- and your strawmans don't make it very long... I guess all you can do is pretend.

But let's be clear- you have not stated your position at all. You have attempted to change your original statement, and when I've pointed that out you just ignore it. You have also put a lot of energy into avoiding my point- you refuse to just clarify and answer the question. That much will be painfully obvious to anyone who reads this exchange.

Now, go ahead and post your follow-up telling me what a stupid/cowardly/ignorant/lying/silly/whatever person I am and get it out of your system. If it continues or happens to find itself following me to other parts of the forum, you're going to get reported for trolling.

I'm sure you would like that- however, I'm just going to request again that you answer the question and stop dodging the issues with these attempts to make it personal. Nothing I have done could be considered trolling- I suggest that you speak with a moderator if you think otherwise.

[Totovader]

I'll give you this one:
I never claimed there were similarities. You keep saying I did, but I continue to point out that I didn't.

You continue to claim that you didn't- but considering the statements you made, that's a rather silly position for you to take.

Riddle me this, Batman- how do you draw a comparison between two things if they aren't at all similar?

Not the dystopia. A dystopia.

That's not an answer to my question- nor is it even relevant.

Go look up the damned definition of dystopia. I'm sure you're smart enough to understand why that is a definitive piece of Jones' work.

Appeal to ridicule, noted.

Dodging the question- yet again, noted.

None! It's a work of fiction. The only comparison is that Jones' work is also fiction.

Again, you're changing your story. This is entirely inconsistent with your statements- but you already know that. You're regressing back to childhood because you can't be mature enough to answer a simple question.

Are you capable of admitting that the only person who has claimed I made such a comparison is you?

If such a thing were true- but you again dodged the question.

You have an awfully high opinion of yourself.

If that were at all relevant I would respond.

Instead let's agree that this is a personal attack and move on.

I imagine that is very good for you, so this is the last I'm going to bother in disabusing you.

Again, not sure how it's relevant- but for all your whining- you are doing exactly what you pretended I was doing. Kudos on that.

Either you can accept that your entire argument was completely irrelevant to what I was saying and we can end this as rhetorical equals, or you can continue the harrassment.

Considering I have no basis whatsoever to believe either statements to be true- I'll reject your course of action as viable and instead present my question to you again noting that you continue to dodge it with personal attacks.

I've answered these questions because they did seem like they were asked in good faith, so I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt.

I am sure that you're able to recognize that you did not answer these questions and instead used the post as another venue to spew your personal attacks. Considering that you're putting a tremendous amount of energy into dodging the issue and instead accuse me of "harassing" you- I will simply state that you did not answer the questions, and you know why you were incapable of doing so. To answer them would admit one of the following: 1) that your original statement was ludicrous and could not be supported or 2) that you are not informed enough on the issues to support your original statement. This can only lead one to conclude that my characterization of your intent was completely accurate- and you were doing nothing more than making a stupid political statement which demonstrates an ignorance on the issues. Furthermore, it's not only ironic- but rather sad- that you would accuse me of "trolling" when your Rand/Limbaugh comments fit that definition quite well.

Feel free to step up and actually answer the questions without inserting your stupid personal commentary on my "ego" or my "heros" or whatever. This is about your failure to support your argument- nothing more.