Glenn Beck Poll on 9/11 CTists right now...

[T.A.M.]

Glenn Beck, love or hate him, Poll today...9/11 CTists are the subject...please go over and cast your vote...it looks like the CTists are.

http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/glenn.beck/

TAM:)

[Gravy]

Internet polls are silly. I don't participate in them. Except here, when there's a Planet X or SuperStundie option.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Conspiracy Craziness: Anyone who believes our government could have successfully planned 9/11 is not only giving them too much credit, but they're also insane. Do you agree or disagree?


I Agree 44% 700
I Disagree 56% 884
Total Votes: 1584

[T.A.M.]

Gravy:

lol...I know, but you know whats going to happen right...

Tomorrow it will be...

"Even Right Wing Talk Show can't hold back the truth" followed by the results of the truther cyberbombed poll.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=18366&view=getnewpost

Lets watch like a train wreck...lol

TAM:)

[Unsecured Coins]

from the MySpace Bulletin I got on this
Now this is a poll we need to change to show Glenn Beck what kind of people we are. It was 77% to 23% when the person emailed the link to the page. When I voted this was the current percentage. Let's get this changed to show Glenn Beck that we are not insane.

Translation - Flood it so people don't think we're really barking moonbats

[T.A.M.]

oh but no, the truthers would NEVER cyberbomb a poll...they tell me I am mean for thinking so...they call me a liar for suggesting so...

TAM:)

[Unsecured Coins]

you're an NWO agent!! Of course you're lying!

[qarnos]

You know, It would be real nice if they didn't flood a poll once in a while, so we could at least get a look at the real numbers (for whatever they're worth).

[T.A.M.]

impossible...for them it is no longer about the truth, but about showing others their "truth" no matter what the cost.

Fair play is optional.

TAM:)

[DavidJames]

from the MySpace Bulletin I got on this


Translation - Flood it so people don't think we're really barking moonbatsWouldn't a more accurate translation be - Act like barking moonbats so they don't think we're barking moobats :)

[Unsecured Coins]

it might be. my moonbat is a little rusty

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I Agree 43% 849
I Disagree 57% 1110
Total Votes: 1959

[T.A.M.]

yes, and clearly Jerome, this is the result of the world gone completely "truther"...lol

TAM:)

[ConspiRaider]

Internet polls - every single one of them - are totally and completely worthless. There are few absolute truths in the world. This is one of them.

And Glenn Beck is a sick, disgusting individual who "rises" to the "level" of Ann Coulter. Or Hannity. Or Limbaugh. Or Pat Robertson. Or O'Reilly. Or Savage. All of them making millions and getting enormous coverage for the "skill" of turd-spewing.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

yes, and clearly Jerome, this is the result of the world gone completely "truther"...lol

TAM:)

It is fun to watch the horse race.

[Thunder]

What a stupid poll. All that will happen is that truthers will flood it, get 80%, and proclaim "80% of America agrees with us!!!!".

[Redtail]

What a stupid poll. All that will happen is that truthers will flood it, get 80%, and proclaim "80% of America agrees with us!!!!".

And still not be able to put together even 500 people for a demonstration.

[qarnos]

In what I can only think is satire, Lonely_Egale posts at LCF:

I wonder how many debunkers are flooding the poll right now? rolleyes.gif

Nice one!

:dl:

[JEROME DA GNOME]

All reasonable people know that internet polls are BS.

What are thoughts on "scientific" polls?

Do they measure the opinion of the population?

Do you form the opinion of the population?

[MetalliSociety]

I find it funny that they have to go all out on any polls to make it look like they're in overwhelming numbers, yeah it's still not that 80%+ they keep bragging about.

[mortimer]

Poll Results: Truthers think Bush is a genius! Film at 11!

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

My Ed, has G. Beck just reinforced my already low opinion of him. His poll question was worded like utter crap.

[T.A.M.]

compare to the others you mentioned ConspiRaider, I find Beck Harmless. Yes he is right wing, but most of what he says is not mean or cruel, like the others...

I also enjoy Keith Oberman, who one could say, is equally as mean spirited for the other side (my side most times)...lol

TAM:)

[MetalliSociety]

compare to the others you mentioned ConspiRaider, I find Beck Harmless. Yes he is right wing, but most of what he says is not mean or cruel, like the others...

I also enjoy Keith Oberman, who one could say, is equally as mean spirited for the other side (my side most times)...lol

TAM:)

BAH...I've hated Olberman since he left ESPN and then decided to try and be intellectual when he isn't. Just my opinion tho.

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

compare to the others you mentioned ConspiRaider, I find Beck Harmless. Yes he is right wing, but most of what he says is not mean or cruel, like the others...

I also enjoy Keith Oberman, who one could say, is equally as mean spirited for the other side (my side most times)...lol

TAM:)

I've listened to them both, and while I'm a fan of neither, and would be considered on the "side" of Beck, I think Olberman is much more mean spirited. That man has some serious hate issues.

[ConspiRaider]

compare to the others you mentioned ConspiRaider, I find Beck Harmless. Yes he is right wing, but most of what he says is not mean or cruel, like the others...

I also enjoy Keith Oberman, who one could say, is equally as mean spirited for the other side (my side most times)...lol

TAM:)
Hey Doc -

Probably you haven't heard a whole lot of Beck's poison - which is a good thing.

Here's his very latest, concerning the California wildfires, where now about a half million people have been evacuated, approaching 1,000 homes and businesses destroyed, one known death, injured firefighters. And we still have to get through today:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3082712#post3082712

[T.A.M.]

I heard that on Oberman last night...I think it made Keith's Worse person in the world bit.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

I see the truthers have really bombed it now...they must be proud...cause it is all about getting THEIR version of the "truth" out at all costs...


Conspiracy Craziness: Anyone who believes our government could have successfully planned 9/11 is not only giving them too much credit, but they're also insane. Do you agree or disagree?
I Agree 27% 1421
I Disagree 73% 3786
Total Votes: 5207
This is not a scientific poll

http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/glenn.beck/

TAM:)

[Blender Head]

compare to the others you mentioned ConspiRaider, I find Beck Harmless. Yes he is right wing, but most of what he says is not mean or cruel, like the others...

I also enjoy Keith Oberman, who one could say, is equally as mean spirited for the other side (my side most times)...lol

TAM:)

My, my, my, TAM, did you miss Beck telling a newly elected Muslim member of Congress (Keith Ellison of Minnesota] "Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies."? He's what Ron will call a despicable fool.

[deep]

Internet polls are silly. I don't participate in them. Except here, when there's a Planet X or SuperStundie option.


Translation: after seeing that the poll was already "lost", Gravy takes the first step in explaining why the results will be completely ignored in any and all future discussion.

Votes from the same IP address aren't counted twice, so it's not like one person can sit there voting again & again.. but that doesn't really matter, does it? If the poll results tell any story other than the one you guys want to believe, you'll come up with some reason to ignore the results (in the same way that you ignore eyewitnesses by claiming they were "confused" about what they saw).

The poll just reinforces that you guys have no idea how many people believe the OT is a complete and total lie, and your gauge for making that determination is obviously flawed (hits @ 911blogger.com, turnout for events on 9/11, or whatever it is you use).

[deep]

I see the truthers have really bombed it now...they must be proud...cause it is all about getting THEIR version of the "truth" out at all costs...


Do you have any evidence to support that claim? Assuming the answer is "no" (but please do let us know), this is just another example of people here shaping their observations to fit in with what they want to believe.

That, in itself, wouldn't be so bad.. except that you relentlessly criticize others (who disagree with you) for doing the same thing.

[beachnut]

Translation: after seeing that the poll was already "lost", Gravy takes the first step in explaining why the results will be completely ignored in any and all future discussion.

Votes from the same IP address aren't counted twice, so it's not like one person can sit there voting again & again.. but that doesn't really matter, does it? If the poll results tell any story other than the one you guys want to believe, you'll come up with some reason to ignore the results (in the same way that you ignore eyewitnesses by claiming they were "confused" about what they saw).

The poll just reinforces that you guys have no idea how many people believe the OT is a complete and total lie, and your gauge for making that determination is obviously flawed (hits @ 911blogger.com, turnout for events on 9/11, or whatever it is you use).
You can vote as much as you want. You can change your IP address faster than you can change your clothes. Are all truthers wrong all the time? You may not be able to do it but it is easy. Only truthers would waste a day voting in a silly poll.

It is a Catch-22 poll. If you vote Bush is too dumb and the Truters ARE insane, fine. But if you vote the other way you are saying Bush is smart and the Truthers are not insane.

You lost; you are unable to understand a simple poll is as stupid as the truther movement is. funny

I hate to break the news to you; if you believe 9/11 truth; you are not too smart. So go vote and call me a looser, I will be the humble looser. I would rather be against the 9/11 so called truth movement that dumb enough to believe the dumb ideas they come up with. It is extremely funny how only 0.00087 percent of all engineer are in the truth movement. This must relate to the education level. What is your GPA when you completed your engineering degree?

[Drudgewire]

Votes from the same IP address aren't counted twice, so it's not like one person can sit there voting again & again.. but that doesn't really matter, does it?
Not the age of dynamic IPs it doesn't. :rolleyes:

[deep]

Internet polls - every single one of them - are totally and completely worthless. There are few absolute truths in the world. This is one of them.


Your opinion isn't shared by many others - only 14% of people in a recent online poll agreed with you.

[Redtail]

Translation: after seeing that the poll was already "lost", Gravy takes the first step in explaining why the results will be completely ignored in any and all future discussion.

Votes from the same IP address aren't counted twice, so it's not like one person can sit there voting again & again.. but that doesn't really matter, does it? If the poll results tell any story other than the one you guys want to believe, you'll come up with some reason to ignore the results (in the same way that you ignore eyewitnesses by claiming they were "confused" about what they saw).

The poll just reinforces that you guys have no idea how many people believe the OT is a complete and total lie, and your gauge for making that determination is obviously flawed (hits @ 911blogger.com, turnout for events on 9/11, or whatever it is you use).

Yet the truthers still can't put together 500 people for a demonstration.

[deep]

You can vote as much as you want. You can change your IP address faster than you can change your clothes. Are all truthers wrong all the time? You may not be able to do it but it is easy. Only truthers would waste a day voting in a silly poll.


No, sorry. The ability to change IP addresses is governed by the ISP's DHCP lease time. Some are shorter, and some are longer, but even the shortest leases would keep someone from making more than about 6 votes per hour.

Either way, where is your evidence that truthers are voting more than once? Surely you don't only believe that because of the results, right?

[deep]

Yet the truthers still can't put together 500 people for a demonstration.


You're confusing "truthers" with "people who believe the OT is a lie". There is obviously some overlap there, but there aren't many people with a desire to go hang out with some shady 20-somethings in black t-shirts. That has nothing to do with what they believe.

[Redtail]

You're confusing "truthers" with "people who believe the OT is a lie". There is obviously some overlap there, but there aren't many people with a desire to go hang out with some shady 20-somethings in black t-shirts. That has nothing to do with what they believe.

So the "people who believe the OT is a lie" have put on a demonstration with more than 500 people?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

The poll just reinforces that you guys have no idea how many people believe the OT is a complete and total lie

Actually we know almost exactly what that number is. It's 4.6% of the general population.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

1) RE DHCP: non-issue when proxy-sites are available
2) RE Polls: argumentum ad populum
3) RE Beck's specific poll question: complex question fallacy

ETA: 4) RE Beck's specific poll question: also a false choice fallacy x2

[Drudgewire]

Either way, where is your evidence that truthers are voting more than once? Surely you don't only believe that because of the results, right?
I believe that because it's the case in every single hot-button topic ever used by a news website. The second a forum filled with those who represent the unpopular side gets linked, it's game on.

These things always wind up skewed to reflect a huge percentage of "the people" as representing a viewpont that in the real world most people either wouldn't have any idea of the existence of or are so vehemently on the other side of just mentioning it to them would probably get you off their Christmas card list.

But go ahead, pretend this is real. To stop doing so about anything at all to do with these dumb theories for even a minute would probably have very crushing consequences.

[deep]

So the "people who believe the OT is a lie" have put on a demonstration with more than 500 people?


The "number of people who put on demonstrations" is in no way representative of the number of people who believe something. For example, there were a couple hundred protesters outside the courthouse when Michael Vick was making his guilty plea - does that mean only a couple hundred people were upset with his behavior?

[T.A.M.]

Did you try clearing your cache and surfing history, then re-voting? Seemed to work on a CNN online poll I proved to be faulty earlier this year?

deep are you really going to sit here and try to claim that this poll is proof that 75% or more of the population sides with you guys...dear god that is truely insane...but I figured someone from that side would have to come here and try to argue such foolishness.

TAM:)

[Drudgewire]

For example, there were a couple hundred protesters outside the courthouse when Michael Vick was making his guilty plea - does that mean only a couple hundred people were upset with his behavior?
It means most people are only slightly less disgusted by PETA than they are by Vick. :p

[Redtail]

The "number of people who put on demonstrations" is in no way representative of the number of people who believe something. For example, there were a couple hundred protesters outside the courthouse when Michael Vick was making his guilty plea - does that mean only a couple hundred people were upset with his behavior?

Hmmm.... A guy abusing/killing dogs. The government either lying about the murder of about 3,000 at best or directly responsible for the murders at worst...

Ah well, how about a demonstration with a couple hundred people? Seriously, how bad to "people who think the OT is a lie" want a new independent investigation/bring the real criminal to justice?

[T.A.M.]

I have no evidence, it is MY OPINION that the truthers voted more than once. Don't bother asking me to retract the accusation, as I will not. They have done so in the past, and I would not put it pass them to do so in the future.

Like it or lump it...I could care less.

TAM:)

[ConspiRaider]

Your opinion isn't shared by many others - only 14% of people in a recent online poll agreed with you.
Oh. I see.

Well then learn me on this:

When the 9/11 twoofers interrupted Bill Maher and he reacted, the vast, vast, vast majority of that audience was on his side. Cheered him enthusiastically! (That had to have been particularly galling for you). And this is L.A. / Hollywood. Not a lot of Bush Administration fans here. They'd be down lovingly tucked away in Orange County, but they are tremendously scarce up here. So, in that very unscientific poll happening right on Bill's show, how's about you explain the non-support of twoo twooferism tooted by two twoofers on the tube?

[deep]

2) RE Polls: argumentum ad populum


Sorry, but it isn't argumentum ad populum unless someone is claiming that their argument is true because of the poll. In this case, the poll is significant because the people in this forum have repeatedly stated that nobody actually agrees with the core beliefs of the truth movement.

I see the poll has been removed - as of a couple minutes ago, there were 8,000 votes, 78% of which were in support of 9/11 conspiracy theories.

[DavidJames]

the people in this forum have repeatedly stated that nobody actually agrees with the core beliefs of the truth movement.Excellent, since it's been stated "repeatedly", you should have no trouble finding quotes of people here stating:

"nobody actually agrees with the core beliefs of the truth"

I look forward to seeing the quotes.

[T.A.M.]

Sorry, but it isn't argumentum ad populum unless someone is claiming that their argument is true because of the poll. In this case, the poll is significant because the people in this forum have repeatedly stated that nobody actually agrees with the core beliefs of the truth movement.

I see the poll has been removed - as of a couple minutes ago, there were 8,000 votes, 78% of which were in support of 9/11 conspiracy theories.

my only hope is that Beck's people were able to track the IPs, and they come on tonight and expose the truthers for the scammers they are.

TAM:)

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Sorry, but it isn't argumentum ad populum unless someone is claiming that their argument is true because of the poll.

that's basically exactly what you are doing.

In this case, the poll is significant because the people in this forum have repeatedly stated that nobody actually agrees with the core beliefs of the truth movement.

It isn't significant at all. The poll isn't scientific, it says so right on the poll itself. You have provided no evidence to the contrary.

No more than 4.6% of the general public believes in 9/11 troofer gibberish. When you take into account the margin of error, there is a theoretical possibility that no one does believe in that crap (obviously not true in practice, but the numbers of troofers are so low that they are within the margin of error).

[beachnut]

Sorry, but it isn't argumentum ad populum unless someone is claiming that their argument is true because of the poll. In this case, the poll is significant because the people in this forum have repeatedly stated that nobody actually agrees with the core beliefs of the truth movement.

I see the poll has been removed - as of a couple minutes ago, there were 8,000 votes, 78% of which were in support of 9/11 conspiracy theories.
The poll does not even make sense. So you claim victory for a polls that the only clear cut thing is 22 percent of people believe the CTers are insane.

The poll is about as good as voting for a flat earth; and it seems you flat earth 9/11 truth movement people won the pole; you are unable to muster up facts and evidence to support any 9/11 truth conclusions, and you are unable to see even if everyone else votes for 9/11 truth, you will still be wrong, just like the flat earth guys.

It looks like the 22 percent insane stuff is way too low.

[A W Smith]

Sorry, but it isn't argumentum ad populum unless someone is claiming that their argument is true because of the poll. In this case, the poll is significant because the people in this forum have repeatedly stated that nobody actually agrees with the core beliefs of the truth movement.

I see the poll has been removed - as of a couple minutes ago, there were 8,000 votes, 78% of which were in support of 9/11 conspiracy theories.

how do you extrapolate that conclusion from this question?

Conspiracy Craziness: Anyone who believes our government could have successfully planned 9/11 is not only giving them too much credit, but they're also insane. Do you agree or disagree?

[deep]

Excellent, since it's been stated "repeatedly", you should have no trouble finding quotes of people here stating:

"nobody actually agrees with the core beliefs of the truth"

I look forward to seeing the quotes.


There were no quotation marks in my original statement. You can read about quotation marks and their significance here:

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

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Sorry, but it isn't argumentum ad populum unless someone is claiming that their argument is true because of the poll. In this case, the poll is significant because the people in this forum have repeatedly stated that nobody actually agrees with the core beliefs of the truth movement.

I see the poll has been removed - as of a couple minutes ago, there were 8,000 votes, 78% of which were in support of 9/11 conspiracy theories.
It is argumentum ad populum for either side to make use of such a poll in any way. Claiming support, or lack thereof, for a position that is stating anything other than opinion (CTs do not qualify for this, only things like interest group surveys for marketing do) is appealing to numbers. Whether it be explicit, "Look at how many people agree with our evidence!" or implicit, "You had two dogs, a hobo, and three teenagers at your 'protest'!" it is utterly irrelevant to the factual accuracy and logical consistency of the claim.

Both sides of the issue are guilty of this on a regular basis. Unless the discussion is going to specifically be focused on the strength or effectiveness of the "Truth Movement", as opposed to the claims put forth by it, such talk of support and numbers is little more than rhetoric.

Additionally, if you had bothered to read my entire post to which you replied you would understand that the flaws of the poll went well beyond its possible use by proponents of either side. You yourself make such a failing in your above post when you state, "there were 8,000 votes, 78% of which were in support of 9/11 conspiracy theories". That is not a valid interpretation of the poll (complex) question. What is a valid statement is that, "there 8,000 votes, 78% of which either felt that either the Bush govt is smart enough to pull off something like 9/11, or that conspiracy theoriest are not insane." Either of which can only be tacitly claimed to support the idea of an "inside jorb".

[deep]

my only hope is that Beck's people were able to track the IPs, and they come on tonight and expose the truthers for the scammers they are.


Alright TAM, let's think about that for a moment. We know the IPs are all going to be different, so what exactly would they be exposing? Even if a small number of people were responsible for most of the votes (by frequently changing their IP address), how do you prove that using independent analysis on each IP address?

To clarify, there are two questions here:

- how do you map an IP address to a physical person?
- how do you know if that physical person is a "truther"?

[A W Smith]

Alright TAM, let's think about that for a moment. We know the IPs are all going to be different, so what exactly would they be exposing? Even if a small number of people were responsible for most of the votes (by frequently changing their IP address), how do you prove that using independent analysis on each IP address?

To clarify, there are two questions here:

- how do you map an IP address to a physical person?
- how do you know if that physical person is a "truther"?

when the IP address ends in a basement

[Drudgewire]

when the IP address ends in a basement
*giggles*

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

. . .
- how do you map an IP address to a physical person?
http://www.geobytes.com/IpLocator.htm
http://www.networldmap.com/TryIt.htm
http://www.private.org.il/IP2geo.html
- how do you know if that physical person is a "truther"?
What would be of greater interest to me, if I were the person trying to verify the poll results, would be to check and see if any of the connecting IPs came from any know proxy sites.

[dudalb]

Internet polls - every single one of them - are totally and completely worthless. There are few absolute truths in the world. This is one of them.

And Glenn Beck is a sick, disgusting individual who "rises" to the "level" of Ann Coulter. Or Hannity. Or Limbaugh. Or Pat Robertson. Or O'Reilly. Or Savage. All of them making millions and getting enormous coverage for the "skill" of turd-spewing.

I am not a huge Glenn Beck fan,but I have a feeling you just hate anybody who voices anything but a left viewpoint.

[deep]

how do you extrapolate that conclusion from this question?


You don't - it was an honest mistake. The poll was gone, so I was being lazy and paraphrasing it (I didn't do a very good job).

[deep]

http://www.geobytes.com/IpLocator.htm
http://www.networldmap.com/TryIt.htm
http://www.private.org.il/IP2geo.html

What would be of greater interest to me, if I were the person trying to verify the poll results, would be to check and see if any of the connecting IPs came from any know proxy sites.


Err, you're missing the point. I'm well aware that WHOIS information is available for every IP address; however, that doesn't map an IP to a person. It maps the IP address to a name (individual, company, non-profit organization, etc). Plus, WHOIS only goes as far as the owner of the network block (in most cases), as opposed to identifying individual consumers who are using each IP.

Same goes for using a proxy - how can you prove who was behind the proxy and what their intentions were? No matter how you look at it, unless you're the ISP providing service over the IP you're trying to map, you can't map IP addresses to customers (and even then, they can only map IPs to customer records, as opposed to a real person).

Sorry. :(

[T.A.M.]

Alright TAM, let's think about that for a moment. We know the IPs are all going to be different, so what exactly would they be exposing? Even if a small number of people were responsible for most of the votes (by frequently changing their IP address), how do you prove that using independent analysis on each IP address?

To clarify, there are two questions here:

- how do you map an IP address to a physical person?
- how do you know if that physical person is a "truther"?

Well there is software than can track an IP to a town or city. Of course, they cannot track it to a home, or a person.

It matters not, as he made no reference to it tonight.

TAM:)

[beachnut]

Err, you're missing the point. I'm well aware that WHOIS information is available for every IP address; however, that doesn't map an IP to a person. It maps the IP address to a name (individual, company, non-profit organization, etc). Plus, WHOIS only goes as far as the owner of the network block (in most cases), as opposed to identifying individual consumers who are using each IP.

Same goes for using a proxy - how can you prove who was behind the proxy and what their intentions were? No matter how you look at it, unless you're the ISP providing service over the IP you're trying to map, you can't map IP addresses to customers (and even then, they can only map IPs to customer records, as opposed to a real person).
Sorry. :(oops

I guess we lost the poll, 9/11 truth people are multiplying, they are too smart for me.

[ConspiRaider]

I am not a huge Glenn Beck fan,but I have a feeling you just hate anybody who voices anything but a left viewpoint.
Don't trust your feelings.

Also I'm not a leftist (AKA communist, socialist). Politically, I'm a U.S. Democrat. Does NOT mean I endorse every single little thing from the Democratic Party. But generally they suit me.

Glenn Beck is a hate-spewing, intolerant, religious-"right" lunatic. Rather than being publicly reviled - they give him millions and a mike and exposure and publicity. It is an extremely sick cultural phenomenon in this country, one that has many many Americans, and of course the world, puzzled.

I don't hate Glenn Beck, I pity him. He should be getting treatment for his mental illness. As should Ann Coulter. As should Sean Hannity. As should Rush Limbaugh. As should Bill O'Reilly. As should Michael Savage. As should Pat Robertson. Nice, benevolent, 24/7 care, to try and get them back to the semblance of acceptable human behavior. I just want them out of the spotlight, and into the long process of deprogramming their baffling hatred and polarizing intolerance.

Right-wing nutters are wrong on all of the important issues - ALL of them. There are no exceptions. However, what all of the above excel at, is stirring up hatred and most importantly, fear. That sells. I suppose there is some kind of sick drama in turd-spewing that draws the millions in, like moths to a sweet-smelling but deadly candle. Hating and scaring, in the hands of skilled mouthpieces such as those aforementioned, is good drama. People might even think they can listen for the entertainment aspect - but escape the seductive pull of the intolerant mindset. Nope. Eventually they can get you.

If you are listening to ANY right-winger in the media? Please stop immediately. You're better than that. And better than them.

[Peephole]

Glenn Beck, love or hate him, Poll today...9/11 CTists are the subject...please go over and cast your vote...it looks like the CTists are.

http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/glenn.beck/

TAM:)
So you want us to "game" this poll like the troofers do?

I don't get why you want us to pay any attention to this moron's website anyways.

[T.A.M.]

No, I asked for people here to go over and cast there votes...

Because these morons are misleading the public with their lies, and I do not like the way they manipulate polls. Asking people here to VOTE is not poll manipulation, any more than suggesting you vote on election day is it??

Here is the problem. The vast majority of the general public who watches Glenn Beck, or CNN, etc...likely do not vote on these polls. HOWEVER, I CAN GUARANTEE that the truthers were over there voting in droves, for the sole purpose of skewing the poll in their favor. If anything I was hoping for a little FAIR counterbalance to it. Oh well, Cest la vie.

TAM:)

[deep]

Well there is software than can track an IP to a town or city. Of course, they cannot track it to a home, or a person.

It matters not, as he made no reference to it tonight.


Because of your sly attempt to change the subject, I'd just like to point out that this portion of the discussion was never about whether or not Beck would actually do what you hoped he would do, because as I've pointed out, it would be impossible.

So considering the statement quoted above (bold), how exactly did you think Mr. Beck would go about 'exposing' the truthers as online voting fraudsters? It sounds like you've known that all along (as opposed to gaining the knowledge from my message, or some quick Googling), which is why I'm curious.

[jhunter1163]

HOWEVER, I CAN GUARANTEE that the truthers were over there voting in droves...
TAM:)

There are droves of truthers?

[T.A.M.]

Don't trust your feelings.

Also I'm not a leftist (AKA communist, socialist). Politically, I'm a U.S. Democrat. Does NOT mean I endorse every single little thing from the Democratic Party. But generally they suit me.

Glenn Beck is a hate-spewing, intolerant, religious-"right" lunatic. Rather than being publicly reviled - they give him millions and a mike and exposure and publicity. It is an extremely sick cultural phenomenon in this country, one that has many many Americans, and of course the world, puzzled.

I don't hate Glenn Beck, I pity him. He should be getting treatment for his mental illness. As should Ann Coulter. As should Sean Hannity. As should Rush Limbaugh. As should Bill O'Reilly. As should Michael Savage. As should Pat Robertson. Nice, benevolent, 24/7 care, to try and get them back to the semblance of acceptable human behavior. I just want them out of the spotlight, and into the long process of deprogramming their baffling hatred and polarizing intolerance.

Right-wing nutters are wrong on all of the important issues - ALL of them. There are no exceptions. However, what all of the above excel at, is stirring up hatred and most importantly, fear. That sells. I suppose there is some kind of sick drama in turd-spewing that draws the millions in, like moths to a sweet-smelling but deadly candle. Hating and scaring, in the hands of skilled mouthpieces such as those aforementioned, is good drama. People might even think they can listen for the entertainment aspect - but escape the seductive pull of the intolerant mindset. Nope. Eventually they can get you.

If you are listening to ANY right-winger in the media? Please stop immediately. You're better than that. And better than them.

I have told you before, I am a social liberal. That said, I think you are being a little harsh in your commentary on SOME of those you list. It is your opinion, so fair enough, but come on, Glenn Beck? I have watched him enough to know he is pretty harmless, and I have watched enough of him to know he is not really a hater. Coulter, yes, Hannity, maybe, Limbaugh, of course, O'Reilly, yup, but Beck is more along the lines of a right wing version of Ariana Huffington (yes I know she is likely more intelligent and articulate, but in terms of her opinions, and the force with which she shoves them at you).

So should I stop listening to Oberman...his anger, his unifocused hatred for Bush/Cheney, is bordering on pathologically obsessive. He is the one doing the prolonged "special commentaries" where he basically tells Bush off every week or two. I am no Bush Fan, but If Keith Oberman can get on the air and spew his rhetoric, then Glenn Beck should be allowed also.

I think we should listen to all of them, right wing, left wing, center, and judge for ourselves.

Why should I condone your philosophy on censoring the right, just because you feel the left is censored (which by the way, In the MSM I believe there is a lack of left wing rep)?

TAM:)

[ConspiRaider]

There are droves of truthers?
:D

I think there are only 2 droves, at least that's what they told us in my NWO Orientation and Indoctrination and Assimilation and Pigmentation session.

"Dual Droves Delivering Drivel!", is what Wooftie McWhifferkugel, our NWO mentor, warned us about. And Wooftie has never been caught in a lie so far. So, I keep my two peepers peeled for 2 twoofer droves, and my powder dry, of course.

[Drudgewire]

So should I stop listening to Oberman...his anger, his unifocused hatred for Bush/Cheney, is bordering on pathologically obsessive. He is the one doing the prolonged "special commentaries" where he basically tells Bush off every week or two. I am no Bush Fan, but If Keith Oberman can get on the air and spew his rhetoric, then Glenn Beck should be allowed also.
It is scary sometimes how much they seem like the same person. Both come so close to that aura of smug, then realize it, then say something self-depricating to lighten the mood.

And both have a tendency to say something that's so incredibly not funny you have to wonder what kind of yes-man told him it was hilarious, then just while you're feeling sorry for them they say something legitimately funny.

Being slightly right-leaning, Olberman has an easier time getting my blood boiling, but he'll never make me as angry as Beck's puff hour with spirit medium hoaxer John Edward. :mad:

[T.A.M.]

Because of your sly attempt to change the subject, I'd just like to point out that this portion of the discussion was never about whether or not Beck would actually do what you hoped he would do, because as I've pointed out, it would be impossible.

So considering the statement quoted above (bold), how exactly did you think Mr. Beck would go about 'exposing' the truthers as online voting fraudsters? It sounds like you've known that all along (as opposed to gaining the knowledge from my message, or some quick Googling), which is why I'm curious.

I did not "slyly" attempt to do anything. I was not even paying attention to much of your commentary (sorry). Did I not say he would not be able to do as you suggested, follow IPs to a persons home, let alone his stand on the "truth".

In the end, as I said, we will never know...

I am waiting for the truth sites to cry "censorship" now because Beck didn't bring up the results on his show.

What exactly did you think I was avoiding? And While your at it, why not give us your take on why, 77% (or was it more in the end) of the voters, voted against Glenn Beck in the poll...I'd like to hear your view on it deep?

TAM:)

[deep]

Because these morons are misleading the public with their lies, and I do not like the way they manipulate polls. Asking people here to VOTE is not poll manipulation, any more than suggesting you vote on election day is it??

Here is the problem. The vast majority of the general public who watches Glenn Beck, or CNN, etc...likely do not vote on these polls. HOWEVER, I CAN GUARANTEE that the truthers were over there voting in droves, for the sole purpose of skewing the poll in their favor. If anything I was hoping for a little FAIR counterbalance to it. Oh well, Cest la vie.


Voting in droves? Good thing that's not poll manipulation (as you pointed out)!

One question, though - isn't the fundamental idea behind voting always to "skew the poll"? For example, on election day, supporters of each candidate flood the polls in hopes of "skewing" things in the direction of the candidate they support.

Or, are you suggesting that some form of fraud took place? If so, what evidence do you have?

I personally believe that you've only mentioned fraud because of the way the poll turned out (i.e., the results are incompatible with your world-view), as opposed to having any evidence that it occurred. I'd love for you to show everyone that I'm wrong about that.. c'mon!

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I have told you before, I am a social liberal. That said, I think you are being a little harsh in your commentary on SOME of those you list. It is your opinion, so fair enough, but come on, Glenn Beck? I have watched him enough to know he is pretty harmless, and I have watched enough of him to know he is not really a hater. Coulter, yes, Hannity, maybe, Limbaugh, of course, O'Reilly, yup, but Beck is more along the lines of a right wing version of Ariana Huffington (yes I know she is likely more intelligent and articulate, but in terms of her opinions, and the force with which she shoves them at you).

So should I stop listening to Oberman...his anger, his unifocused hatred for Bush/Cheney, is bordering on pathologically obsessive. He is the one doing the prolonged "special commentaries" where he basically tells Bush off every week or two. I am no Bush Fan, but If Keith Oberman can get on the air and spew his rhetoric, then Glenn Beck should be allowed also.

I think we should listen to all of them, right wing, left wing, center, and judge for ourselves.

Why should I condone your philosophy on censoring the right, just because you feel the left is censored (which by the way, In the MSM I believe there is a lack of left wing rep)?

TAM:)

You have the respect of this Alberta redneck, TAM. ;)

[ConspiRaider]

I have told you before, I am a social liberal. That said, I think you are being a little harsh in your commentary on SOME of those you list. It is your opinion, so fair enough, but come on, Glenn Beck? I have watched him enough to know he is pretty harmless, and I have watched enough of him to know he is not really a hater. Coulter, yes, Hannity, maybe, Limbaugh, of course, O'Reilly, yup, but Beck is more along the lines of a right wing version of Ariana Huffington (yes I know she is likely more intelligent and articulate, but in terms of her opinions, and the force with which she shoves them at you).

So should I stop listening to Oberman...his anger, his unifocused hatred for Bush/Cheney, is bordering on pathologically obsessive. He is the one doing the prolonged "special commentaries" where he basically tells Bush off every week or two. I am no Bush Fan, but If Keith Oberman can get on the air and spew his rhetoric, then Glenn Beck should be allowed also.

I think we should listen to all of them, right wing, left wing, center, and judge for ourselves.

Why should I condone your philosophy on censoring the right, just because you feel the left is censored (which by the way, In the MSM I believe there is a lack of left wing rep)?

TAM:)
Because the wrongest of all of them - the right wing nutters - get the lion's share of primetime exposure and the big bucks. You're in Canada, Doc. You probably fail to understand just how deep and unshakeable the grip of the right wing is in this country, in this area of media commentary and exposure. When a person (term used loosely) such as Ann Coulter says, time and again on paid segment appearances of mainstream media that 9/11 WIDOWS ARE ENJOYING THEIR HUSBANDS' DEATHS - that's when you begin to realize the power of the right wing nutters. When your hero, Glenn Beck, describes in detail how he'd LIKE TO PERSONALLY STRANGLE MICHAEL MOORE WITH HIS BARE HANDS AND WATCH MOORE'S FACE AS HE CHOKES THE LIFE OUT OF HIM on his radio show, you'll know that. When Bill O'Reilly muses in wonderment how BLACK PEOPLE IN A HARLEM RESTAURANT CAN BEHAVE JUST LIKE REGULAR PEOPLE, you'll know that.

The only problem with Keith Olbermann is that there are not enough of him to try and counter the right's onslaught and stranglehold on the media. You're in a British Commonwealth country, right Doc? And so maybe you're a bit put off by criticism of a country's leadership, with that royalty nonsense. But to us Americans - it is the press's responsibility to scrutinize our country's leadership. You don't think the right wing didn't roast Bill Clinton alive, day in and day out, after they got him cornered on that Monica sex scandal? Months and months and months of unrelenting attacks. And you are complaining about Keith Olbermann, for criticizing the devastating blunders of the Bush Administration? What? Well, I guess I'm not surprised you listen to Glenn Beck...

[T.A.M.]

Voting in droves? Good thing that's not poll manipulation (as you pointed out)!

One question, though - isn't the fundamental idea behind voting always to "skew the poll"? For example, on election day, supporters of each candidate flood the polls in hopes of "skewing" things in the direction of the candidate they support.

Or, are you suggesting that some form of fraud took place? If so, what evidence do you have?

I personally believe that you've only mentioned fraud because of the way the poll turned out (i.e., the results are incompatible with your world-view), as opposed to having any evidence that it occurred. I'd love for you to show everyone that I'm wrong about that.. c'mon!

deep....I guess you were not paying attention to my earlier comments either...

I told you I have NO EVIDENCE, and stated it was MY OPINION. Why do truthers have a hard time understanding what an opinion is. Given 99% of their evidence is made up of just "Opinion" you would think you would have a good grasp of it.

I have never once questioned the VALIDITY of a scientific poll. However, I have seen enough of these online polls, which the truthers often hunt for, and then post on their sites, asking members to go post now (just as I did here, in order to COUNTER what I knew would be a truther onslaught, and it was), to know what was going to happen...and of course, the predictions came true.

Are you going to honestly stand there and say that this poll is a reflection of the feelings of the general populous?

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

Because the wrongest of all of them - the right wing nutters - get the lion's share of primetime exposure and the big bucks. You're in Canada, Doc. You probably fail to understand just how deep and unshakeable the grip of the right wing is in this country, in this area of media commentary and exposure. When a person (term used loosely) such as Ann Coulter says, time and again on paid segment appearances of mainstream media that 9/11 WIDOWS ARE ENJOYING THEIR HUSBANDS' DEATHS - that's when you begin to realize the power of the right wing nutters. When your hero, Glenn Beck, describes in detail how he'd LIKE TO PERSONALLY STRANGLE MICHAEL MOORE WITH HIS BARE HANDS AND WATCH MOORE'S FACE AS HE CHOKES THE LIFE OUT OF HIM on his radio show, you'll know that. When Bill O'Reilly muses in wonderment how BLACK PEOPLE IN A HARLEM RESTAURANT CAN BEHAVE JUST LIKE REGULAR PEOPLE, you'll know that.

The only problem with Keith Olbermann is that there are not enough of him to try and counter the right's onslaught and stranglehold on the media. You're in a British Commonwealth country, right Doc? And so maybe you're a bit put off by criticism of a country's leadership, with that royalty nonsense. But to us Americans - it is the press's responsibility to scrutinize our country's leadership. You don't think the right wing didn't roast Bill Clinton alive, day in and day out, after they got him cornered on that Monica sex scandal? Months and months and months of unrelenting attacks. And you are complaining about Keith Olbermann, for criticizing the devastating blunders of the Bush Administration? What? Well, I guess I'm not surprised you listen to Glenn Beck...

1. I agree, the RW gets too much of the MSM primetime. I would love more Keith O's, but that doesnt mean I want less Glenn Becks.
2. Yes I am living in Canada, born and raised here.
3. You get no argument from me on how horrible Ann and Rush are. Even Bill O turns my stomach. I just think coming down on Glenn so much is a bit harsh.
4. I like Keith O. I enjoy his Bush Bashing. I even enjoy his long winded diatribes on Bush (though sometimes he is a little too high on the soap box). When Glen starts to Bush Praise, I laugh, and sometimes flip the Channel. Not all of Beck is Bush Praising, or Rep praising. Like I said, I am no fan of Bush, and socially I am no fan of the right.
5. We are a member of the commonwealth, but our "loyalty" to the queen is in name only. We hold our leaders to high accountability here as well. It is the reason why the Liberals were recently ousted from power, even though the majority of the country, at its soul, is liberal, not conservative. They were shown to be crooks, and so were thrown out.

TAM:)

[Drudgewire]

Because the wrongest of all of them - the right wing nutters - get the lion's share of primetime exposure and the big bucks. You're in Canada, Doc. You probably fail to understand just how deep and unshakeable the grip of the right wing is in this country, in this area of media commentary and exposure. When a person (term used loosely) such as Ann Coulter says, time and again on paid segment appearances of mainstream media that 9/11 WIDOWS ARE ENJOYING THEIR HUSBANDS' DEATHS - that's when you begin to realize the power of the right wing nutters. When your hero, Glenn Beck, describes in detail how he'd LIKE TO PERSONALLY STRANGLE MICHAEL MOORE WITH HIS BARE HANDS AND WATCH MOORE'S FACE AS HE CHOKES THE LIFE OUT OF HIM on his radio show, you'll know that. When Bill O'Reilly muses in wonderment how BLACK PEOPLE IN A HARLEM RESTAURANT CAN BEHAVE JUST LIKE REGULAR PEOPLE, you'll know that.

The only problem with Keith Olbermann is that there are not enough of him to try and counter the right's onslaught and stranglehold on the media. You're in a British Commonwealth country, right Doc? And so maybe you're a bit put off by criticism of a country's leadership, with that royalty nonsense. But to us Americans - it is the press's responsibility to scrutinize our country's leadership. You don't think the right wing didn't roast Bill Clinton alive, day in and day out, after they got him cornered on that Monica sex scandal? Months and months and months of unrelenting attacks. And you are complaining about Keith Olbermann, for criticizing the devastating blunders of the Bush Administration? What? Well, I guess I'm not surprised you listen to Glenn Beck...
Hahahaha, the right wing media.

OK, I'll shut up now. :boxedin:

[Calcas]

Sorry, but it isn't argumentum ad populum unless someone is claiming that their argument is true because of the poll. In this case, the poll is significant because the people in this forum have repeatedly stated that nobody actually agrees with the core beliefs of the truth movement.

I see the poll has been removed - as of a couple minutes ago, there were 8,000 votes, 78% of which were in support of 9/11 conspiracy theories.

Ha Ha! I'm late to the dance on this one but I just saw the thread and the poll question.

Oh my, that was one of the worst worded poll questions I've ever seen.

Do you really think it reflects what the general population thinks?

And, don't you think that listeners to his program are predisposed to believe in CT theories anyway??

[T.A.M.]

4.6% believe in the "core beliefs" of the truth movement, according to a SCIENTIFIC "I CAN"T SEND ALL MY TRUTHER BUDDIES OVER TO VOTE" Poll...lol

TAM:)

[ConspiRaider]

1. I agree, the RW gets too much of the MSM primetime. I would love more Keith O's, but that doesnt mean I want less Glenn Becks.
2. Yes I am living in Canada, born and raised here.
3. You get no argument from me on how horrible Ann and Rush are. Even Bill O turns my stomach. I just think coming down on Glenn so much is a bit harsh.
4. I like Keith O. I enjoy his Bush Bashing. I even enjoy his long winded diatribes on Bush (though sometimes he is a little too high on the soap box). When Glen starts to Bush Praise, I laugh, and sometimes flip the Channel. Not all of Beck is Bush Praising, or Rep praising. Like I said, I am no fan of Bush, and socially I am no fan of the right.
5. We are a member of the commonwealth, but our "loyalty" to the queen is in name only. We hold our leaders to high accountability here as well. It is the reason why the Liberals were recently ousted from power, even though the majority of the country, at its soul, is liberal, not conservative. They were shown to be crooks, and so were thrown out.

TAM:)
Good stuff, Doc.

And this bunch - Doofus McTurdBush and Friends - is definitely the most crooked group since before the turn of the LAST century. We had a run of this tremendous crookedness just after the Civil War and the rise of Big Capitalism, but then it was slowly tamed, somewhat, probably starting with the Teddy Roosevelt Administration. And he was a Republican. This group? WOW! Unprecedented. And that's why we are a bit more riled about these right wing media nutjobs. Because almost straight down the line - they back and defend and support McTurdBush. No matter what. Which provides a massive promotion of their thuggish and roguish policies. McTurdBush just vetoed a 35 billion dollar subsidy over 5 years to assist with health care for kiddies. Yet, he just requested 46 billion to provide more funding for his ill-begot war.

Good to hear that royalty is a paper tiger in your country. :)

[DavidJames]

There were no quotation marks in my original statement. You can read about quotation marks and their significance here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotation_markIn other words you made it up then.

Another example of CTists making a claim and then refusing to support it with evidence.

You guys keep living down to my expectations.

[deep]

I did not "slyly" attempt to do anything. I was not even paying attention to much of your commentary (sorry). Did I not say he would not be able to do as you suggested, follow IPs to a persons home, let alone his stand on the "truth".


Hmm, that's puzzling, because you were quoting me exclusively and responding to that commentary in each of the replies I'm referring to. Bizarre.

(just FYI, I think you were avoiding an admission that you didn't think that initial comment all the way through before posting it.)

And While your at it, why not give us your take on why, 77% (or was it more in the end) of the voters, voted against Glenn Beck in the poll...I'd like to hear your view on it deep?


Because the argument that all 9/11 conspiracy theorists are insane is not sound, and would actually suggest that Beck is a naive realist.

[deep]

In other words you made it up then.

Another example of CTists making a claim and then refusing to support it with evidence.


Where did I say, "I refuse to support this with evidence"?

[Slayhamlet]

Your opinion isn't shared by many others - only 14% of people in a recent online poll agreed with you.

Haha. Cute.

[Corsair 115]

We hold our leaders to high accountability here as well. It is the reason why the Liberals were recently ousted from power, even though the majority of the country, at its soul, is liberal, not conservative. They were shown to be crooks, and so were thrown out.In fairness, they weren't thrown that far out of office. After all, the Harper Conservatives only got a minority government, and they don't seem to be improving their standing in the polls enough to get a majority.

[Slayhamlet]

Hmmm.... A guy abusing/killing dogs. The government either lying about the murder of about 3,000 at best or directly responsible for the murders at worst...

Ah well, how about a demonstration with a couple hundred people? Seriously, how bad to "people who think the OT is a lie" want a new independent investigation/bring the real criminal to justice?

I think it's a better indication of just how frivolously the vast majority of "Truthers" take the implications of their own beliefs. The online pseudo-investigation of the purported worst government abuse of its own citizenry in the history of the country is just a mere hobby for most of them.

[deep]

Do you really think it reflects what the general population thinks?


Well, yes, but not because of the poll results. Remember, there's a monumental difference between these two points of view:
"I don't believe any of the 9/11 CTs."
"Any person who believes any of the 9/11 CTs is insane."The poll essentially asked people if they agree or disagree with #2, and the results are more or less inline with my own observations.

[beachnut]

Well, yes, but not because of the poll results. Remember, there's a monumental difference between these two points of view:

"I don't believe any of the 9/11 CTs."
"Any person who believes any of the 9/11 CTs is insane."The poll essentially asked people if they agree or disagree with #2, and the results are more or less inline with my own observations.
It appears these are 2 opinions many people can have at the same time.

I think they are okay. I agree with both. Next poll.

Anyone who believes 9/11 CT is insane. So?

[R.Mackey]

It would be interesting to run an Internet poll, get the expected dogpiling from one side or the other (or both)... but then go back and separate out all the valid votes from the doppelgangers. It would be quite illuminating to see just how desperate some people are to appear like a sizable group.

Personally, I don't care if the whole ruddy world believes. One percent or 99 percent, they're all totally and laughably wrong. Want to impress me? Come up with a hypothesis that doesn't instantly provoke laughter. That'd be a good start.

[deep]

It would be interesting to run an Internet poll, get the expected dogpiling from one side or the other (or both)... but then go back and separate out all the valid votes from the doppelgangers. It would be quite illuminating to see just how desperate some people are to appear like a sizable group.


Good luck with that. As previously stated, without some other "hook" into the real-world, there's no way to match real people with IP addresses. Short of collecting credit card numbers (and confirming the person's name & address), I'm not sure how you plan on "separating out the valid votes". Even that method offers no real guarantee.

An Internet poll is what it is - an accurate measure of votes coming from unique IP addresses. Period.

[deep]

It appears these are 2 opinions many people can have at the same time.

I think they are okay. I agree with both. Next poll.

Anyone who believes 9/11 CT is insane. So?


Are you saying that people who believe 9/11 CTs are legally insane? Or are you using the word "insane" as slang to mean something else?

Do you think people who get tattoos all over their face are insane as well? What about people who worship Satan (et al)?

[Redtail]

Good luck with that. As previously stated, without some other "hook" into the real-world, there's no way to match real people with IP addresses. Short of collecting credit card numbers (and confirming the person's name & address), I'm not sure how you plan on "separating out the valid votes". Even that method offers no real guarantee.

An Internet poll is what it is - an accurate measure of votes coming from unique IP addresses. Period.

Even though people can change/hide their IP addresses... Ok. So when will the big protest be? Or do "the people who think the OT is a lie" only want to argue on internet forums?

[deep]

deep....I guess you were not paying attention to my earlier comments either...

I told you I have NO EVIDENCE, and stated it was MY OPINION. Why do truthers have a hard time understanding what an opinion is.


TAM.. go back and read your "opinions", and explain to me how I can identify them as such.

In other words, you provide no indication that you're stating an "opinion".. in fact, you only seem to play the "opinion" card (aka "get out of jail free") when someone questions you.

Here are just a few of the "opinions" from earlier in the thread:
"I CAN GUARANTEE that the truthers were over there voting in droves, for the sole purpose of skewing the poll in their favor."
"Because these morons are misleading the public with their lies, and I do not like the way they manipulate polls."
"I see the truthers have really bombed [the poll] now..."I guess "I CAN GUARANTEE" is just another way of saying "in my opinion"..? ;)

[deep]

Even though people can change/hide their IP addresses... Ok. So when will the big protest be? Or do "the people who think the OT is a lie" only want to argue on internet forums?


I doubt there will be a big protest.. not sure why you feel that organized protest is such a critical metric for success. In my opinion (i.e., "I CAN GUARANTEE"), there are two milestones that will mark "progress":
intersection with the mass media (when the core beliefs of the truth movement are presented with at least a neutral bias).
intersection with politics (when politicians begin acknowledging the core beliefs of the truth movement for the purpose of securing votes. That "acknowledgment" could come in many forms - campaign promises, simple verbal acknowledgment, etc).At the end of the day, a protest is medium- to high-risk, and it doesn't really buy you any traction. In a democracy, people "protest" most effectively with their votes.. and given enough unbiased exposure (through the media), politicians will probably latch onto that.

[T.A.M.]

TAM.. go back and read your "opinions", and explain to me how I can identify them as such.

In other words, you provide no indication that you're stating an "opinion".. in fact, you only seem to play the "opinion" card (aka "get out of jail free") when someone questions you.

Here are just a few of the "opinions" from earlier in the thread:
"I CAN GUARANTEE that the truthers were over there voting in droves, for the sole purpose of skewing the poll in their favor."
"Because these morons are misleading the public with their lies, and I do not like the way they manipulate polls."
"I see the truthers have really bombed [the poll] now..."I guess "I CAN GUARANTEE" is just another way of saying "in my opinion"..? ;)

No deep, Earlier in this thread, I stated it was MY OPINION, much earlier on...

I don't expect YOU to be able to decipher my opinion from a declaration of fact.

I know this is a competition for you...a "lets PWN the opponent" scenario. If you wanna do a cyber high five with your buddies on this one, go ahead, I concede that the Beck Staff would likely not have been able to track where the votes were coming from beyond the IP, and would not be able to see truther versus non (though I never suspected they could).

I thought maybe they could some how see a pattern emerge from a huge number of votes coming from a very select number of IPs, and from there determine that the same IP address was voting multiple times (it can be done, as I proved here when a CNN poll came out, you simply clear your Cache, Cookies, and history, and vote again). Seems it would have been futile...you cybersleuths...lol...are too good for the average joe.

pathetic.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

I have no evidence, it is MY OPINION that the truthers voted more than once. Don't bother asking me to retract the accusation, as I will not. They have done so in the past, and I would not put it pass them to do so in the future.

Like it or lump it...I could care less.

TAM:)

Post #47 for your reference...

TAM:)

[deep]

I thought maybe they could some how see a pattern emerge from a huge number of votes coming from a very select number of IPs, and from there determine that the same IP address was voting multiple times (it can be done, as I proved here when a CNN poll came out, you simply clear your Cache, Cookies, and history, and vote again). Seems it would have been futile...you cybersleuths...lol...are too good for the average joe.


How could you be sure that your second vote was actually incrementing the grand total? There's obviously going to be a chance that other people are there voting at the same time -- not sure how you can definitively prove it one way or the other with that in mind.

Oh, and by the way, I have no idea what you're talking about with regard to a "competition". Please note that I don't end my posts with words like "pathetic", or make any other veiled insults, and I'm certainly not playing some game by posting here. So feel free to exclude any non-essential chit-chat in the future.. save us both some time.

[DavidJames]

Where did I say, "I refuse to support this with evidence"?
troll

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Err, you're missing the point. I'm well aware that WHOIS information is available for every IP address; however, that doesn't map an IP to a person. It maps the IP address to a name (individual, company, non-profit organization, etc). Plus, WHOIS only goes as far as the owner of the network block (in most cases), as opposed to identifying individual consumers who are using each IP.

Same goes for using a proxy - how can you prove who was behind the proxy and what their intentions were? No matter how you look at it, unless you're the ISP providing service over the IP you're trying to map, you can't map IP addresses to customers (and even then, they can only map IPs to customer records, as opposed to a real person).

Sorry. :(
No, you're missing the point. You're looking at the issue from a voter perspective, not a pollster perspective.

If you are responsible for trying to ensure the validity of the poll, and you find out that a large number of votes come in, in quick succession, that map to the same geographical local; you can pretty safetly assume some attempt at stacking is occurring and eliminate them. It would also be perfectly reasonable to eliminate all votes coming from a proxy site. It doesn't matter which option the votes are for, you eliminate potentionally fraudulent votes based on some reasonable criteria.

[T.A.M.]

How could you be sure that your second vote was actually incrementing the grand total? There's obviously going to be a chance that other people are there voting at the same time -- not sure how you can definitively prove it one way or the other with that in mind.

Oh, and by the way, I have no idea what you're talking about with regard to a "competition". Please note that I don't end my posts with words like "pathetic", or make any other veiled insults, and I'm certainly not playing some game by posting here. So feel free to exclude any non-essential chit-chat in the future.. save us both some time.

Looking for an outright admission of wrong or right seems a little superficial, as if it is a competition...that is where the comment came from.

If you wish to remove all form of chit chat from future discussion fine.

TAM:)