Should I be a little nicer to debunkers?

LastChild · 26th March 2008, 11:09 AM

What’s the point of all this JREF pretend 9/11 debunking? It is my opinion that some here are nothing more then right wing apologist exploiting 9/11 conspiracy in a lame attempt of neo-con spin for the failure to protect America on 9/11. Others I suspect may just have wannabe left wing gate keeper elitist envy. I don’t know what is worse them or the so-called experts and their pseudoskepticism. Theirs is a battle of bare assertions equivalent of proclaiming their own worthiness by purporting to see the emperor’s new physics while at the same time pretending the NISTian science is invisible to anyone who is either too stupid or not fit for his position. Filling out the crowd are just lame hanger-on groupie types shouting “yeah what he said!” from the dark.

The debunking attempts have been going since the very day of the suspicious events surrounding 9/11. Someone obviously thought these so-called “conspiracy theories” were enough of a threat that they needed and still need to be discredited at any cost. JREF debunkers can’t even fill a sub-forum at JREF. The debunking movement and its daily wishful thinking declarations of a dead Truth movement are nothing short of pathetic wishful pipe dream hoping that their homework assignment is finally fulfilled. So no. I'm probably not going to be nice to them. But then again I don’t really think about whether or not I’m being nice to them or not. I have no insecurities that my criticisms towards them may be invalid or unfounded. It’s all pretty obvious.

Characteristics of pseudo skeptics

The tendency to deny, rather than doubt.

Double standards in the application of criticism.

The making of judgments without full inquiry.

Tendency to discredit, rather than investigate.

Use of ridicule or ad hominem attacks in lieu of arguments.

Pejorative labeling of proponents as 'promoters', 'pseudoscientists' or practitioners of 'pathological science.

Presenting insufficient evidence or proof.

Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof.

Making unsubstantiated counter-claims .

Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence.
Suggesting that unconvincing evidence is grounds for dismissing it.

pomeroo · 26th March 2008, 11:13 AM

Originally Posted by LastChild

What’s the point of all this JREF pretend 9/11 debunking? It is my opinion that some here are nothing more then right wing apologist exploiting 9/11 conspiracy in a lame attempt of neo-con spin for the failure to protect America on 9/11. Others I suspect may just have wannabe left wing gate keeper elitist envy. I don’t know what is worse them or the so-called experts and their pseudoskepticism. Theirs is a battle of bare assertions equivalent of proclaiming their own worthiness by purporting to see the emperor’s new physics while at the same time pretending the NISTian science is invisible to anyone who is either too stupid or not fit for his position. Filling out the crowd are just lame hanger-on groupie types shouting “yeah what he said!” from the dark.

The debunking attempts have been going since the very day of the suspicious events surrounding 9/11. Someone obviously thought these so-called “conspiracy theories” were enough of a threat that they needed and still need to be discredited at any cost. JREF debunkers can’t even fill a sub-forum at JREF. The debunking movement and its daily wishful thinking declarations of a dead Truth movement are nothing short of pathetic wishful pipe dream hoping that their homework assignment is finally fulfilled. So no. I'm probably not going to be nice to them. But then again I don’t really think about whether or not I’m being nice to them or not. I have no insecurities that my criticisms towards them may be invalid or unfounded. It’s all pretty obvious.

Characteristics of pseudo skeptics

The tendency to deny, rather than doubt.

Double standards in the application of criticism.

The making of judgments without full inquiry.

Tendency to discredit, rather than investigate.

Use of ridicule or ad hominem attacks in lieu of arguments.

Pejorative labeling of proponents as 'promoters', 'pseudoscientists' or practitioners of 'pathological science.

Presenting insufficient evidence or proof.

Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof.

Making unsubstantiated counter-claims .

Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence.
Suggesting that unconvincing evidence is grounds for dismissing it.

Have you figured out the difference between supply and demand yet?

Have you contacted the Dover Port Mortuary?

Have you discovered a real scientist who thinks that NIST "invented" any new principles of science?

Gee, I wonder why not.

DGM · 26th March 2008, 11:16 AM

We can only use "pretend debunking" because all of your arguments are pure fiction.
Do you have any fact based claims we can sink our teeth into?

pomeroo · 26th March 2008, 11:17 AM

Originally Posted by LastChild

What’s the point of all this JREF pretend 9/11 debunking? It is my opinion that some here are nothing more then right wing apologist exploiting 9/11 conspiracy in a lame attempt of neo-con spin for the failure to protect America on 9/11.

{snip-mindless drivel}

Hmmm. "Failure to protect America on 9/11" from what, exactly? The jihadists actually exist?

Pardalis · 26th March 2008, 11:18 AM

This repeating of threads reminds me of a game I used to play at around 5 years of age.

LastChild · 26th March 2008, 11:29 AM

Originally Posted by pomeroo

Hmmm. "Failure to protect America on 9/11" from what, exactly? The jihadists actually exist?

I guess to you. You're the one apologizing for it all the time.

Pardalis · 26th March 2008, 11:30 AM

Originally Posted by LastChild

I guess to you. You're the one apologizing for it all the time.

I guess to you. You're the one apologizing for it all the time.

See? It used to drive my sister nuts.

LastChild · 26th March 2008, 11:34 AM

Originally Posted by pomeroo

Have you figured out the difference between supply and demand yet?

Find that 100,000 - 300,000 barrels of oil a day missing from Iraq yet?

Originally Posted by pomeroo

Have you contacted the Dover Port Mortuary?

Why would I contact them to identify an airplane? I'm not a pretend debunker.

Originally Posted by pomeroo

Have you discovered a real scientist who thinks that NIST "invented" any new principles of science?

Better then that. I can quote someone from NIST questioning the WTC investigation they did. Who can you quote?

Originally Posted by pomeroo

Gee, I wonder why not.

You wonder? I thought pretend debunkers knew everything.

LastChild · 26th March 2008, 11:36 AM

Originally Posted by Pardalis

I guess to you. You're the one apologizing for it all the time.

See? It used to drive my sister nuts.

I drive your sister nuts all the time too.

LastChild · 26th March 2008, 11:37 AM

Originally Posted by DGM

We can only use "pretend debunking" because all of your arguments are pure fiction.
Do you have any fact based claims we can sink our teeth into?

So you admit it? Good for you. That's the first step to your recovery.

Bananaman · 26th March 2008, 11:37 AM

Imagine sitting down next to a parent or relative or friend who answered one of the phonecalls from flight 93. Then tell them what the truthers believe.

Then look in that relative or friend's eyes and wait for something between fury and hatred to erupt while they stare at you, before they relax, smile and just start shaking their head.

That's why I've lost patience with the truthers.

Bananaman.

Myriad · 26th March 2008, 11:40 AM

It would be nice if you could answer these questions:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...82#post3562182

Respectfully,
Myriad

LastChild · 26th March 2008, 11:44 AM

Originally Posted by Bananaman

Imagine sitting down next to a parent or relative or friend who answered one of the phonecalls from flight 93. Then tell them what the truthers believe.

Then look in that relative or friend's eyes and wait for something between fury and hatred to erupt while they stare at you, before they relax, smile and just start shaking their head.

That's why I've lost patience with the truthers.

Bananaman.

Imagine being as low as to hide behind and incorporate the real suffering of someone else just to make some trivial nonexistent point. Well.... you don’t have to imagine do you?

As if there are no family members who would like a real investigation into 9/11.

Next

Pardalis · 26th March 2008, 11:45 AM

Originally Posted by LastChild

I drive your sister nuts all the time too.

Good one.

Disbelief · 26th March 2008, 11:45 AM

Gee, another LC copycat thread. Pretty soon, he will start posting links that he thinks support his conclusions, yet actually destroy any arguments he makes. Either that or the links will have no bearing whatsoever on the discussion.

LastChild · 26th March 2008, 11:54 AM

Originally Posted by Myriad

It would be nice if you could answer these questions:

I'm still curious about this, which LastChild did not respond to back on page 1 of this thread. To depersonalize the question: why would anyone whose concern is addressing problems with the government's account support a movement whose most notable public behavior is making accusations ("9/11 Was An Inside Job!") that have made it politically impossible to address problems with the government's account? Why would anyone whose concern is stopping the Iraq war support a movement that harms the credibility and effectiveness of anti-war activists?

Respectfully,
Myriad

Because people shouldn't pretend to be so stupid just to imply that the possibility of an inside job is the only reason to have a real investigation into 9/11. To pretend that 9/11 is just about the only thing this administration has told the whole truth and nothing but the truth about is self serving ignorance.

And no I don’t just have a problem with just republicans. I’ve have even voted for some in the past. I have a problem with crooks trying to shove their version of the truth down by throat. Especially when that so-called truth serves nothing but to get them off the hook for their failures that day.

Bananaman · 26th March 2008, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Imagine being as low as to hide behind and incorporate the real suffering of someone else just to make some trivial nonexistent point. Well.... you don’t have to imagine do you?

I don't hide. I state the truth.

Imagine being you. How do you look at yourself in the mirror?

Let's repeat what you just said:

Quote:

some trivial nonexistent point.

Words fail me.

Quote:

As if there are no family members who would like a real investigation into 9/11.

Ones who took phonecalls from the shanksville flight? Don't be an total arse, Lastchild. You're doing the same thing again. Attributing questions to the wrong people. You don't even care do you? That shows your emotional depth of involvement. Pretty much a parallel to your involvement with the truth.

Bananaman

LastChild · 26th March 2008, 11:56 AM

Originally Posted by Disbelief

Gee, another LC copycat thread. Pretty soon, he will start posting links that he thinks support his conclusions, yet actually destroy any arguments he makes. Either that or the links will have no bearing whatsoever on the discussion.

Did you miss the pseudo skeptic part just to sustain your bliss?

DGM · 26th March 2008, 12:09 PM

Originally Posted by LastChild

So you admit it? Good for you. That's the first step to your recovery.

I admit that debunking nothing or pure fantasy is not really serious debunking. The issue here is it's all you present.

LastChild · 26th March 2008, 12:19 PM

Originally Posted by DGM

I admit that debunking nothing or pure fantasy is not really serious debunking. The issue here is it's all you present.

Well then please source where I have ever offered up a fantasy as fact and you DGM have debunked it. I fear if you may slipped back into pretending again. Don't give up.

DGM · 26th March 2008, 12:27 PM

Originally Posted by LastChild

Well then please source where I have ever offered up a fantasy as fact and you DGM have debunked it. I fear if you may slipped back into pretending again. Don't give up.

Do you really want to relive your pitifully performance in the "sounds" thread? And BTW, I have no intention of "jumping through hoops" when every lurker and regular poster knows what I'm talking about. Your effectively screwed by your reputation.

SDC · 26th March 2008, 01:08 PM

The world is such a happier place with LC on the "ignore" list.

WildCat · 26th March 2008, 01:13 PM

Drudgewire · 26th March 2008, 01:16 PM

Originally Posted by SDC

The world is such a happier place with LC on the "ignore" list.

Indeed. Although he could be nicer in the parts of his posts that are going to be quoted.

peteweaver · 26th March 2008, 01:18 PM

Funny.

Architect · 26th March 2008, 01:21 PM

Originally Posted by LastChild

right wing apologist(s)

Actually, I'm centre-left. Which by American standards would make me a raving communist, I suppose.

Myriad · 26th March 2008, 01:26 PM

Originally Posted by LastChild

Because people shouldn't pretend to be so stupid just to imply that the possibility of an inside job is the only reason to have a real investigation into 9/11. To pretend that 9/11 is just about the only thing this administration has told the whole truth and nothing but the truth about is self serving ignorance.

The message that the Truth Movement used its moment in the limelight, back in Autumn 06, to press upon the public was that "inside job" was a fact.

Remember? "911 Was An Inside Job!"

"911 Was An Inside Job" does not mean "there are questions that require further inquiry." It doesn't mean "the government has withheld some facts to make itself look better." If those had been the messages, the movement could have had investigative mainstream journalists, curious scientists, engineers and firefighters in favor of stronger building code reform, the anti-Bush left and center, the anti-war activists, and anti-corruption reformers, all on their side. Instead, the movement sold a conclusion. A conclusion which was not and is not supported by any credible evidence. A conclusion that required them to call most of those might-have-been supporters liars. "911 Was An Inside Job."

If that wasn't the message they intended to get across, then they blew it. Thoroughly and, for all practical purposes, permanently.

If what the truth movement wanted was another investigation into the possibility of an inside job, then they blew it. Thoroughly and, for all practical purposes, permanently. They have made further investigation politically non-viable.

Quote:

And no I don’t just have a problem with just republicans. I’ve have even voted for some in the past. I have a problem with crooks trying to shove their version of the truth down by throat. Especially when that so-called truth serves nothing but to get them off the hook for their failures that day.

Too bad. The truth movement has given them the cover to get away with it. I'm not real happy about that either, but crying over spilled milk is a waste of time.

Respectfully,
Myriad

nicepants · 26th March 2008, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Presenting insufficient evidence or proof.

Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof.

Making unsubstantiated counter-claims .

Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence.
Suggesting that unconvincing evidence is grounds for dismissing it.

All are characteristic traits of truthers, these probably moreso than the others.

Tweeter · 26th March 2008, 01:36 PM

Should I be a little nicer to debunkers?
Hell no!

GreNME · 26th March 2008, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Should I be a little nicer to debunkers?

That depends. If you want to hang on to at least some type of moral high ground, then it would probably be a good start. If that's not all that important to you, then carry on with what you're doing.

I'm neither a "debunker" nor a "truther," and I think the constant need for distinctions gets out of hand around here. I don't know if you've missed it, but I've actively criticized the moderation here on at least one recent occassion (and, in all honesty, I think I can't really complain as of late... my thanks to Chillzero on that). Still, I don't subscribe to the 9/11 conspiracy theories despite my active dislike for the current presidential administration or its policies (some of which I find detestable and borderline criminal).

The one thing I find missing in a lot of these threads, however, is any semblance of good faith on either side to approach the discussions rationally and without unnecessary emotional outbursts. I think that when it does happen then some really good communication on both sides takes place, whether it's an agreement on criteria for validation or a decision to take a discussion to a moderated format. Believe it or not, people of differing conclusions on a topic can manage to discuss things without devolving into ridiculous caricatures, but since you (and others on all sides of the debates) often refuse to do that the same boring conversations and accusations take place day in and day out with no change. It's like watching two highly proselytizing and evangelical religious groups shout at each other from different sides of a street.

So, if you're honestly asking whether someone thinks you should be a bigger person in the discussions taking place, then absolutely. If you're just looking for an excuse to toss more poo, then you're not really going to bother reading this and considering it in the first place.

Blender Head · 26th March 2008, 01:38 PM

Originally Posted by Myriad

The message that the Truth Movement used its moment in the limelight, back in Autumn 06, to press upon the public was that "inside job" was a fact.

Remember? "911 Was An Inside Job!"

"911 Was An Inside Job" does not mean "there are questions that require further inquiry." It doesn't mean "the government has withheld some facts to make itself look better." If those had been the messages, the movement could have had investigative mainstream journalists, curious scientists, engineers and firefighters in favor of stronger building code reform, the anti-Bush left and center, the anti-war activists, and anti-corruption reformers, all on their side. Instead, the movement sold a conclusion. A conclusion which was not and is not supported by any credible evidence. A conclusion that required them to call most of those might-have-been supporters liars. "911 Was An Inside Job."

If that wasn't the message they intended to get across, then they blew it. Thoroughly and, for all practical purposes, permanently.

If what the truth movement wanted was another investigation into the possibility of an inside job, then they blew it. Thoroughly and, for all practical purposes, permanently. They have made further investigation politically non-viable.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Wonderfully said.

If the Truth Movement wasn't pushing a conclusion, as you rightly point out, I myself would probably be one of them.

Tweeter · 26th March 2008, 01:39 PM

Why are most debunkers foreigners?
* waits for the sock accounts to rush in and dismiss this claim

SDC · 26th March 2008, 01:45 PM

Originally Posted by Drudgewire

Indeed. Although he could be nicer in the parts of his posts that are going to be quoted.

It places him (or her, or the artificial-intelligence-referred-to-as-LC) at a remove so that any bile or spite becomes a distant matter, a minor irritation at worst.

Highly recommended! Two thumbs up!

dudalb · 26th March 2008, 01:45 PM

Originally Posted by Tweeter

Why are most debunkers foreigners?
* waits for the sock accounts to rush in and dismiss this claim

Don't feed the Troll and he will go away.

calebprime · 26th March 2008, 01:46 PM

will you be my friend and tell me what you think the three most suspicious things surrounding the events of 9/11 are?

will you be my friend and tell me what you think are the three most suspicious things surrounding the events of JFK's assassination?

I think Arab terrorists, mostly Saudis, flew planes into the WTC.

I think Oswald acted alone.

Is that so wronk?

LastChild · 26th March 2008, 01:51 PM

Originally Posted by Myriad

The message that the Truth Movement used its moment in the limelight, back in Autumn 06, to press upon the public was that "inside job" was a fact.

Remember? "911 Was An Inside Job!"

"911 Was An Inside Job" does not mean "there are questions that require further inquiry." It doesn't mean "the government has withheld some facts to make itself look better." If those had been the messages, the movement could have had investigative mainstream journalists, curious scientists, engineers and firefighters in favor of stronger building code reform, the anti-Bush left and center, the anti-war activists, and anti-corruption reformers, all on their side. Instead, the movement sold a conclusion. A conclusion which was not and is not supported by any credible evidence. A conclusion that required them to call most of those might-have-been supporters liars. "911 Was An Inside Job."

If that wasn't the message they intended to get across, then they blew it. Thoroughly and, for all practical purposes, permanently.

If what the truth movement wanted was another investigation into the possibility of an inside job, then they blew it. Thoroughly and, for all practical purposes, permanently. They have made further investigation politically non-viable.

Too bad. The truth movement has given them the cover to get away with it. I'm not real happy about that either, but crying over spilled milk is a waste of time.

Respectfully,
Myriad

What’s too bad is the cowardice of some people so afraid of what others might think if they point to any of the obvious inadequacies in any official accounting of 9/11 to date. I would also add that although a possible inside job is not the only reason to have a valid investigation into 9/11 anyone dismissing an inside job before that investigation is the one jumping to conclusions.

fuelair · 26th March 2008, 01:53 PM

Originally Posted by LastChild

. Others I suspect may just have wannabe left wing gate keeper elitist envy. . [/i]

There is no reason, I assure you, to believe we think troofers are elite - they are so not elite it reaches to the point of their conclusively having been shown to be common morons. Hopefully this will help allay your fears on this matter.

Jonnyclueless · 26th March 2008, 01:56 PM

There is no way on earth LastChild could be any older than 14.

Thunder · 26th March 2008, 02:04 PM

I cant believe this is an actual topic.

LastChild · 26th March 2008, 02:05 PM

Originally Posted by calebprime

will you be my friend and tell me what you think the three most suspicious things surrounding the events of 9/11 are?

The failure to protect, the actions of Govt officials leading up to, on, and since 9/11, the limited and inadequate investigations and explanations.

Originally Posted by calebprime

will you be my friend and tell me what you think are the three most suspicious things surrounding the events of JFK's assassination?

The failure to protect, the actions of Govt officials leading up to, on, and since the JFK assassination, the limited and inadequate investigations and explanations.

Originally Posted by calebprime

I think Arab terrorists, mostly Saudis, flew planes into the WTC.

I don't think if this were found to be indisputable it would mean no further investigation into 9/11 is needed. You can say that for just about any so-called conspiracy theory.

Originally Posted by calebprime

I think Oswald acted alone.

Yeah well Oswald never got his day in court did he?

Originally Posted by calebprime

Is that so wronk?

Will you be my friend and tell me what wronk means?

26th March 2008, 11:09 AM	#1
LastChild Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Disneyland Posts: 2,062	Should I be a little nicer to debunkers? What’s the point of all this JREF pretend 9/11 debunking? It is my opinion that some here are nothing more then right wing apologist exploiting 9/11 conspiracy in a lame attempt of neo-con spin for the failure to protect America on 9/11. Others I suspect may just have wannabe left wing gate keeper elitist envy. I don’t know what is worse them or the so-called experts and their pseudoskepticism. Theirs is a battle of bare assertions equivalent of proclaiming their own worthiness by purporting to see the emperor’s new physics while at the same time pretending the NISTian science is invisible to anyone who is either too stupid or not fit for his position. Filling out the crowd are just lame hanger-on groupie types shouting “yeah what he said!” from the dark. The debunking attempts have been going since the very day of the suspicious events surrounding 9/11. Someone obviously thought these so-called “conspiracy theories” were enough of a threat that they needed and still need to be discredited at any cost. JREF debunkers can’t even fill a sub-forum at JREF. The debunking movement and its daily wishful thinking declarations of a dead Truth movement are nothing short of pathetic wishful pipe dream hoping that their homework assignment is finally fulfilled. So no. I'm probably not going to be nice to them. But then again I don’t really think about whether or not I’m being nice to them or not. I have no insecurities that my criticisms towards them may be invalid or unfounded. It’s all pretty obvious. Characteristics of pseudo skeptics The tendency to deny, rather than doubt. Double standards in the application of criticism. The making of judgments without full inquiry. Tendency to discredit, rather than investigate. Use of ridicule or ad hominem attacks in lieu of arguments. Pejorative labeling of proponents as 'promoters', 'pseudoscientists' or practitioners of 'pathological science. Presenting insufficient evidence or proof. Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof. Making unsubstantiated counter-claims . Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence. Suggesting that unconvincing evidence is grounds for dismissing it.
	Last edited by LastChild; 26th March 2008 at 11:10 AM.

26th March 2008, 11:13 AM	#2
pomeroo Banned Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: In a Little Cafe Just the Other Side of the Border Posts: 7,090	Originally Posted by LastChild What’s the point of all this JREF pretend 9/11 debunking? It is my opinion that some here are nothing more then right wing apologist exploiting 9/11 conspiracy in a lame attempt of neo-con spin for the failure to protect America on 9/11. Others I suspect may just have wannabe left wing gate keeper elitist envy. I don’t know what is worse them or the so-called experts and their pseudoskepticism. Theirs is a battle of bare assertions equivalent of proclaiming their own worthiness by purporting to see the emperor’s new physics while at the same time pretending the NISTian science is invisible to anyone who is either too stupid or not fit for his position. Filling out the crowd are just lame hanger-on groupie types shouting “yeah what he said!” from the dark. The debunking attempts have been going since the very day of the suspicious events surrounding 9/11. Someone obviously thought these so-called “conspiracy theories” were enough of a threat that they needed and still need to be discredited at any cost. JREF debunkers can’t even fill a sub-forum at JREF. The debunking movement and its daily wishful thinking declarations of a dead Truth movement are nothing short of pathetic wishful pipe dream hoping that their homework assignment is finally fulfilled. So no. I'm probably not going to be nice to them. But then again I don’t really think about whether or not I’m being nice to them or not. I have no insecurities that my criticisms towards them may be invalid or unfounded. It’s all pretty obvious. Characteristics of pseudo skeptics The tendency to deny, rather than doubt. Double standards in the application of criticism. The making of judgments without full inquiry. Tendency to discredit, rather than investigate. Use of ridicule or ad hominem attacks in lieu of arguments. Pejorative labeling of proponents as 'promoters', 'pseudoscientists' or practitioners of 'pathological science. Presenting insufficient evidence or proof. Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof. Making unsubstantiated counter-claims . Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence. Suggesting that unconvincing evidence is grounds for dismissing it. Have you figured out the difference between supply and demand yet? Have you contacted the Dover Port Mortuary? Have you discovered a real scientist who thinks that NIST "invented" any new principles of science? Gee, I wonder why not.
	Last edited by pomeroo; 26th March 2008 at 11:15 AM.

26th March 2008, 11:16 AM	#3
DGM Philosopher Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 6,406	We can only use "pretend debunking" because all of your arguments are pure fiction. Do you have any fact based claims we can sink our teeth into?
DGM Philosopher Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 6,406	__________________ Learn the truth about Richard Gage at http://www.ae911truth.info/ Thanks Boloboffin! "Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

26th March 2008, 11:18 AM	#5
Pardalis Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Montréal Posts: 21,138	This repeating of threads reminds me of a game I used to play at around 5 years of age.
	__________________ "It is best to change your point of view in response to reality than to insist reality has it wrong because it doesn't agree with your point of view." aggle-rithm "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." Benjamin Franklin "All we know is that we know much less and less, but at least we know less and less about much more and more" Christopher Hitchens

26th March 2008, 11:30 AM	#7
Pardalis Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Montréal Posts: 21,138	Originally Posted by LastChild I guess to you. You're the one apologizing for it all the time. I guess to you. You're the one apologizing for it all the time. See? It used to drive my sister nuts.
	__________________ "It is best to change your point of view in response to reality than to insist reality has it wrong because it doesn't agree with your point of view." aggle-rithm "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." Benjamin Franklin "All we know is that we know much less and less, but at least we know less and less about much more and more" Christopher Hitchens

26th March 2008, 11:17 AM	#4
pomeroo Banned Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: In a Little Cafe Just the Other Side of the Border Posts: 7,090	Originally Posted by LastChild What’s the point of all this JREF pretend 9/11 debunking? It is my opinion that some here are nothing more then right wing apologist exploiting 9/11 conspiracy in a lame attempt of neo-con spin for the failure to protect America on 9/11. {snip-mindless drivel} Hmmm. "Failure to protect America on 9/11" from what, exactly? The jihadists actually exist?

26th March 2008, 11:29 AM	#6
LastChild Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Disneyland Posts: 2,062	Originally Posted by pomeroo Hmmm. "Failure to protect America on 9/11" from what, exactly? The jihadists actually exist? I guess to you. You're the one apologizing for it all the time.

26th March 2008, 11:34 AM	#8
LastChild Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Disneyland Posts: 2,062	Originally Posted by pomeroo Have you figured out the difference between supply and demand yet? Find that 100,000 - 300,000 barrels of oil a day missing from Iraq yet? Originally Posted by pomeroo Have you contacted the Dover Port Mortuary? Why would I contact them to identify an airplane? I'm not a pretend debunker. Originally Posted by pomeroo Have you discovered a real scientist who thinks that NIST "invented" any new principles of science? Better then that. I can quote someone from NIST questioning the WTC investigation they did. Who can you quote? Originally Posted by pomeroo Gee, I wonder why not. You wonder? I thought pretend debunkers knew everything.

26th March 2008, 11:36 AM	#9
LastChild Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Disneyland Posts: 2,062	Originally Posted by Pardalis I guess to you. You're the one apologizing for it all the time. See? It used to drive my sister nuts. I drive your sister nuts all the time too.

26th March 2008, 11:37 AM	#10
LastChild Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Disneyland Posts: 2,062	Originally Posted by DGM We can only use "pretend debunking" because all of your arguments are pure fiction. Do you have any fact based claims we can sink our teeth into? So you admit it? Good for you. That's the first step to your recovery.

26th March 2008, 11:37 AM	#11
Bananaman Banned Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 299	Imagine sitting down next to a parent or relative or friend who answered one of the phonecalls from flight 93. Then tell them what the truthers believe. Then look in that relative or friend's eyes and wait for something between fury and hatred to erupt while they stare at you, before they relax, smile and just start shaking their head. That's why I've lost patience with the truthers. Bananaman.
Bananaman Banned Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 299

26th March 2008, 11:40 AM	#12
Myriad Hyperthetical Moderator Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 4,398	It would be nice if you could answer these questions: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...82#post3562182 Respectfully, Myriad
	__________________ Never use a tool that's more intelligent than you are. Last edited by Myriad; 26th March 2008 at 11:41 AM.

26th March 2008, 11:44 AM	#13
LastChild Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Disneyland Posts: 2,062	Originally Posted by Bananaman Imagine sitting down next to a parent or relative or friend who answered one of the phonecalls from flight 93. Then tell them what the truthers believe. Then look in that relative or friend's eyes and wait for something between fury and hatred to erupt while they stare at you, before they relax, smile and just start shaking their head. That's why I've lost patience with the truthers. Bananaman. Imagine being as low as to hide behind and incorporate the real suffering of someone else just to make some trivial nonexistent point. Well.... you don’t have to imagine do you? As if there are no family members who would like a real investigation into 9/11. Next

26th March 2008, 11:45 AM	#14
Pardalis Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Montréal Posts: 21,138	Originally Posted by LastChild I drive your sister nuts all the time too. Good one.
	__________________ "It is best to change your point of view in response to reality than to insist reality has it wrong because it doesn't agree with your point of view." aggle-rithm "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." Benjamin Franklin "All we know is that we know much less and less, but at least we know less and less about much more and more" Christopher Hitchens

26th March 2008, 11:45 AM	#15
Disbelief Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 1,663	Gee, another LC copycat thread. Pretty soon, he will start posting links that he thinks support his conclusions, yet actually destroy any arguments he makes. Either that or the links will have no bearing whatsoever on the discussion.
	__________________ Zensmack (LastChild, Laughing Assassin, RazetheFlag, Wastrel, TruthbyDecree) - Working his way up the sock puppet chain, trying to overtake P'Doh. Or, are they the same? Quote me where I said conspiracists use evidence. - mchapman

26th March 2008, 11:54 AM	#16
LastChild Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Disneyland Posts: 2,062	Originally Posted by Myriad It would be nice if you could answer these questions: I'm still curious about this, which LastChild did not respond to back on page 1 of this thread. To depersonalize the question: why would anyone whose concern is addressing problems with the government's account support a movement whose most notable public behavior is making accusations ("9/11 Was An Inside Job!") that have made it politically impossible to address problems with the government's account? Why would anyone whose concern is stopping the Iraq war support a movement that harms the credibility and effectiveness of anti-war activists? Respectfully, Myriad Because people shouldn't pretend to be so stupid just to imply that the possibility of an inside job is the only reason to have a real investigation into 9/11. To pretend that 9/11 is just about the only thing this administration has told the whole truth and nothing but the truth about is self serving ignorance. And no I don’t just have a problem with just republicans. I’ve have even voted for some in the past. I have a problem with crooks trying to shove their version of the truth down by throat. Especially when that so-called truth serves nothing but to get them off the hook for their failures that day.

26th March 2008, 11:55 AM	#17
Bananaman Banned Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 299	Quote: Imagine being as low as to hide behind and incorporate the real suffering of someone else just to make some trivial nonexistent point. Well.... you don’t have to imagine do you? I don't hide. I state the truth. Imagine being you. How do you look at yourself in the mirror? Let's repeat what you just said: Quote: some trivial nonexistent point. Words fail me. Quote: As if there are no family members who would like a real investigation into 9/11. Ones who took phonecalls from the shanksville flight? Don't be an total arse, Lastchild. You're doing the same thing again. Attributing questions to the wrong people. You don't even care do you? That shows your emotional depth of involvement. Pretty much a parallel to your involvement with the truth. Bananaman
Bananaman Banned Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 299

26th March 2008, 11:56 AM	#18
LastChild Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Disneyland Posts: 2,062	Originally Posted by Disbelief Gee, another LC copycat thread. Pretty soon, he will start posting links that he thinks support his conclusions, yet actually destroy any arguments he makes. Either that or the links will have no bearing whatsoever on the discussion. Did you miss the pseudo skeptic part just to sustain your bliss?

26th March 2008, 12:09 PM	#19
DGM Philosopher Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 6,406	Originally Posted by LastChild So you admit it? Good for you. That's the first step to your recovery. I admit that debunking nothing or pure fantasy is not really serious debunking. The issue here is it's all you present.
DGM Philosopher Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 6,406	__________________ Learn the truth about Richard Gage at http://www.ae911truth.info/ Thanks Boloboffin! "Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

26th March 2008, 12:19 PM	#20
LastChild Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Disneyland Posts: 2,062	Originally Posted by DGM I admit that debunking nothing or pure fantasy is not really serious debunking. The issue here is it's all you present. Well then please source where I have ever offered up a fantasy as fact and you DGM have debunked it. I fear if you may slipped back into pretending again. Don't give up.

26th March 2008, 12:27 PM	#21
DGM Philosopher Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 6,406	Originally Posted by LastChild Well then please source where I have ever offered up a fantasy as fact and you DGM have debunked it. I fear if you may slipped back into pretending again. Don't give up. Do you really want to relive your pitifully performance in the "sounds" thread? And BTW, I have no intention of "jumping through hoops" when every lurker and regular poster knows what I'm talking about. Your effectively screwed by your reputation.
DGM Philosopher Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 6,406	__________________ Learn the truth about Richard Gage at http://www.ae911truth.info/ Thanks Boloboffin! "Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley Last edited by DGM; 26th March 2008 at 12:28 PM.

26th March 2008, 01:08 PM	#22
SDC Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: New York area Posts: 2,250	The world is such a happier place with LC on the "ignore" list.

26th March 2008, 01:13 PM	#23
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 28,366
	__________________ "My opinion is not uninformed there are just many things I have no clue about." -atavisms "Iran DOES have the right and good reason to attack Israel." -Thunder

26th March 2008, 01:16 PM	#24
Drudgewire Critical Doofus Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 8,754	Originally Posted by SDC The world is such a happier place with LC on the "ignore" list. Indeed. Although he could be nicer in the parts of his posts that are going to be quoted.
	__________________ "You post a lie, it is proven 100% false, you move the goalposts and post yet another lie and it continues on around till we're back to the original lie as if it will somehow become true if it's re-iterated again. The same misquotes over and over again. The same hindsight bias, appeals to authority, etc." -lapman describing every twoofer on the internet

26th March 2008, 01:18 PM	#25
peteweaver Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: UK Posts: 1,000	Funny.

26th March 2008, 01:21 PM	#26
Architect Chief Punkah Wallah Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: UK Posts: 6,448	Originally Posted by LastChild right wing apologist(s) Actually, I'm centre-left. Which by American standards would make me a raving communist, I suppose.
	__________________ GodisEnergy: This coming from a bus tour driver ,where's your structural engineering degree. Architect: I'll raise you two architecture degrees, ARB registration, RIBA membership, and 15 years experience in tall buildings. Last edited by Architect; 26th March 2008 at 01:22 PM.

26th March 2008, 01:26 PM	#27
Myriad Hyperthetical Moderator Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 4,398	Originally Posted by LastChild Because people shouldn't pretend to be so stupid just to imply that the possibility of an inside job is the only reason to have a real investigation into 9/11. To pretend that 9/11 is just about the only thing this administration has told the whole truth and nothing but the truth about is self serving ignorance. The message that the Truth Movement used its moment in the limelight, back in Autumn 06, to press upon the public was that "inside job" was a fact. Remember? "911 Was An Inside Job!" "911 Was An Inside Job" does not mean "there are questions that require further inquiry." It doesn't mean "the government has withheld some facts to make itself look better." If those had been the messages, the movement could have had investigative mainstream journalists, curious scientists, engineers and firefighters in favor of stronger building code reform, the anti-Bush left and center, the anti-war activists, and anti-corruption reformers, all on their side. Instead, the movement sold a conclusion. A conclusion which was not and is not supported by any credible evidence. A conclusion that required them to call most of those might-have-been supporters liars. "911 Was An Inside Job." If that wasn't the message they intended to get across, then they blew it. Thoroughly and, for all practical purposes, permanently. If what the truth movement wanted was another investigation into the possibility of an inside job, then they blew it. Thoroughly and, for all practical purposes, permanently. They have made further investigation politically non-viable. Quote: And no I don’t just have a problem with just republicans. I’ve have even voted for some in the past. I have a problem with crooks trying to shove their version of the truth down by throat. Especially when that so-called truth serves nothing but to get them off the hook for their failures that day. Too bad. The truth movement has given them the cover to get away with it. I'm not real happy about that either, but crying over spilled milk is a waste of time. Respectfully, Myriad
	__________________ Never use a tool that's more intelligent than you are.

26th March 2008, 01:34 PM	#28
nicepants Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 1,703	Quote: Presenting insufficient evidence or proof. Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof. Making unsubstantiated counter-claims . Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence. Suggesting that unconvincing evidence is grounds for dismissing it. All are characteristic traits of truthers, these probably moreso than the others.
	__________________ Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen -Einstein #4 on the CIT Enemies List

26th March 2008, 01:36 PM	#29
Tweeter Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 791	Should I be a little nicer to debunkers? Hell no!
Tweeter Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 791

26th March 2008, 01:37 PM	#30
GreNME Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Folsom Prison Posts: 8,018	Quote: Should I be a little nicer to debunkers? That depends. If you want to hang on to at least some type of moral high ground, then it would probably be a good start. If that's not all that important to you, then carry on with what you're doing. I'm neither a "debunker" nor a "truther," and I think the constant need for distinctions gets out of hand around here. I don't know if you've missed it, but I've actively criticized the moderation here on at least one recent occassion (and, in all honesty, I think I can't really complain as of late... my thanks to Chillzero on that). Still, I don't subscribe to the 9/11 conspiracy theories despite my active dislike for the current presidential administration or its policies (some of which I find detestable and borderline criminal). The one thing I find missing in a lot of these threads, however, is any semblance of good faith on either side to approach the discussions rationally and without unnecessary emotional outbursts. I think that when it does happen then some really good communication on both sides takes place, whether it's an agreement on criteria for validation or a decision to take a discussion to a moderated format. Believe it or not, people of differing conclusions on a topic can manage to discuss things without devolving into ridiculous caricatures, but since you (and others on all sides of the debates) often refuse to do that the same boring conversations and accusations take place day in and day out with no change. It's like watching two highly proselytizing and evangelical religious groups shout at each other from different sides of a street. So, if you're honestly asking whether someone thinks you should be a bigger person in the discussions taking place, then absolutely. If you're just looking for an excuse to toss more poo, then you're not really going to bother reading this and considering it in the first place.
	__________________ _{Like love, criminals will always find a way. -- foxholeatheist The kind of pacifism I endorse is brought about by eliminating one enemy combatant at a time.-- JoeyDonuts}

26th March 2008, 01:38 PM	#31
Blender Head Muse Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 679	Originally Posted by Myriad The message that the Truth Movement used its moment in the limelight, back in Autumn 06, to press upon the public was that "inside job" was a fact. Remember? "911 Was An Inside Job!" "911 Was An Inside Job" does not mean "there are questions that require further inquiry." It doesn't mean "the government has withheld some facts to make itself look better." If those had been the messages, the movement could have had investigative mainstream journalists, curious scientists, engineers and firefighters in favor of stronger building code reform, the anti-Bush left and center, the anti-war activists, and anti-corruption reformers, all on their side. Instead, the movement sold a conclusion. A conclusion which was not and is not supported by any credible evidence. A conclusion that required them to call most of those might-have-been supporters liars. "911 Was An Inside Job." If that wasn't the message they intended to get across, then they blew it. Thoroughly and, for all practical purposes, permanently. If what the truth movement wanted was another investigation into the possibility of an inside job, then they blew it. Thoroughly and, for all practical purposes, permanently. They have made further investigation politically non-viable. Respectfully, Myriad Wonderfully said. If the Truth Movement wasn't pushing a conclusion, as you rightly point out, I myself would probably be one of them.
Blender Head Muse Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 679	__________________ "As you know, Bush never attempted to link Saddam to the 9/11 attacks." -Ron Wieck "The only way for there to be no conspiracy is for nothing to exist." -Travis [DRG] is a follower of Jesus Christ and the Truth, so I will follow St. Griffin as well in this regard. -Galileo Last edited by Blender Head; 26th March 2008 at 01:39 PM.

26th March 2008, 01:39 PM	#32
Tweeter Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 791	Why are most debunkers foreigners? * waits for the sock accounts to rush in and dismiss this claim
Tweeter Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 791

26th March 2008, 01:45 PM	#33
SDC Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: New York area Posts: 2,250	Originally Posted by Drudgewire Indeed. Although he could be nicer in the parts of his posts that are going to be quoted. It places him (or her, or the artificial-intelligence-referred-to-as-LC) at a remove so that any bile or spite becomes a distant matter, a minor irritation at worst. Highly recommended! Two thumbs up!

26th March 2008, 01:45 PM	#34
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 17,471	Originally Posted by Tweeter Why are most debunkers foreigners? * waits for the sock accounts to rush in and dismiss this claim Don't feed the Troll and he will go away.

26th March 2008, 01:46 PM	#35
calebprime Somewhat Elitist Parasite Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 5,185	will you be my friend and tell me what you think the three most suspicious things surrounding the events of 9/11 are? will you be my friend and tell me what you think are the three most suspicious things surrounding the events of JFK's assassination? I think Arab terrorists, mostly Saudis, flew planes into the WTC. I think Oswald acted alone. Is that so wronk?
	__________________ If you think about it, it will be clear to you what the point you suspect I am making and you are not from your naive avowal not getting.--yrreg Last edited by calebprime; 26th March 2008 at 01:47 PM.