...A little rain must fall

applecorped · 14th May 2008, 08:43 PM

Fess up...who has actually conceded a point to a troother and what was it?

AZCat · 14th May 2008, 08:48 PM

Originally Posted by applecorped

Fess up...who has actually conceded a point to a troother and what was it?

I have occasionally done this. I forget what the points were. Because my self-image is not dependent on pretending I'm infallible, I don't obsess about those times.

Blender Head · 14th May 2008, 09:00 PM

I once said the Fed started in 1907, that's the only relevant point I can think of.

gumboot · 14th May 2008, 09:20 PM

I claimed that Danny Jowenko was not a qualified blaster. Dictator Cheney corrected me and showed me that an Explosive Engineer and a blaster are the same thing. I thanked DC for his correction.

DC · 14th May 2008, 09:31 PM

Originally Posted by gumboot

I claimed that Danny Jowenko was not a qualified blaster. Dictator Cheney corrected me and showed me that an Explosive Engineer and a blaster are the same thing. I thanked DC for his correction.

well

i just corrected that he is a blaster, but i think it is still debatable if he is a qualified blaster, qualified in the meaning of, he prolly never blasted a building in the size of 7.

16.5 · 14th May 2008, 09:32 PM

I conceeded that everything every CIT witness said was the absolute truth.

Including the fact that all of them said the plane hit the pentagon.

GlennB · 14th May 2008, 09:56 PM

I've done this a few times, mostly through being over-hasty or over-confident with a reply. Can't remember the details though.

DC · 14th May 2008, 10:20 PM

i missunderstood the Truss Core connections.
e^n pointed me to NIST drawings that cleared it up.

(e^n is not a twoofer afaik

)

Horatius · 15th May 2008, 03:47 AM

I once admitted a quote that I thought was a fabrication was in fact accurate. (note: link in that post is wrong- correct link shows up in a later post, if you really care all that much!)

Of course, they were taking it completely out of context, and giving it far greater weight than it should have had, but it was accurate.

The Doc · 15th May 2008, 04:56 AM

I'm sure I have at some point. As a critical thinker, despite trying to be correct at all times, I acknowledge that I can also be wrong.

That being said, I certainly haven't conceded enough for someone to conclude that 9/11 was an inside job based on the points I have admitted were likely wrong.

mrbaracuda · 15th May 2008, 05:27 AM

Sure, not everything they say is a strawman! Just like, 90%.

aggle-rithm · 15th May 2008, 05:59 AM

I once harassed a truther (who claimed to be an architect) for misusing the term "facade". I later admitted that his use of the word was correct after all.

aggle-rithm · 15th May 2008, 06:04 AM

Originally Posted by The Doc

I'm sure I have at some point. As a critical thinker, despite trying to be correct at all times, I acknowledge that I can also be wrong.

That being said, I certainly haven't conceded enough for someone to conclude that 9/11 was an inside job based on the points I have admitted were likely wrong.

There were times when I have conceded many points at a time for the sake of argument. What I was trying to do was to get the discussion focused on something central to the issue at hand, rather than getting bogged down in semantics or trivial details. It's safe to concede those points, because their only purpose is to delay the truther's inevitable defeat.

14th May 2008, 08:43 PM	#1
applecorped Rotten to the Core Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 10,661	...A little rain must fall Fess up...who has actually conceded a point to a troother and what was it?

14th May 2008, 08:48 PM	#2
AZCat Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: where the grass is greener. Posts: 1,618	Originally Posted by applecorped Fess up...who has actually conceded a point to a troother and what was it? I have occasionally done this. I forget what the points were. Because my self-image is not dependent on pretending I'm infallible, I don't obsess about those times.
	Last edited by AZCat; 14th May 2008 at 08:49 PM. Reason: clarity.

14th May 2008, 09:00 PM	#3
Blender Head Muse Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 682	I once said the Fed started in 1907, that's the only relevant point I can think of.
Blender Head Muse Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 682	__________________ "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

14th May 2008, 09:20 PM	#4
gumboot lorcutus.tolere Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: New Zealand Posts: 23,125	I claimed that Danny Jowenko was not a qualified blaster. Dictator Cheney corrected me and showed me that an Explosive Engineer and a blaster are the same thing. I thanked DC for his correction.
	__________________ O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.

14th May 2008, 09:31 PM	#5
DC dedicated aphilatelist Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Switzerland Posts: 21,674	Originally Posted by gumboot I claimed that Danny Jowenko was not a qualified blaster. Dictator Cheney corrected me and showed me that an Explosive Engineer and a blaster are the same thing. I thanked DC for his correction. well i just corrected that he is a blaster, but i think it is still debatable if he is a qualified blaster, qualified in the meaning of, he prolly never blasted a building in the size of 7.
	__________________ AGW is a fact, including the A, face it

14th May 2008, 09:32 PM	#6
16.5 Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 4,740	I conceeded that everything every CIT witness said was the absolute truth. Including the fact that all of them said the plane hit the pentagon.
16.5 Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 4,740

14th May 2008, 09:56 PM	#7
GlennB Jellied eel and offal fancier Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Arcadia Posts: 8,952	I've done this a few times, mostly through being over-hasty or over-confident with a reply. Can't remember the details though.

14th May 2008, 10:20 PM	#8
DC dedicated aphilatelist Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Switzerland Posts: 21,674	i missunderstood the Truss Core connections. e^n pointed me to NIST drawings that cleared it up. (e^n is not a twoofer afaik )
	__________________ AGW is a fact, including the A, face it Last edited by DC; 14th May 2008 at 10:21 PM.

15th May 2008, 03:47 AM	#9
Horatius NWO Kitty Wrangler Join Date: May 2006 Location: Ottawa, ON, Canada Posts: 21,895	I once admitted a quote that I thought was a fabrication was in fact accurate. (note: link in that post is wrong- correct link shows up in a later post, if you really care all that much!) Of course, they were taking it completely out of context, and giving it far greater weight than it should have had, but it was accurate.
	__________________ Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd

15th May 2008, 04:56 AM	#10
The Doc Curing Stupidity Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 2,160	I'm sure I have at some point. As a critical thinker, despite trying to be correct at all times, I acknowledge that I can also be wrong. That being said, I certainly haven't conceded enough for someone to conclude that 9/11 was an inside job based on the points I have admitted were likely wrong.
	__________________ Author - 9/11 Mysteries Viewer's Guide http://www.911mysteriesguide.com Creator - "Screw 9/11 Mysteries" http://video.google.com.au/videoplay...24912447824934

15th May 2008, 05:27 AM	#11
mrbaracuda Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Germany Posts: 3,799	Sure, not everything they say is a strawman! Just like, 90%.

15th May 2008, 05:59 AM	#12
aggle-rithm Ardent Formulist Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 14,152	I once harassed a truther (who claimed to be an architect) for misusing the term "facade". I later admitted that his use of the word was correct after all.
	__________________ To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion. Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens.

15th May 2008, 06:04 AM	#13
aggle-rithm Ardent Formulist Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 14,152	Originally Posted by The Doc I'm sure I have at some point. As a critical thinker, despite trying to be correct at all times, I acknowledge that I can also be wrong. That being said, I certainly haven't conceded enough for someone to conclude that 9/11 was an inside job based on the points I have admitted were likely wrong. There were times when I have conceded many points at a time for the sake of argument. What I was trying to do was to get the discussion focused on something central to the issue at hand, rather than getting bogged down in semantics or trivial details. It's safe to concede those points, because their only purpose is to delay the truther's inevitable defeat.
	__________________ To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion. Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens.