Government Truther Mythology - Page 2

jiggeryqua · 31st March 2012, 04:24 PM

My first thread here asked for the name of the fallacy that involved claiming god can't exist because I'm very intelligent and I wouldn't do it like that. And lo, the dogpile of 'go on prove it wheres your link that's a strawman you have to kiss ass round here I did'.

Then, some months later, a whole thread by someone else devoted to the idea and entitled (more or less) 'god can't exist because I'm very intelligent and I wouldn't do it like that'.

The attitudes presented by the OP do exist here and it's dishonest not to admit it. Of course, he does himself no favours. 'We should listen to 'experts'?' Yes of course you should you muppet. But there are several examples in the OP which should shame any skeptic but are commonplace here.

And now another yellow card, for being the guy who occasionally shows up here and says "So what if you are right, why be such ********* about it?"

CORed · 31st March 2012, 04:34 PM

Originally Posted by JohnG

I somehow doubt the sincerity (and/or the courage) of someone who claims his country is being ruled by murderous criminals, but rather than storming the barricades with his like-minded brethren he chooses to spend suspiciously large amounts of his free time hectoring a skeptical group of strangers via the safe and cozy anonymity of the internet.

It's almost as if his only true interest lies in trying to win an argument...any argument...and of course garnering lots of attention in the process.

Almost.

Of course, he wins the argument about the same way the Black Knight wins his fight with King Arthur.

JohnG · 31st March 2012, 05:56 PM

Originally Posted by jiggeryqua

My first thread here asked for the name of the fallacy that involved claiming god can't exist because I'm very intelligent and I wouldn't do it like that. And lo, the dogpile of 'go on prove it wheres your link that's a strawman you have to kiss ass round here I did'.

Link?

Joey McGee · 1st April 2012, 05:32 AM

Oh dear it appears we've been meen to the truthers again eh jiggery?

carlitos · 1st April 2012, 09:39 AM

Originally Posted by JohnG

Link?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=164122

There is a companion thread in AAH as well.

JohnG · 1st April 2012, 11:01 AM

Originally Posted by carlitos

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=164122

Thanks

Quote:

There is a companion thread in AAH as well.

I don't doubt it

After an admittedly brief perusal of that thread I'd say it appears the many of the posters made at least two mistakes:

1. They misunderstood what the OP was driving at and then went off on one or more tangents. Or they (to quote Eric Idle) "grabbed the wrong end of the stick and proceeded to beat about the bush with it".

2. They were rude about it in the process.

This sort of thing does happen here more often than it should. I'm guilty of it myself (more than a few of my posts now make their home in AAH). The difference is that the critical thinkers here who are honest and bright eventually realize what is happening and will not only correct themselves but will apologize with good grace for any part they played in the contretemps.

Conspiracy Theorists on the other hand usually hang on like grim death to everything they wrote, no matter how clearly wrong (or rude) they were, even ignoring corrections made by others over such uncontroversial things as historical dates and the spelling of words.

16.5 · 1st April 2012, 11:41 AM

Originally Posted by jiggeryqua

My first thread here asked for the name of the fallacy that involved claiming god can't exist because I'm very intelligent and I wouldn't do it like that. And lo, the dogpile of 'go on prove it wheres your link that's a strawman you have to kiss ass round here I did'.

Then, some months later, a whole thread by someone else devoted to the idea and entitled (more or less) 'god can't exist because I'm very intelligent and I wouldn't do it like that'.

The attitudes presented by the OP do exist here and it's dishonest not to admit it. Of course, he does himself no favours. 'We should listen to 'experts'?' Yes of course you should you muppet. But there are several examples in the OP which should shame any skeptic but are commonplace here.

And now another yellow card, for being the guy who occasionally shows up here and says "So what if you are right, why be such ********* about it?"

Uhhhh, wait what? wtf am I reading? I can't make heads or tails out of that.

cantonear1968 · 1st April 2012, 01:24 PM

Originally Posted by SpringHallConvert

I've been trying to loosely inventory the various strands of the base, government truther belief system since I got here. Here are a few that I've identified and seen on more than one occasion. These are just examples:

- The government wouldn't lie about that! Maybe they would lie about this over here, but not that!

- The government couldn't possibly have committed that kind of crime because somebody involved would have come forward to incriminate themselves! People are always willing to come forward to incriminate themselves or other dangerous criminals! Always!

- The media would have reported that if it had really happened, because the State and Big Media are totally separate! The mainstream corporate media has our backs!

- The Republican Party and Democratic Party are at perfect, 100% odds with each other, therefore you can be certain that they'd inform on each other if politicians from either party engaged in criminal, conspiratorial behavior! The two parties can be trusted to do that! They'd never work together to maintain revolving power over the American people!

- Experts, professionals, and technicians have said so, therefore it's true! They are the ultimate authorities and we must accept whatever they say as true! No, they could never be corrupt, bought off, dishonest, mistaken, or have a political agenda of their own!

- The peer-review process said so, so therefore it is! Because we all know the peer-review process is always infallible!

- Foreign media reported it that way, therefore it's true, because we all know that the foreign media is independent of the domestic, U.S. media! Why? Because it's just true! It's not possible for the State to set up overseas propaganda organs! Somebody would have told us! Anyway, foreigners wouldn't ever lie to cover up for the U.S. government!

- By default, whatever the government says is true and we accept it as true! No proof necessary whatsoever! But if you question the government and don't believe what they said is true, then we demand proof that the government was dishonest! Only then do we demand proof!

- A court of law said so, therefore it is true! Innocent people can never be framed, tricked, railroaded, or lied to! Lawyers and judges are honest people only interested in upholding justice! They'd never work to cover anything up! But even if they wanted to, they couldn't, because the media would tells us! Remember, they have our backs!

It's fascinating to observe this mindset in the wild. I'll come back to edit this post and add more as I remember and encounter them.

This was an interesting post.

Not one thing in there was accurate.

Simply amazing. What a waste of typing.

Cl1mh4224rd · 1st April 2012, 04:03 PM

Forty-eight replies to a single post. SpringHallConvert wins.

plague311 · 1st April 2012, 04:08 PM

Originally Posted by Cl1mh4224rd

Forty-eight replies to a single post. SpringHallConvert wins.

If these are the types of victories he enjoys than he may have them. I'll keep my real world victories. Wife, kids, house, job, etc. If trolling the intertubez looking for people to respond to his posts gives him the W...they're all his.

Besides, it's mental exercise for me. It's fun to dissect his mentality, and it's fun to read others reply to what he says. I guess even I win a little bit...

dafydd · 2nd April 2012, 06:03 AM

Originally Posted by Cl1mh4224rd

Forty-eight replies to a single post. SpringHallConvert wins.

Some people give to charity. We respond to SHC.

NoahFence · 2nd April 2012, 06:08 AM

Originally Posted by dafydd

Some people give to charity. We respond to SHC.

I wish you guys wouldn't quote him though.

Joey McGee · 2nd April 2012, 11:05 AM

Originally Posted by dafydd

Some people give to charity. We respond to SHC.

Some people like crossword puzzles. Some folks log on to the internet and intellectually battle delusional cranks.

I'm a former truther. Thanks JREF for unspoiling my life.

notheist · 2nd April 2012, 11:13 AM

Let not be so PC about this. I takes a person with a very low opinion of mankind to think the way SHC does. To him Everyone is in on this big crime or willing to cover for it. WE ALL must be real low life! OR...... We are correct in our thinking and the REAL low life here is the one who see everyone else as scumbags, that would be SHC.

Luckily mankind is not that evil. You do have the minority of true evil, the 19 9/11 hijackers are a good example, and the conspiracy theorist who cover for them slightly less evil but willing to piss on the truth so as to not have to admit they got suckered into this 9/11 truth scam.

And it has got to suck being them, they’re such a minority in the real world they can not let their feeling out in polite public without being dumped on by the majority who recognize them as kooks or scum. I on the other hand could shout out that 9/11 truthers are insane low life little kooks in a crowd and the only reaction would be people thinking it is odd I think it is important to point this truth out so publicly. few would disagree.

notheist · 2nd April 2012, 11:22 AM

Quote:

- Experts, professionals, and technicians have said so, therefore it's true!

This is directly related to the expertise of the expert. IE a Structural Engineer like Leslie Robertson who can point to many very tall structures including the WTC themselves is a far greater expert that a nobody third rate architect like Richard Gage who as far as we know can not point to any building as real world proof of his worth as a engineer.

Joey McGee · 2nd April 2012, 11:29 AM

Sorry im gonna have to be a dick here and point out that that hundreds of FINE WOMEN AND MEN HAVE WORKED MILLIONS OF HOURS TELLING US HOW TO DEBUNK PEOPLE. Since I'm a victim I can authoritatively say say that you mostly all suck giant donkey balls at debunking. Sorry you self righteous pieces of **** but it's true

notheist · 2nd April 2012, 11:30 AM

Quote:

- The peer-review process said so, so therefore it is! Because we all know the peer-review process is always infallible!

Here again the worth is related to who does the peer review. Real structural engineering journals or as Steven Jones did pay a vanity publisher (Bentham) that no real structural engineer has heard of let alone would bother to read. Peer review works if you actually let YOUR PEERS review your finding, not hide them in a scam journal so you can SAY you were "peer reviewed".

notheist · 2nd April 2012, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Since I'm a victim I can authoritatively

I never was a victim of this scam, and find it hard how anyone could fall for it. So I can authoritatively say "Truthers are full of it" Have been, always will be. You may not like some of us enjoy rubbing their noses in facts and logic every once and a while but, who cares, they’re just truthers after all.

NoahFence · 2nd April 2012, 12:13 PM

Originally Posted by notheist

Let not be so PC about this. I takes a person with a very low opinion of mankind to think the way SHC does. To him Everyone is in on this big crime or willing to cover for it. WE ALL must be real low life! OR...... We are correct in our thinking and the REAL low life here is the one who see everyone else as scumbags, that would be SHC.

I feel I need to point out, again, that the bolded part is wrong. He knows damn well what happened on 9/11.

He's not here to learn.
He's not here to teach.

He's here to disrupt. That's all. Nothing he says is accurate, nor is it intended to be. His opinion of us, or "Everyone" is non-existent.

NoahFence · 2nd April 2012, 12:14 PM

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

Sorry im gonna have to be a dick here and point out that that hundreds of FINE WOMEN AND MEN HAVE WORKED MILLIONS OF HOURS TELLING US HOW TO DEBUNK PEOPLE. Since I'm a victim I can authoritatively say say that you mostly all suck giant donkey balls at debunking. Sorry you self righteous pieces of **** but it's true

That appeared to be English, but I don't understand it....

Sword_Of_Truth · 2nd April 2012, 01:58 PM

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

Sorry im gonna have to be a dick here and point out that that hundreds of FINE WOMEN AND MEN HAVE WORKED MILLIONS OF HOURS TELLING US HOW TO DEBUNK PEOPLE. Since I'm a victim I can authoritatively say say that you mostly all suck giant donkey balls at debunking. Sorry you self righteous pieces of **** but it's true

Joey's lack of diplomacy aside, he has a point.

I have never claimed for myself the title of "debunker". Most of us here are not "debunkers". I prefer the term "rationalist". As in we have accepted the rational version of the events of 9/11.

The true debunkers are people like Mark "Gravy" Roberts, Ryan Mackey, JamesB, Brainster, Ron Weick, James Meigs, Ben Chertoff and various others who have done the research, dug up the critical bits of information that demolish twoofer fantasies and put them forth before the public in a form that we have been able to link for the twoofers and watch them squirm.

That does not mean that everyone else who posts here is somehow beneath the aforementioned debunkers. Each of us may have our own opportunities to shine, we just happened to miss being the original discoverer of the information that those who went before have provided for us.

NoahFence · 2nd April 2012, 02:04 PM

Quote:

I prefer the term "rationalist".

I like "realist".

tfk · 2nd April 2012, 02:21 PM

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

Sorry im gonna have to be a dick here and point out that that hundreds of FINE WOMEN AND MEN HAVE WORKED MILLIONS OF HOURS TELLING US HOW TO DEBUNK PEOPLE. Since I'm a victim I can authoritatively say say that you mostly all suck giant donkey balls at debunking. Sorry you self righteous pieces of **** but it's true

Joey, depending on someone else to provide your debunking (aka "skepticism") for you is simply trading one master for another.

A master chosen by what criteria? "Tells me things I want to hear"? Or "dresses & talks like I do"?

Much better for you if you develop your own skeptical skills. Then you're not relying on someone else.

You don't need to learn structural engineering or physics. (Although everyone today ought to know at least the fundamentals of physics.) You do need to know how to discern real experts from fake ones. And to listen to the majority opinions of real experts, while recognizing that there are a tiny number of real experts in every field who are bonkers.
___

As for convincing people who don't want to be convinced ... that's nigh on impossible.

A big part of the failure to reach across lines has to do with insult & alienation, etc. You might want to reread your own post to see if you might be able to find any hint of that contained therein.

Just a thought.

dafydd · 2nd April 2012, 02:37 PM

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

Sorry im gonna have to be a dick here and point out that that hundreds of FINE WOMEN AND MEN HAVE WORKED MILLIONS OF HOURS TELLING US HOW TO DEBUNK PEOPLE. Since I'm a victim I can authoritatively say say that you mostly all suck giant donkey balls at debunking. Sorry you self righteous pieces of **** but it's true

There are forum rules here which prevent us from telling certain people exactly what we think of them. Thank you for your intelligent and perceptive comments.

Sword_Of_Truth · 2nd April 2012, 02:53 PM

Originally Posted by NoahFence

I like "realist".

That works too.

dudalb · 2nd April 2012, 05:27 PM

Originally Posted by LSSBB

I think Baloney is an even better response, in an RP tip o' the hat.

I can think of a word beginning with B which is even better then Bollocks and Baloney but it would be a TOS violation.....

ozeco41 · 2nd April 2012, 06:40 PM

Originally Posted by dudalb

I can think of a word beginning with B which is even better then Bollocks and Baloney but it would be a TOS violation.....

The one I would use is biological in origin - derived from the faeces of the male bovine.

tsig · 2nd April 2012, 07:22 PM

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

Some people like crossword puzzles. Some folks log on to the internet and intellectually battle delusional cranks.

I'm a former truther. Thanks JREF for unspoiling my life.

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

Sorry im gonna have to be a dick here and point out that that hundreds of FINE WOMEN AND MEN HAVE WORKED MILLIONS OF HOURS TELLING US HOW TO DEBUNK PEOPLE. Since I'm a victim I can authoritatively say say that you mostly all suck giant donkey balls at debunking. Sorry you self righteous pieces of **** but it's true

????

Grizzly Bear · 3rd April 2012, 08:06 AM

Originally Posted by Jim_MDP

Wow... a new JREF record for quantity of straw in a single post. And that's impressive.

Maybe a record for irony too... All of his:

Originally Posted by SpringHallConvert

- Experts, professionals, and technicians have said so, therefore it's true! They are the ultimate authorities and we must accept whatever they say as true! No, they could never be corrupt, bought off, dishonest, mistaken, or have a political agenda of their own!

- The peer-review process said so, so therefore it is! Because we all know the peer-review process is always infallible!

- Foreign media reported it that way, therefore it's true, because we all know that the foreign media is independent of the domestic, U.S. media! Why? Because it's just true! It's not possible for the State to set up overseas propaganda organs! Somebody would have told us! Anyway, foreigners wouldn't ever lie to cover up for the U.S. government!

- By default, whatever the government says is true and we accept it as true! No proof necessary whatsoever! But if you question the government and don't believe what they said is true, then we demand proof that the government was dishonest! Only then do we demand proof!

- A court of law said so, therefore it is true! Innocent people can never be framed, tricked, railroaded, or lied to! Lawyers and judges are honest people only interested in upholding justice! They'd never work to cover anything up! But even if they wanted to, they couldn't, because the media would tells us! Remember, they have our backs!

...sounds familiar, considering it describes most people's observations of the conspiracy movement. Beyond that I see nothing special about the thread that warrants continued pandering to the trolling; most people already know this much about the current standing of the conspiracy movement and it can be left at that.

dafydd · 3rd April 2012, 09:47 AM

Operor non nutritor troll

1337m4n · 3rd April 2012, 12:07 PM

DISCUSSION TOPIC: How big can a statue made of straw be before it collapses on its own weight.

DGM · 3rd April 2012, 12:13 PM

Originally Posted by 1337m4n

DISCUSSION TOPIC: How big can a statue made of straw be before it collapses on its own weight.

Depends on the size of the base and it construction. A pyramid for instance is only limited by the size of it's base (more or less).

31st March 2012, 04:34 PM	#42
CORed Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 4,291	Originally Posted by JohnG I somehow doubt the sincerity (and/or the courage) of someone who claims his country is being ruled by murderous criminals, but rather than storming the barricades with his like-minded brethren he chooses to spend suspiciously large amounts of his free time hectoring a skeptical group of strangers via the safe and cozy anonymity of the internet. It's almost as if his only true interest lies in trying to win an argument...any argument...and of course garnering lots of attention in the process. Almost. Of course, he wins the argument about the same way the Black Knight wins his fight with King Arthur.
CORed Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 4,291

31st March 2012, 05:56 PM	#43
JohnG Pedantic Bore Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Abandon All Hope Posts: 4,398	Originally Posted by jiggeryqua My first thread here asked for the name of the fallacy that involved claiming god can't exist because I'm very intelligent and I wouldn't do it like that. And lo, the dogpile of 'go on prove it wheres your link that's a strawman you have to kiss ass round here I did'. Link?
	__________________ Do not weep. Do not wax indignant. Understand. - Baruch Spinoza You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -Harlan Ellison

1st April 2012, 05:32 AM	#44
Joey McGee Transcendental Naturalist Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 3,133	Oh dear it appears we've been meen to the truthers again eh jiggery?
	__________________ How do I know that this is so? By looking!

1st April 2012, 11:01 AM	#46
JohnG Pedantic Bore Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Abandon All Hope Posts: 4,398	Originally Posted by carlitos http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=164122 Thanks Quote: There is a companion thread in AAH as well. I don't doubt it After an admittedly brief perusal of that thread I'd say it appears the many of the posters made at least two mistakes: 1. They misunderstood what the OP was driving at and then went off on one or more tangents. Or they (to quote Eric Idle) "grabbed the wrong end of the stick and proceeded to beat about the bush with it". 2. They were rude about it in the process. This sort of thing does happen here more often than it should. I'm guilty of it myself (more than a few of my posts now make their home in AAH). The difference is that the critical thinkers here who are honest and bright eventually realize what is happening and will not only correct themselves but will apologize with good grace for any part they played in the contretemps. Conspiracy Theorists on the other hand usually hang on like grim death to everything they wrote, no matter how clearly wrong (or rude) they were, even ignoring corrections made by others over such uncontroversial things as historical dates and the spelling of words.
	__________________ Do not weep. Do not wax indignant. Understand. - Baruch Spinoza You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -Harlan Ellison

1st April 2012, 11:41 AM	#47
16.5 Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 4,786	Originally Posted by jiggeryqua My first thread here asked for the name of the fallacy that involved claiming god can't exist because I'm very intelligent and I wouldn't do it like that. And lo, the dogpile of 'go on prove it wheres your link that's a strawman you have to kiss ass round here I did'. Then, some months later, a whole thread by someone else devoted to the idea and entitled (more or less) 'god can't exist because I'm very intelligent and I wouldn't do it like that'. The attitudes presented by the OP do exist here and it's dishonest not to admit it. Of course, he does himself no favours. 'We should listen to 'experts'?' Yes of course you should you muppet. But there are several examples in the OP which should shame any skeptic but are commonplace here. And now another yellow card, for being the guy who occasionally shows up here and says "So what if you are right, why be such ********* about it?" Uhhhh, wait what? wtf am I reading? I can't make heads or tails out of that.
16.5 Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 4,786

31st March 2012, 04:24 PM	#41
jiggeryqua Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 2,950	My first thread here asked for the name of the fallacy that involved claiming god can't exist because I'm very intelligent and I wouldn't do it like that. And lo, the dogpile of 'go on prove it wheres your link that's a strawman you have to kiss ass round here I did'. Then, some months later, a whole thread by someone else devoted to the idea and entitled (more or less) 'god can't exist because I'm very intelligent and I wouldn't do it like that'. The attitudes presented by the OP do exist here and it's dishonest not to admit it. Of course, he does himself no favours. 'We should listen to 'experts'?' Yes of course you should you muppet. But there are several examples in the OP which should shame any skeptic but are commonplace here. And now another yellow card, for being the guy who occasionally shows up here and says "So what if you are right, why be such ********* about it?"

1st April 2012, 09:39 AM	#45
carlitos "más divertido" Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 11,554	Originally Posted by JohnG Link? http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=164122 There is a companion thread in AAH as well.

1st April 2012, 01:24 PM	#48
cantonear1968 Critical Thinker Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 494	Originally Posted by SpringHallConvert I've been trying to loosely inventory the various strands of the base, government truther belief system since I got here. Here are a few that I've identified and seen on more than one occasion. These are just examples: - The government wouldn't lie about that! Maybe they would lie about this over here, but not that! - The government couldn't possibly have committed that kind of crime because somebody involved would have come forward to incriminate themselves! People are always willing to come forward to incriminate themselves or other dangerous criminals! Always! - The media would have reported that if it had really happened, because the State and Big Media are totally separate! The mainstream corporate media has our backs! - The Republican Party and Democratic Party are at perfect, 100% odds with each other, therefore you can be certain that they'd inform on each other if politicians from either party engaged in criminal, conspiratorial behavior! The two parties can be trusted to do that! They'd never work together to maintain revolving power over the American people! - Experts, professionals, and technicians have said so, therefore it's true! They are the ultimate authorities and we must accept whatever they say as true! No, they could never be corrupt, bought off, dishonest, mistaken, or have a political agenda of their own! - The peer-review process said so, so therefore it is! Because we all know the peer-review process is always infallible! - Foreign media reported it that way, therefore it's true, because we all know that the foreign media is independent of the domestic, U.S. media! Why? Because it's just true! It's not possible for the State to set up overseas propaganda organs! Somebody would have told us! Anyway, foreigners wouldn't ever lie to cover up for the U.S. government! - By default, whatever the government says is true and we accept it as true! No proof necessary whatsoever! But if you question the government and don't believe what they said is true, then we demand proof that the government was dishonest! Only then do we demand proof! - A court of law said so, therefore it is true! Innocent people can never be framed, tricked, railroaded, or lied to! Lawyers and judges are honest people only interested in upholding justice! They'd never work to cover anything up! But even if they wanted to, they couldn't, because the media would tells us! Remember, they have our backs! It's fascinating to observe this mindset in the wild. I'll come back to edit this post and add more as I remember and encounter them. This was an interesting post. Not one thing in there was accurate. Simply amazing. What a waste of typing.
	__________________ Richard Gage: "I don't claim that 100% of the concrete floors were vaporized, but 99% were". "I see so your deferring to the academic integrity of youtube. Wow." -Grandmastershek

1st April 2012, 04:03 PM	#49
Cl1mh4224rd Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Pennsylvania, USA Posts: 6,618	Forty-eight replies to a single post. SpringHallConvert wins.

1st April 2012, 04:08 PM	#50
plague311 Muse Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: Yankees Universe Posts: 894	Originally Posted by Cl1mh4224rd Forty-eight replies to a single post. SpringHallConvert wins. If these are the types of victories he enjoys than he may have them. I'll keep my real world victories. Wife, kids, house, job, etc. If trolling the intertubez looking for people to respond to his posts gives him the W...they're all his. Besides, it's mental exercise for me. It's fun to dissect his mentality, and it's fun to read others reply to what he says. I guess even I win a little bit...
	__________________ "What is stopping you from taking action? Did you try CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, etc? Do you have a plan? Are you going to take action? What is your goal? 10 years of failure, no action." - The best question to the "truth" movement, phrased by Beachnut

2nd April 2012, 06:03 AM	#51
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,480	Originally Posted by Cl1mh4224rd Forty-eight replies to a single post. SpringHallConvert wins. Some people give to charity. We respond to SHC.
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

2nd April 2012, 06:08 AM	#52
NoahFence Psycho Kitty Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Patriot Nation Posts: 9,324	Originally Posted by dafydd Some people give to charity. We respond to SHC. I wish you guys wouldn't quote him though.
	__________________ Our truest life is when we are in our dreams awake. -Henry David Thoreau

2nd April 2012, 11:05 AM	#53
Joey McGee Transcendental Naturalist Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 3,133	Originally Posted by dafydd Some people give to charity. We respond to SHC. Some people like crossword puzzles. Some folks log on to the internet and intellectually battle delusional cranks. I'm a former truther. Thanks JREF for unspoiling my life.
	__________________ How do I know that this is so? By looking!

2nd April 2012, 11:13 AM	#54
notheist Thinker Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Detroit Posts: 196	Let not be so PC about this. I takes a person with a very low opinion of mankind to think the way SHC does. To him Everyone is in on this big crime or willing to cover for it. WE ALL must be real low life! OR...... We are correct in our thinking and the REAL low life here is the one who see everyone else as scumbags, that would be SHC. Luckily mankind is not that evil. You do have the minority of true evil, the 19 9/11 hijackers are a good example, and the conspiracy theorist who cover for them slightly less evil but willing to piss on the truth so as to not have to admit they got suckered into this 9/11 truth scam. And it has got to suck being them, they’re such a minority in the real world they can not let their feeling out in polite public without being dumped on by the majority who recognize them as kooks or scum. I on the other hand could shout out that 9/11 truthers are insane low life little kooks in a crowd and the only reaction would be people thinking it is odd I think it is important to point this truth out so publicly. few would disagree.

2nd April 2012, 11:22 AM	#55
notheist Thinker Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Detroit Posts: 196	Quote: - Experts, professionals, and technicians have said so, therefore it's true! This is directly related to the expertise of the expert. IE a Structural Engineer like Leslie Robertson who can point to many very tall structures including the WTC themselves is a far greater expert that a nobody third rate architect like Richard Gage who as far as we know can not point to any building as real world proof of his worth as a engineer.

2nd April 2012, 11:29 AM	#56
Joey McGee Transcendental Naturalist Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 3,133	Sorry im gonna have to be a dick here and point out that that hundreds of FINE WOMEN AND MEN HAVE WORKED MILLIONS OF HOURS TELLING US HOW TO DEBUNK PEOPLE. Since I'm a victim I can authoritatively say say that you mostly all suck giant donkey balls at debunking. Sorry you self righteous pieces of **** but it's true
	__________________ How do I know that this is so? By looking!

2nd April 2012, 11:30 AM	#57
notheist Thinker Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Detroit Posts: 196	Quote: - The peer-review process said so, so therefore it is! Because we all know the peer-review process is always infallible! Here again the worth is related to who does the peer review. Real structural engineering journals or as Steven Jones did pay a vanity publisher (Bentham) that no real structural engineer has heard of let alone would bother to read. Peer review works if you actually let YOUR PEERS review your finding, not hide them in a scam journal so you can SAY you were "peer reviewed".

2nd April 2012, 11:45 AM	#58
notheist Thinker Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Detroit Posts: 196	Quote: Since I'm a victim I can authoritatively I never was a victim of this scam, and find it hard how anyone could fall for it. So I can authoritatively say "Truthers are full of it" Have been, always will be. You may not like some of us enjoy rubbing their noses in facts and logic every once and a while but, who cares, they’re just truthers after all.

2nd April 2012, 12:13 PM	#59
NoahFence Psycho Kitty Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Patriot Nation Posts: 9,324	Originally Posted by notheist Let not be so PC about this. I takes a person with a very low opinion of mankind to think the way SHC does. To him Everyone is in on this big crime or willing to cover for it. WE ALL must be real low life! OR...... We are correct in our thinking and the REAL low life here is the one who see everyone else as scumbags, that would be SHC. I feel I need to point out, again, that the bolded part is wrong. He knows damn well what happened on 9/11. He's not here to learn. He's not here to teach. He's here to *disrupt*. That's all. Nothing he says is accurate, nor is it intended to be. His opinion of us, or "Everyone" is non-existent.
	__________________ Our truest life is when we are in our dreams awake. -Henry David Thoreau

2nd April 2012, 12:14 PM	#60
NoahFence Psycho Kitty Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Patriot Nation Posts: 9,324	Originally Posted by Joey McGee Sorry im gonna have to be a dick here and point out that that hundreds of FINE WOMEN AND MEN HAVE WORKED MILLIONS OF HOURS TELLING US HOW TO DEBUNK PEOPLE. Since I'm a victim I can authoritatively say say that you mostly all suck giant donkey balls at debunking. Sorry you self righteous pieces of **** but it's true That appeared to be English, but I don't understand it....
	__________________ Our truest life is when we are in our dreams awake. -Henry David Thoreau

2nd April 2012, 01:58 PM	#61
Sword_Of_Truth Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 11,497	Originally Posted by Joey McGee Sorry im gonna have to be a dick here and point out that that hundreds of FINE WOMEN AND MEN HAVE WORKED MILLIONS OF HOURS TELLING US HOW TO DEBUNK PEOPLE. Since I'm a victim I can authoritatively say say that you mostly all suck giant donkey balls at debunking. Sorry you self righteous pieces of **** but it's true Joey's lack of diplomacy aside, he has a point. I have never claimed for myself the title of "debunker". Most of us here are not "debunkers". I prefer the term "rationalist". As in we have accepted the rational version of the events of 9/11. The true debunkers are people like Mark "Gravy" Roberts, Ryan Mackey, JamesB, Brainster, Ron Weick, James Meigs, Ben Chertoff and various others who have done the research, dug up the critical bits of information that demolish twoofer fantasies and put them forth before the public in a form that we have been able to link for the twoofers and watch them squirm. That does not mean that everyone else who posts here is somehow beneath the aforementioned debunkers. Each of us may have our own opportunities to shine, we just happened to miss being the original discoverer of the information that those who went before have provided for us.

2nd April 2012, 02:04 PM	#62
NoahFence Psycho Kitty Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Patriot Nation Posts: 9,324	Quote: I prefer the term "rationalist". I like "realist".
	__________________ Our truest life is when we are in our dreams awake. -Henry David Thoreau

2nd April 2012, 02:21 PM	#63
tfk Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 2,978	Originally Posted by Joey McGee Sorry im gonna have to be a dick here and point out that that hundreds of FINE WOMEN AND MEN HAVE WORKED MILLIONS OF HOURS TELLING US HOW TO DEBUNK PEOPLE. Since I'm a victim I can authoritatively say say that you mostly all suck giant donkey balls at debunking. Sorry you self righteous pieces of **** but it's true Joey, depending on someone else to provide your debunking (aka "skepticism") for you is simply trading one master for another. A master chosen by what criteria? "Tells me things I want to hear"? Or "dresses & talks like I do"? Much better for you if you develop your own skeptical skills. Then you're not relying on someone else. You don't need to learn structural engineering or physics. (Although everyone today ought to know at least the fundamentals of physics.) You do need to know how to discern real experts from fake ones. And to listen to the majority opinions of real experts, while recognizing that there are a tiny number of real experts in every field who are bonkers. ___ As for convincing people who don't want to be convinced ... that's nigh on impossible. A big part of the failure to reach across lines has to do with insult & alienation, etc. You might want to reread your own post to see if you might be able to find any hint of that contained therein. Just a thought.
tfk Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 2,978

2nd April 2012, 02:37 PM	#64
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,480	Originally Posted by Joey McGee Sorry im gonna have to be a dick here and point out that that hundreds of FINE WOMEN AND MEN HAVE WORKED MILLIONS OF HOURS TELLING US HOW TO DEBUNK PEOPLE. Since I'm a victim I can authoritatively say say that you mostly all suck giant donkey balls at debunking. Sorry you self righteous pieces of **** but it's true There are forum rules here which prevent us from telling certain people exactly what we think of them. Thank you for your intelligent and perceptive comments.
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

2nd April 2012, 02:53 PM	#65
Sword_Of_Truth Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 11,497	Originally Posted by NoahFence I like "realist". That works too.

2nd April 2012, 05:27 PM	#66
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 22,836	Originally Posted by LSSBB I think Baloney is an even better response, in an RP tip o' the hat. I can think of a word beginning with B which is even better then Bollocks and Baloney but it would be a TOS violation.....

2nd April 2012, 06:40 PM	#67
ozeco41 Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia Posts: 3,655	Originally Posted by dudalb I can think of a word beginning with B which is even better then Bollocks and Baloney but it would be a TOS violation..... The one I would use is biological in origin - derived from the faeces of the male bovine.

2nd April 2012, 07:22 PM	#68
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,780	Originally Posted by Joey McGee Some people like crossword puzzles. Some folks log on to the internet and intellectually battle delusional cranks. I'm a former truther. Thanks JREF for unspoiling my life. Originally Posted by Joey McGee Sorry im gonna have to be a dick here and point out that that hundreds of FINE WOMEN AND MEN HAVE WORKED MILLIONS OF HOURS TELLING US HOW TO DEBUNK PEOPLE. Since I'm a victim I can authoritatively say say that you mostly all suck giant donkey balls at debunking. Sorry you self righteous pieces of **** but it's true ????

3rd April 2012, 08:06 AM	#69
Grizzly Bear このマスクによっ Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 5,690	Originally Posted by Jim_MDP Wow... a new JREF record for quantity of straw in a single post. And that's impressive. Maybe a record for irony too... All of his: Originally Posted by SpringHallConvert - Experts, professionals, and technicians have said so, therefore it's true! They are the ultimate authorities and we must accept whatever they say as true! No, they could never be corrupt, bought off, dishonest, mistaken, or have a political agenda of their own! - The peer-review process said so, so therefore it is! Because we all know the peer-review process is always infallible! - Foreign media reported it that way, therefore it's true, because we all know that the foreign media is independent of the domestic, U.S. media! Why? Because it's just true! It's not possible for the State to set up overseas propaganda organs! Somebody would have told us! Anyway, foreigners wouldn't ever lie to cover up for the U.S. government! - By default, whatever the government says is true and we accept it as true! No proof necessary whatsoever! But if you question the government and don't believe what they said is true, then we demand proof that the government was dishonest! Only then do we demand proof! - A court of law said so, therefore it is true! Innocent people can never be framed, tricked, railroaded, or lied to! Lawyers and judges are honest people only interested in upholding justice! They'd never work to cover anything up! But even if they wanted to, they couldn't, because the media would tells us! Remember, they have our backs! ...sounds familiar, considering it describes most people's observations of the conspiracy movement. Beyond that I see nothing special about the thread that warrants continued pandering to the trolling; most people already know this much about the current standing of the conspiracy movement and it can be left at that.
Grizzly Bear このマスクによっ Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 5,690	__________________ Graduation on 8/13/2011 8D Last edited by Grizzly Bear; 3rd April 2012 at 08:08 AM.

3rd April 2012, 09:47 AM	#70
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,480	Operor non nutritor troll
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

3rd April 2012, 12:07 PM	#71
1337m4n Alphanumeric Anonymous Stick Man Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 3,499	DISCUSSION TOPIC: How big can a statue made of straw be before it collapses on its own weight.
	__________________ http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...2b728514ea.gif "The evidence that the attacks of 9/11 were an inside job just keeps not coming in." --pomeroo

3rd April 2012, 12:13 PM	#72
DGM #4 Join Date: May 2007 Location: West of Northshore MA Posts: 14,345	Originally Posted by 1337m4n DISCUSSION TOPIC: How big can a statue made of straw be before it collapses on its own weight. Depends on the size of the base and it construction. A pyramid for instance is only limited by the size of it's base (more or less).
	__________________ Join the team, Show us what your machine can do (or just contribute to a good cause)Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232 "Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley