TWCL

[Dutch]

Just out of interest... is the big bugger who got crowned by the plods all better now?
_________________

[Casual Notice]

Yeah, he suffered a mild concussion, which was treated once wiser minds prevailed and took him to a hospital.

afterthepsychosis wrote:

having read the article I presented as evidence, you have finally actually completed phase 1 of holding a debate.

Actually, you presented no evidence. The act of "presenting evidence" would have involved you selecting pertinent portions of the document and quoting them here, which you did not do. Instead, you posted a link, requiring me to go and delve through a 10,000+ word document trying to find something relevant to your assertions.

I don't need to present evidence that your supporting "proof" is tripe. It's a long list of disconnected facts that have relevance only if you make the quesionable leap between those facts and the reality of the occurrances. As a counter-argument, I provide the following fact-filled fallacy:

a variety of statistical sources wrote:

The months during which soft drinks show their greatest sales show a marked increase in the incidence of rape. These same months shoe increases in property crime and drug use. Schoolchildren show an up-to 30% reduction in performance on standardized tests from the beginning to the end of this period. While I have no conclusive evidence...no confessions, no documentation, no "smoking gun" as it were, I believe that the above list of facts proves that the soft drink companies are colluding in order to destroy the minds and moral fibre of America's youth.

That is, of course, bullshit. The months when soft drink sales are the highest re the summer months. Rapes are higher because more people go out and go out on dates. Property crime is higher because of the large number of bored kids, and kids do worse on tests at the end of summer because they've just spent three months allowing their minds and education to go stale.

There was nothing in the document that I wasn't awrare of. Hell, I could probably add to it. And I'm not saying that opportunists didn't take advantage of 9-11 to pad their wallets and justify some dumbass bullshit (I never said that, which you would have known had you stopped your unsupported preaching for loing enough to ask). However, a list of diconnected facts is not proof, or even particularly persuasive evidence, that a massive conspiracy exists.

By the way: Arab and African oil are much more valuable to our European allies. The US gets most of its oilf from North American sources (54.76%); with longterm ally Saudi Arabia and not-quite-an-enemy-but-certainly-not-our-friend Venezuela (and why haven't we invaded Hugo's little nest if oil is the reason for every US action? We don't seem to mind occupying COlombia to keep cocaine prices high) coming n next. Iraq provides about 2.32% of our oil, an amount that could easily and cheaply be countered by deepwater drilling and/or joining Canada in the exploitation of the Arctic Circle reserve. source*

*data adjusted to reflect total usage and not percent of imports.
_________________
What I lack in sincerity, I make up for in sarcasm.
S*P*Q*R

[Jardel]

afterthedream wrote:

I'll try to explain one last time in plain English. In this instance, the aphorism "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink," refers to my offering information which certain parties won't bother to read. We can see if this continues to hold true. Here are 50 thoroughly sourced facts about 9/11 which demonstrate that there is ample reason to doubt the official narrative: The Facts Speak for Themselves by Jon Gold Will you go to the link and read the article? So far you have shown a deficit of the intellectual and emotional maturity required to honestly assess information which contradicts your preconceived notions. Should you actually provide a reasoned response to the article replete with sources of your own, I will most humbly and sincerely apologize for any of the bad things I've said about you. The same holds for Jardel.

So you're not disputing my dick is the ultimate vaccine for cancer (even if Dutch doesn't want to be vaccinated)? Sweet!

Now, I'd love to examine the "facts" in the article you posted but frankly there's no coherent order to them, no substantiation of them and it just seems like similar rants I can get by speaking with any mentally ill drug addict from my old neighbourhood.

It features such brilliant deductive reasoning as "Apparently, there were Israeli Art Students, possibly Mossad, spying in the U.S. at the time of 9/11."

Wow. I am shocked and amazed. Mossad agents in a foreign country, gathering intelligence. How scandalous. What do they think they are? Intelligence operatives or something!?

Seriously, if you're going to link to crazy... at least link to REAL FUCKING CRAZY so we can at least laugh at it.

And if you want to dispute that my link is any less valid than yours, please refer me to an in depth study by a credible source.

[afterthedream]

@Jardel-

The article you linked to is one person's hypothesis with no backing evidence. There isn't a single sourced cited for any of the author's claims. The article I linked to on the other hand, links to multiple stories from major news providers for each of the fifty facts provided. For you to claim that the facts raised in my article are unsubstantiated is demonstrably false. Try again. Try harder.

[afterthedream]

Casual Notice wrote:

I don't need to present evidence that your supporting "proof" is tripe.

So we're back to square one then. I've presented book, websites, documentaries, and articles which back my point of view. For ten pages all you've done is froth at the mouth, spewing insults, sophistry, and logical fallacy. It is clear that your only intention is to cloud the facts around some very serious crimes including murder and pedophilia. You're not just a waste of bandwidth, you are a truly disgusting individual all around, and I wash my hands of you.

[ ] NOT OWNED
[ ] OWNED
[X] COMPLETED OWNED
[X] TOLD LIKE A BITCH

[Casual Notice]

afterthedream wrote:

Casual Notice wrote: I don't need to present evidence that your supporting "proof" is tripe. So we're back to square one then.

If by "square one" you mean you still lack credible evidence, then yes, yes we are.

Quote:

I've presented book, websites, documentaries, and articles which back my point of view.

You have presented nothing. You've provided links to them. You have neither quoted them in any meaningful way nor even stated why they are particularly relevant to your wide list of assertions.

Quote:

For ten pages all you've done is froth at the mouth,

Pretty sure that didn't happen. Would you like photographic evidence of my beard being unsullied by angry spittle?

Quote:

spewing insults,

I called the Occupy crowd "idiots" once and I quoted you as "afterthepsychosis" once. Any other "insults" were inferred by you from otherwise innocent assertions and questions.

Quote:

sophistry,

Since I have offered no assertions other than the fact that flashbangs were not used in the Oakland Crowd Dispersal, I find sophistry a difficult accusation to prove or disprove. Indeed, your refusal to do your own supporting research and willingness to reach conclusions that don't necessarily follow the facts in evidence suggests more sophistry than my repeated requests that you show some supporting evidence.

Quote:

and logical fallacy.

Considering your repeated appeals to authority, ad hominem attacks, straw man apeals, and other logical fallacies I have neither the time nor the inclination to remember, I think, even were your assertion particularly true (I've made no assertions beyond the one provable one, so can not have engaged in fallacy), it would be a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Quote:

It is clear that your only intention is to cloud the facts around some very serious crimes including murder and pedophilia.

I didn't cloud any facts. I questioned your bundling of disparate facts into a single thesis with no effort to connect those facts in any meaningful way.

Quote:

You're not just a waste of bandwidth, you are a truly disgusting individual all around,

Now, see, that's an actual insult, and it falls in line with the other insults you have "spewed" at me without provocation. Tu Quoque.

Quote:

and I wash my hands of you.

Does that mean you won't respond to me, or that you've decided to leave the forum all together. I hope neither is true. I find you almost as amusing as Bobby and no more irritating than Bengo. (I would rate you a solid 4 Bobbys on the simplified scale.)

Please continue to post. Even if you refuse to respond to me, the hilarity of your responses makes my day.

Quote:

[ ] NOT OWNED [ ] OWNED [X] COMPLETED OWNED [X] TOLD LIKE A BITCH

I'm not sure what this means. Is this an admission that you feel owned, or some sort of childish attempt at supporting your argument by declaring yourself the "winner"?
_________________
What I lack in sincerity, I make up for in sarcasm.
S*P*Q*R

[Jardel]

afterthedream wrote:

@Jardel- The article you linked to is one person's hypothesis with no backing evidence. There isn't a single sourced cited for any of the author's claims. The article I linked to on the other hand, links to multiple stories from major news providers for each of the fifty facts provided. For you to claim that the facts raised in my article are unsubstantiated is demonstrably false. Try again. Try harder.

Links to other paranoia sites do not count as "major news providers" nor should anyone, especially not someone claiming to be interested in "the truth" trust a "major news provider" since news providers of all sorts have agendas.

This is why facts do not involve speculation, elaboration or interpretation. Facts are data to be interpreted by the reader and if you say "the facts speak for themselves" and then feel the need to put your interpretation on the facts you are a liar.

I admit, I only got down to about fact #30. The reason I stopped there is because of the lack of substance or coherence and the minor detail that was clearly not an article where "the facts would speak for themselves" but rather one where "I will speak and demand you accept it as fact".

The distinction is not subtle.

Also, I've noticed that you're getting increasingly erratic and insulting as more and more problems with your statements are presented. This is generally a symptom of your stance being based off some sort of emotional investment rather than faith in the facts.

I suggest you spend less time reading about conspiracy theories and more time studying critical thinking techniques. You'll be much happier for it in the end.

[R(ed)]

Is this the part where everyone makes out now?
_________________

[Casual Notice]

Well, since Jardel's dick is a universal panacaea for cancer, you should feel free to experiment. My family mostly goes down from Emphysema and/or heart disease, however, so I'll take a pass.
_________________
What I lack in sincerity, I make up for in sarcasm.
S*P*Q*R

[vulpeslibertas]

R(ed) wrote:

Is this the part where everyone makes out now?

No, I'm going to watch and take pictures of everyone else..
_________________

[wendyw]

vulpeslibertas wrote:

R(ed) wrote: Is this the part where everyone makes out now? No, I'm going to watch and take pictures of everyone else..

And turn it into a photo comic?
_________________

Blog

[vulpeslibertas]

_________________

[Jardel]

vulpeslibertas wrote:

R(ed) wrote: Is this the part where everyone makes out now? No, I'm going to watch and take pictures of everyone else..

I refuse to participate in this filth.

Unless someone provides either a pounding baseline or saxophone jazz for background music.

[vulpeslibertas]

How about Bill Clinton. He played the sax and did some naughty stuff. Although the man was obviously just a puppet.
_________________

[Jardel]

Just because he's a puppet doesn't mean he can't be sexy.