| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Batrabill
Banned
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 89
|
 Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 1:10 am Post subject: |
 |
|
OH MY GOD!
ALL TRUTHERS WEAR GLASSES!
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN!!!
Nothing...like everything they say. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 4:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
they have to show the most strange looking truthers, voice it over with ridicule, and have the voice make your mind up for you? they also obviously edited it and choose who to put in and leave out.
and there i was thinking it could be proved wrong with evidence alone.
anyone could make a video like that about anyone what does it prove?
if its done in the right way (like that one) anyone could look stupid.
it just sad this is the way the offical story has to be proved right, and to be fair obviously the only way(which is why critics do the same kind of ridiculing).
offical story = ridicule/name calling/omitting evidence to stand up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 10:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | they have to show the most strange looking truthers, voice it over with ridicule, and have the voice make your mind up for you? they also obviously edited it and choose who to put in and leave out.
and there i was thinking it could be proved wrong with evidence alone.
anyone could make a video like that about anyone what does it prove?
if its done in the right way (like that one) anyone could look stupid.
it just sad this is the way the offical story has to be proved right, and to be fair obviously the only way(which is why critics do the same kind of ridiculing).
offical story = ridicule/name calling/omitting evidence to stand up. |
Of course this does not prove what you call the "official story" right, nor do I need anyone to make my mind up for me. I already knew truthers were stupid and deluded, and this is just a bit of fun at their expense. For a truther to accuse anyone else of omitting evidence really is laughable!
_________________
".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 10:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
of course they HAVE to be stupid and deluded because if they were not they would have to be taken seriously. hence the reason character assassinations are very much needed. i agree it would of been a bit of fun if it wasnt such a serious subject, that people like yourself sh@t on to be right rather than debate it with evidence.
critics cannot make a post without the word deluded,stupid,conspiraloon ect ect ect. you have to try and undermine what the persons are saying by using ridicule. which you would not need to do if you were right about facts.
he says x you say no its wrong because of y.
no istead he says x you say hes deluded and stupid ect as the basis for the whole arguement. who is lacking intellect when this is the way you have to do things? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
A Sharp Major
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 19 Feb 2006
Posts: 237
Location: In the van with the blacked out windows, parked outside your home.
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 1:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
marky 54 said
etc. etc. etc.
For a movement that invokes Latin to make themselves look/ sound/appear superior, it would help if you got it right. Believe me, it matters.
Marky 54. Who told you about paragraphs? Education is life long, nothing to be ashamed of.
_________________
"It's been my policy to view the Internet not as an 'information highway,' but as an electronic asylum filled with babbling loonies.” Mike Royko
http://www.screwloosechange.blogspot.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 5:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| A Sharp Major wrote: | marky 54 said
etc. etc. etc.
For a movement that invokes Latin to make themselves look/ sound/appear superior, it would help if you got it right. Believe me, it matters.
Marky 54. Who told you about paragraphs? Education is life long, nothing to be ashamed of. |
the point of this post is what? i dont come here to polish up my writting skills, or to be told about them thank you very much. believe me it dosnt matter, there are far more important things in life than being a perfectionist. i type my point end of story, if there are mistypes i could not give a nonsense. if the reader dosnt have the brain power to work out what it should mean or say it their problem.
i dont post here to satisfy your standards. i aint gonna loose sleep over mistypes or wrong use of paragraphs. it just aint something i consider important unless im writing to someone important. when i send a letter to someone important i will worry about it then and take time to ensure everything is correct.
here however you get what your given  .
now please excuse me whilst i go and cry over all the mistypes that i didnt check to satisfy your standards.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
A Sharp Major
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 19 Feb 2006
Posts: 237
Location: In the van with the blacked out windows, parked outside your home.
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 12:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What may seem to some as a cheap shot isn't. There was a time when I didn't bother to read marky54's posts because there were a hundred lines without paragraphs and in some cases without punctuation. Nothing snobby in ignoring it, it was just torture to read. I expect others on both sides of the asylum fence felt the same. Marky has made progress, perhaps someone has had a word.
Communication is important. Not all of your readers have English as a native language. Aim for perfection in all things, including the quality of your evidence.
_________________
"It's been my policy to view the Internet not as an 'information highway,' but as an electronic asylum filled with babbling loonies.” Mike Royko
http://www.screwloosechange.blogspot.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 8:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| A Sharp Major wrote: | What may seem to some as a cheap shot isn't. There was a time when I didn't bother to read marky54's posts because there were a hundred lines without paragraphs and in some cases without punctuation. Nothing snobby in ignoring it, it was just torture to read. I expect others on both sides of the asylum fence felt the same. Marky has made progress, perhaps someone has had a word.
Communication is important. Not all of your readers have English as a native language. Aim for perfection in all things, including the quality of your evidence. |
i agree that posts are hard to read without paragraphs, which is why i started adding them, however anything else is just picking fault or treating the forum like an english lesson, so as long the posts are readable mistypes or not it dosnt matter.
but i took the point on leaving paragraphs after having trouble reading my own posts once it was pointed out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 25, 2007 12:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | of course they HAVE to be stupid and deluded because if they were not they would have to be taken seriously. hence the reason character assassinations are very much needed. i agree it would of been a bit of fun if it wasnt such a serious subject, that people like yourself sh@t on to be right rather than debate it with evidence.
critics cannot make a post without the word deluded,stupid,conspiraloon ect ect ect. you have to try and undermine what the persons are saying by using ridicule. which you would not need to do if you were right about facts.
he says x you say no its wrong because of y.
no istead he says x you say hes deluded and stupid ect as the basis for the whole arguement. who is lacking intellect when this is the way you have to do things? |
That is a stupid and deluded post, marky, because you know very well I have debated many aspects of 9/11 with you purely on the evidence, without using ridicule or anything other than pure facts and logic.
_________________
".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Batrabill
Banned
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 89
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 25, 2007 12:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
Er... but you are stupid and deluded....
Nothing can change that ...except you becoming stupid but rational.
Sorry, those are the options. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Batrabill
Banned
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 89
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 25, 2007 12:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
How about us sceptics coming up with our stupidest 9/11 theories.
I started so I get NO PLANES |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 25, 2007 12:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | of course they HAVE to be stupid and deluded because if they were not they would have to be taken seriously. hence the reason character assassinations are very much needed. i agree it would of been a bit of fun if it wasnt such a serious subject, that people like yourself sh@t on to be right rather than debate it with evidence.
critics cannot make a post without the word deluded,stupid,conspiraloon ect ect ect. you have to try and undermine what the persons are saying by using ridicule. which you would not need to do if you were right about facts.
he says x you say no its wrong because of y.
no istead he says x you say hes deluded and stupid ect as the basis for the whole arguement. who is lacking intellect when this is the way you have to do things? |
That is a stupid and deluded post, marky, because you know very well I have debated many aspects of 9/11 with you purely on the evidence, without using ridicule or anything other than pure facts and logic. |
yes you have and so as iggy althought you do tend to still use these tactics on other threads. and certain other critics use it every sentance.
no if i was stupid i would believe there is nothing strange about the offical version. it could mean cover-up it could just mean some information isnt right or wires have been crossed, eitherway things dont add up.
some posters just rant CT this and CT that then when proved wrong or callenged about information they ignore the post or just simply use ridicule. just look around critics corner you see it everywhere. my point is if information alone could debunk things surely you would not need to go down to the metality of a 10 year old and start pointing the finger and shouting hes deluded. its playground stuff. there are a few critics who debate like yourself but even then you carnt avoid it and keep it free from child like namecalling. look at the post above for the intellect shown by critics.
if anything it just strenghtens the belief that the offical story is wrong, because people are left thinking well if its so right why do people need to use these tactics instead of debating evidence like the poster above this one.
all i know is things dont make sense i question you lot to get a better picture and if i see a hole or a flaw i will point it out or ask about it.
there is lots of disnfo on the net and seeing through it can be hard at times, my only goal is to know the truth and it certainly dosnt help when poster with the mental age of 10 post useless posts branding people they know nothing about.
i think people who cannot see something is wrong are stupid, but you dont see me using it every post or to try and make what people say wrong. i try to stick to what information is out there, and get through the countless number of false claims that come from BOTH sides of the arguement. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 25, 2007 10:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Marky wrote: | | if anything it just strenghtens the belief that the offical story is wrong, because people are left thinking well if its so right why do people need to use these tactics instead of debating evidence like the poster above this one. |
One of my "tactics" was asking you simple questions which directly related to information you presented. Your response was to disappear from the thread, never to return.
Want another chance? Here's the questions:
Why do you take the word of a professor of theology on engineering questions?
How do I debunk hearsay from a professor of theology?
You say better footage of the plane exists, but you won't provide any explanation for how you know this. Why?
Why do you say "they" said the plane vaporised and then refuse to explain who "they" are or show where "they" said it?
Why do you say "they" claim no video exists and then refuse to say who "they" are or show when "they" said so?
Why did you claim there are lots of whistleblowers and then refuse to name any?
Why do you think evidence from a jury trial should be released to the public?
Why do you accept Griffin's use of anonymous sources, cited by a third party, from an entirely different unreferenced source as evidence?
Why do you demand evidence, and then refuse to give an example of evidence which you couldn't instantly dismiss as faked, planted, based on lies, etc?
Why do you come to critic's corner and then refuse to respond to criticism?
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | | Marky wrote: | | if anything it just strenghtens the belief that the offical story is wrong, because people are left thinking well if its so right why do people need to use these tactics instead of debating evidence like the poster above this one. |
One of my "tactics" was asking you simple questions which directly related to information you presented. Your response was to disappear from the thread, never to return.
Want another chance? Here's the questions:
Why do you take the word of a professor of theology on engineering questions?
How do I debunk hearsay from a professor of theology?
You say better footage of the plane exists, but you won't provide any explanation for how you know this. Why?
Why do you say "they" said the plane vaporised and then refuse to explain who "they" are or show where "they" said it?
Why do you say "they" claim no video exists and then refuse to say who "they" are or show when "they" said so?
Why did you claim there are lots of whistleblowers and then refuse to name any?
Why do you think evidence from a jury trial should be released to the public?
Why do you accept Griffin's use of anonymous sources, cited by a third party, from an entirely different unreferenced source as evidence?
Why do you demand evidence, and then refuse to give an example of evidence which you couldn't instantly dismiss as faked, planted, based on lies, etc?
Why do you come to critic's corner and then refuse to respond to criticism? |
the questions themselves prove you dont listen or read posts properly. as i have already answered one or two of those questions in posts previous.
for example it is stated at the begining of the video where griffin gets the qoutes from which you obviously didnt listen to. and come on it dosnt take a brainbox to know what would be considered evidence. why do i need to answer these stupid questions?
you also think i should'nt listen to a professer but i should listen to you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
