'Conspiraloons' in the ascendancy?

[Beanburger]

Another example would be Ted Olson.

Ted Olson has lied in court about Iran-Contra. He's lied in court about Bush's election.

But rather than admit this, our denialists have rushed to defend him, simply because they think it serves their case.

So that makes me suspicious of their case in general.

See how this works?

I haven't seen anyone "rush to defend" Olson. I've seen people argue that any human being is highly unlikely to lie about the murder of their wife. That's an observation on human nature - not a defence of Olson. The fact that you've chosen to falsely characterise such comments betrays your own bias and lack of objectivity. Which is fine. But pot, kettle.

 

[Pickman's model]

Phil seriously, not working.

dwyer recently

 

[8den]

Another example would be Ted Olson.

Ted Olson has lied in court about Iran-Contra. He's lied in court about Bush's election.

No you said Ted Oslon was directly involved in a plot to kill millions. Remember Phil? Phil?

 

[phildwyer]

Seeing as the topic of conversation was the forensics at the pentagon.

Please, tell, us, Phil, emphatically what Jazzz meant.

You said he'd claimed that people went about scattering body parts at the Pentagon.

Asked for proof, you cited a post in which he used this as a purely hypothetical scenario, and in which he said this was one among many possible scenarios.

So you lied, and misrepresented him.

So now I don't believe anything you say about him.

Are you beginning to see how this works now?

 

[Pickman's model]

Both of them.

no they didn't

 

[Beanburger]

Are you beginning to see how this works now?

You split hairs then use that as an excuse for putting your fingers in your ears, whilst saying "ner ner, not listening"?

 

[8den]

You said he'd claimed that people went about scattering body parts at the Pentagon.

Asked for proof, you cited a post in which he used this as a purely hypothetical scenario, and in which he said this was one among many possible scenarios.

So you lied, and misrepresented him.

So now I don't believe anything you say about him.

Are you beginning to see how this works now?

Wow. Dude. You're fucking nuts. You claim that's even a rational "hypothesis"

Stay in Academia Phil boy actual reality is going to be far too scary for you.

 

[editor]

But rather than admit this, our denialists have rushed to defend him, simply because they think it serves their case.

Name these people and produce supporting quotes, please.

See how this works?

Yes. You keep digging yourself in deeper and deeper.

It's fast becoming rather an unedifying sight to be honest.

 

[phildwyer]

Wow. Dude. You're fucking nuts. You claim that's even a rational "hypothesis"

No, I've claimed no such thing.

And you have once again resorted to obscenity and abuse.

So now you have openly lied again--apparently not even caring that everyone can see this--and you have again debased our debate with your rage and hysteria.

You really can't be surprised when people look with increasing sympathy at your opponent's case.

 

[Beanburger]

No, I've claimed no such thing.

And you have once again resorted to obscenity and abuse.

So now you have openly lied again--apparently not even caring that everyone can see this--and you have again debased our debate with your rage and hysteria.

You really can't be surprised when people look with increasing sympathy at your opponent's case.

Actually, you're debasing your own case with your personal attacks. I'm taking you less seriously by the minute. And if anyone takes a conspiraloon argument more seriously based on a spat in an internet forum thread, then they're a fucktard.

 

[phildwyer]

Name these people and produce supporting quotes, please.

OK:

He was Regan's lawyer during the Iran Contra hearings. How's that directly involved?

And he was Dubya's lawyer in Gore V Bush. How is that direct involvement with the murder of anyone? It's like saying Irving Kanarek's was "directly"
involved in the Manson murders.

This is fucking idiotic and insane.

 

[smokedout]

OK:

nah, youve lost it now dwyer, question is can you make a successful fighting retreat or are you going to keep digging a hole

 

[claphamboy]

OK:

Nope, that doesn't do it.

Just give up now, you've long since become boring.

 

[phildwyer]

Nope, that doesn't do it.(

I'm afraid it does. It provides just the evidence that was requested.

In addition (and this doesn't include you CB), I must say that the way various sycophantic sheep stampede onto threads like this one to bleat their agreement with the denialist viewpoint must confirm any decent person in their skepticism.

 

[smokedout]

fail

 

[Beanburger]

I'm afraid it does. It provides just the evidence that was requested.

I think you'll find you're firmly in the minority with that one. That proves you're wrong

In addition (and this doesn't include you CB), I must say that the way various sycophantic sheep stampede onto threads like this one to bleat their agreement with the denialist viewpoint must confirm any decent person in their skepticism.

And such transparent baiting must confirm any reasonable person's suspicion that you're trolling.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

See how this works?

No. Mistaking the message for the messenger is an intellectual fault that I wouldn't have expected in you.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Sure.

If I see hysterical, abusive messengers, who can be proved willing to lie about stuff I know about, that makes me suspect their message regarding things I'm not sure about.

I think what you said, is that it makes you more willing to reconsider your opinion.

 

[Pickman's model]

In addition (and this doesn't include you CB), I must say that the way various sycophantic sheep stampede onto threads like this one to bleat their agreement with the denialist viewpoint must confirm any decent person in their skepticism.

quite. let's not let the facts stand in the way of an irrational belief in utter loonery.

 

[claphamboy]

 

[phildwyer]

No. Mistaking the message for the messenger is an intellectual fault that I wouldn't have expected in you.

I haven't mistaken them, and I remain pretty certain that the Bush/Cheney account of 9/11 is true.

I was once completely certain of that. But the furious outrage with which idiots greet any skepticism about that account has made me suspicious that some manipulation of public opinion may well have taken place.

When manifest know-nothings feel certain enough of something to rage and abuse those who question it, they are usually wrong, in my experience.

 

[editor]

I'm afraid it does. It provides just the evidence that was requested.

In addition (and this doesn't include you CB), I must say that the way various sycophantic sheep stampede onto threads like this one to bleat their agreement with the denialist viewpoint must confirm any decent person in their skepticism.

Ya Rly, phil.

 

[Beanburger]

I was once completely certain of that. But the furious outrage with which idiots greet any skepticism about that account has made me suspicious that some manipulation of public opinion may well have taken place.

Outrage on an internet forum = proof of conspiraloonacy. Troll fail.

 

[Knotted]

I haven't mistaken them, and I remain pretty certain that the Bush/Cheney account of 9/11 is true.

I was once completely certain of that. But the furious outrage with which idiots greet any skepticism about that account has made me suspicious that some manipulation of public opinion may well have taken place.

When manifest know-nothings feel certain enough of something to rage and abuse those who question it, they are usually wrong, in my experience.

Oh Phil. You're like a robot. Sometimes the idea that you'll ever think for yourself seems like science fiction. But then I think I'm sure it's possible you will do someday.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I haven't mistaken them, and I remain pretty certain that the Bush/Cheney account of 9/11 is true.

I was once completely certain of that. But the furious outrage with which idiots greet any skepticism about that account has made me suspicious that some manipulation of public opinion may well have taken place.

When manifest know-nothings feel certain enough of something to rage and abuse those who question it, they are usually wrong, in my experience.

The rage or otherwise of know nothings is less than irrelevant to me. My own analysis of the thing, is what I tend to rely on.

 

[Beanburger]

The rage or otherwise of know nothings is less than irrelevant to me. My own analysis of the thing, is what I tend to rely on.

Irrational denialist!

 

[phildwyer]

The rage or otherwise of know nothings is less than irrelevant to me. My own analysis of the thing, is what I tend to rely on.

Me too.

In general. On this thread, however, we have seen people who frankly could not tell Osama bin Laden from Fidel Castro scamper up to tell us how certain they are, how absolutely positive, that all conspiracy theories about 9/11 are complete and utter nonsense, rubbish and garbage.

That should make a sensible person prick up their ears.

I'm not sure of the facts behind 9/11, but I do know one thing. When people like 8den and his ilk line up to salute the official version of events, I will always be skeptical. Someone has certainly told them what to believe, and that someone has done their job very well indeed.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Me too.

In general. On this thread, however, we have seen people who frankly could not tell Osama bin Laden from Fidel Castro scamper up to tell us how certain they are, how absolutely positive, that all conspiracy theories about 9/11 are complete and utter nonsense, rubbish and garbage.

That should make a sensible person prick up their ears..

I take your point to the extent that whenever someone expresses unshakeable certainty about something, it makes me look askance at the person.

 

[Beanburger]

On this thread, however, we have seen people who frankly could not tell Osama bin Laden from Fidel Castro scamper up to tell us how certain they are, how absolutely positive, that all conspiracy theories about 9/11 are complete and utter nonsense, rubbish and garbage.

... because of the overwhelming evidence.

Someone has certainly told them what to believe, and that someone has done their job very well indeed.

Troll fail.

 

[phildwyer]

I take your point to the extent that whenever someone expresses unshakeable certainty about something, it makes me look askance at the person.

It depends on the person. I have no problem believing sensible and informed people who express certainty about current affairs.

However when a gaggle of geese like 8den and company waddle along quacking in unison "down with conspiraloons," then I know that someone has been telling them what to think.

Doesn't necessarily mean that they've been misinformed. But they've certainly been informed.