Reopen 911 Forums and film screenings

[fubert]

Both DrJ and sparticus have emphatically claimed that the national press refused to run the adverts.

i'm not denying that. i'm asking where drj has claimed he could back the claim up

edited cause i answered a q out of context

 

[gurrier]

i'm not denying that. i'm asking where drj has claimed he could back the claim up

In fairness fubert, you are descending into rank pedantry here. He made the claim unambiguously and it is fair to assume that he should be able to back it up. The only other conclusion is that his claims are pulled from his arse and bear no relationship to events in this universe.

Incidentally, I ambushed the other 5,000 event-goers on their way to the show and turned them into the slaves of my alien race. They are now toiling in the kryptonite mines in my garden. The owners of all the national newspapers have been our puppets for a long time now.

 

[fubert]

In fairness fubert, you are descending into rank pedantry here. He made the claim unambiguously and it is fair to assume that he should be able to back it up. The only other conclusion is that his claims are pulled from his arse and bear no relationship to events in this universe.

that may be the case, i'm just tired of people being called liars or being accused of lying. there's a difference between getting something wrong, or taking something from a source that other people may not consider credible and deliberately trying to deceive and mislead by announcing things they already know to be bullshit.

 

[editor]

i'm not denying that. i'm asking where drj has claimed he could back the claim up

DrJ made an emphatic, unequivocal claim about "the national press" refusing to run these adverts. He has so far refused to provide a shred of proof to support this remarkable claim or concede that he was wrong/didn't check his facts/gullibly swallowed a conspiraloon yarn.

Sparticus went one step further, claiming that he could "verify" that "two national papers refused to run adverts on Friday, pulling out at the last minute."

Strangely enough, when asked for proof of this claim, he went into extended wriggle mode.

Maybe the adverts were pulled. Maybe they weren't. There are a host of legitimate reasons why an advert may be pulled, but in the complete absence of any evidence, I'm not even remotely convinced by this particular yarn.

It smells like the conspiraloon's oft-seen tactic of posting up unsubstantiated claims that they're being silenced by some evil conspiratorial hand because they're too close to the truth or some such bollocks.

If people want to post up wild claims about national media conspiracies and not have them challenged, I suggest they post up on some of the fruitloop 9/11 sites, where this kind of fact-free bullshit seems to be positively welcomed.

 

[neilh]

Sparticus went one step further, claiming that he could "verify" that "two national papers refused to run adverts on Friday, pulling out at the last minute."

i got the impression he meant post 56 differently; ie folk were saying it had been pulled, and he said "i can verify that" meaning, yeah, that's right, i can confirm that, rather than meaning i can/will provide evidence of that.
i imagine it would be quite hard for someone to prove it on a forum anyway, even if they had definite knowledge themselves.
i was more disappointed sparticus was not too forthcoming on attendance.
as for unsubstantiated claims, they seem to happen reasonably regularly from folk wi all kinds of viewpoints on these threads.

 

[fubert]

DrJ made an emphatic, unequivocal claim about "the national press" refusing to run these adverts. He has so far refused to provide a shred of proof to support this remarkable claim or concede that he was wrong/didn't check his facts/gullibly swallowed a conspiraloon yarn.

Sparticus went one step further, claiming that he could "verify" that "two national papers refused to run adverts on Friday, pulling out at the last minute."

i agree with what you've said entirely, and i myself will admit i made such a claim on this thread then admitted i'd fucked up on it. i also agree that sparticus has certainly more than compromised his position on his claim.

however, if they were to provide proof, which would no doubt come from a 911 conspiracy related site it would probably be dismissed as an invalid/uncredible source. so they're both damned if they do and damned if they don't simply based on something they've chosen to believe.

 

[Blagsta]

He simply announced that "the national press refused to run the adverts".

Unless he's a compulsive liar, I can only assume that he'll be along shortly with some credible facts to support his emphatic and unequivocal statement of nationwide media censorship.

There's an ad for it in today's Observer.

 

[editor]

however, if they were to provide proof, which would no doubt come from a 911 conspiracy related site it would probably be dismissed as an invalid/uncredible source. so they're both damned if they do and damned if they don't simply based on something they've chosen to believe.

Hold on: if the adverts were pulled because of some Evil Media Conspiracy - as is being suggested here - there would be ample credible documentation available from the sources themselves: letters from the newspapers, for example, outlining the reasons why the advert was supposed banished at short notice.

Newspapers aren't in the business of suddenly pulling adverts for no good reasons because they are an essential source of revenue, and in the complete absence of credible proof from DrJ and sparticus, I'm beginning to suspect that they're either wilfully lying or that they've been suckered (yet again) by some conspiraloon bullshit.

Sparticus said he could "verify" the facts, yet has embarked on a Brazilian samba of a wriggle ever since.

 

[editor]

There's an ad for it in today's Observer.

Bwahahahahaha!!!!!



(Or maybe the lizards made you think there was an advert?!)

 

[laptop]

he said "i can verify that" meaning, yeah, that's right, i can confirm that, rather than meaning i can/will provide evidence of that.

And that's the entire problem, isn't it? That there are so many people out there who don't know the difference...

 

[fubert]

Hold on: if the adverts were pulled because of some Evil Media Conspiracy - as is being suggested here - there would be ample credible documentation available from the sources themselves: letters from the newspapers, for example, outlining the reasons why the advert was supposed banished at short notice.

well i'll be the first to admit that i don't know how newspaper advertising works, and as i've already said i think it's unlikely they would pull adverts seeing as it's their bread and butter.

what's the point of pulling an advert then running a piece explaing why you didn't run it ? surely that will just bring more attention to it.

 

[tarannau]

however, if they were to provide proof, which would no doubt come from a 911 conspiracy related site it would probably be dismissed as an invalid/uncredible source. so they're both damned if they do and damned if they don't simply based on something they've chosen to believe.

Er no, there most plausibly could be a response email from the media booker or publication politely declining the advert, for whatever reason.

Taking the 'refusal' statement from a 911 conspiracy related site would seem inadvisable at best when given many of those sites' previous lack of accuracy and integrity in their reporting. But Sparticus would seem to be close enough to have had direct contact with the publications themselves, or at least whoever supposedly attempted the bookings.

My experience of placing adverts is that publications, with a few exceptions in the high end style and fashion market (Vogue not wanting to seem downmarket in product choices etc), will pretty much accept any advert if they're submitted in timely, correct format...and if the right price is paid. A quick glance of even the most prestigious national papers shows that pretty much any old gumph can be sold if you're willing to pay the price.

Worst case scenario and there's nearly always going to another publication willing to feature your advert if you can get it properly designed. But the idea that 'the media' refused to run adverts seems at best innaccurate, although to be less charitable it would seem a dodgily misleading turn of phrase...

 

[fubert]

Er no, there most plausibly could be a response email from the media booker or publication politely declining the advert, for whatever reason.

Taking the 'refusal' statement from a 911 conspiracy related site would seem inadvisable at best when given many of those sites' previous lack of accuracy and integrity in their reporting. But Sparticus would seem to be close enough to have had direct contact with the publications themselves, or at least whoever supposedly attempted the bookings.

so say they did receive such an email or letter, where do you think they would make it available for people to see ?

 

[editor]

what's the point of pulling an advert then running a piece explaing why you didn't run it ? surely that will just bring more attention to it.

Er, if a national newspaper decides - at the last minute - to pull out of an agreement to run an expensive advert, they'd have to have notify the advertiser in with their reasons.

But the fact that the advert is in today's Observer just proves what a load of stinking horseshit these conspiraloon 'media blackout' claims were in the first place.

 

[neilh]

And that's the entire problem, isn't it? That there are so many people out there who don't know the difference...

i think a lot of problems aren't as much folk not knowing the difference, as folk misinterpreting others meanings cos sometimes when you mean one thing, which you could easily communicate in a normal conversation, when it's written down on a messageboard it can easily be interpreted another way.

 

[fubert]

Er, if a national newspaper decides - at the last minute - to pull out of an agreement to run an expensive advert, they'd have to have notify the advertiser in with their reasons.

but would they announce it publicly in the paper or just tell the people who paid for it ? and do they have to justify why it was pulled beyond the old "we reserve the right..."

and as i've said twice, i believe the notion of a blackout to be a little fishy.

 

[editor]

so say they did receive such an email or letter, where do you think they would make it available for people to see ?

Online would do nicely, so long as it contained the full text and the full contact details of all the masses of execs responsible for the decision from the many newspapers involved in the 'banning'.

That way, people could simply drop them a line to confirm if the story was true and accurate.

It's called basic research - sadly a concept rather alien to some folks around here.

 

[tarannau]

so say they did receive such an email or letter, where do you think they would make it available for people to see ?

You think that one of the organisers, after making such a definite statement, would be happy to make the source email available to those who asked? Nothing to lose really is there - no client confidentiality exists (although they can take booking rates off if they prefer)and there's a good story there.

If that's too troublesome, I'm happy to talk to the media bookers and enquire about the reasons why the adverts haven't run. All I'll need is details of which publications they tried to book space in. I talk to (I would guess) similar publications regularly, so it wouldn't be a great hassle to make another call or two - if Sparticus is struggling I'll even attempt to get an advert for the next event placed on his behalf as a one off...

 

[fubert]

Online would do nicely, so long as it contained the full text and the full contact details of all the masses of execs responsible for the decision from the many newspapers involved in the 'banning'.

well that's the point. they'd probably post it on a 911 conspiracy site, and some people might starting say it's forged or whatever. a counter conspiracy conspiracy if you will.

does the paper have to provide justification beyond "we reserve the right.."

 

[fubert]

You think that one of the organisers, after making such a definite statement, would be happy to make the source email available to those who asked? Nothing to lose really is there - no client confidentiality exists (although they can take booking rates off if they prefer)and there's a good story there.

If that's too troublesome, I'm happy to talk to the media bookers and enquire about the reasons why the adverts haven't run. All I'll need is details of which publications they tried to book space in. I talk to (I would guess) similar publications regularly, so it wouldn't be a great hassle to make another call or two - if Sparticus is struggling I'll even attempt to get an advert for the next event placed on his behalf as a one off...

i suggest you pm sparticus then.

 

[editor]

well that's the point. they'd probably post it on a 911 conspiracy site, and some people might starting say it's forged or whatever. a counter conspiracy conspiracy if you will.

Please read what I said.

Online would do nicely, so long as it contained the full text and the full contact details of all the masses of execs responsible for the decision from the many newspapers involved in the 'banning'.
That way, people could simply drop them a line to confirm if the story was true and accurate.

But seeing as the advert has appeared in at least one national newspaper today, I can't see what your point is here. DrJ's and sparticus's claims are already provably bullshit.

 

[fubert]

But seeing as the advert has appeared in at least one national newspaper today, I can't see what your point is here. DrJ's and sparticus's claims are already provably bullshit.

well just because it's in one doesn't mean it's been refused from another.

but my point was, drj didn't claim he could verify it. and just cause someone is wrong it doesn't mean they're lying or attempting to deliberately deceive people.

 

[editor]

well just because it's in one doesn't mean it's been refused from another.

but my point was, drj didn't claim he could verify it. and just cause someone is wrong it doesn't mean they're lying or attempting to deliberately deceive people.

FFS: can't you read?

DrJ said - quite emphatically:

the national press refused to run the adverts

Not 'some of the national press', not 'one or two local rags', not 'one newspaper', but the entire 'national press'.

 

[fubert]

FFS: can't you read?

DrJ said - quite emphatically:

Not 'some of the national press', not 'one or two local rags', not 'one newspaper', but the entire 'national press'.

alright, so he's wrong. or he's maybe just not put enough thought into his statement to cover all the options. doesn't make him a liar does it ?

 

[editor]

alright, so he's wrong. or he's maybe just not put enough thought into his statement to cover all the options. doesn't make him a liar does it ?

As I said an age ago: it does if he persists with the story in the face of zero supporting evidence.

Sparticus boldly claimed to be able to 'verify' the censorship yarn some time ago, but immediately entered an era of gyroscopic wriggling when asked to reveal his sources.

 

[Loki]

alright, so he's wrong. or he's maybe just not put enough thought into his statement to cover all the options. doesn't make him a liar does it ?

But as usual he was suggesting there was some kind of conspiracy to silence "the truth".

 

[fubert]

As I said an age ago: it does if he persists with the story in the face of zero supporting evidence.

so are you suggesting he's deliberately trying to mislead this forum with information he already knows to be incorrect ?

loki : i agree, but there's a difference between being plain wrong and lying, in my opininion there is anyway.

 

[goldenecitrone]

FFS: can't you read?

DrJ said - quite emphatically:

Not 'some of the national press', not 'one or two local rags', not 'one newspaper', but the entire 'national press'.

I saw it in the Guardian, too. I hope the brave people who managed to sneak them in haven't come to any harm because of their efforts.

 

[Loki]

loki : i agree, but there's a difference between being plain wrong and lying, in my opininion there is anyway.

I'm afraid you have to take his record into account. It's not like it's the first time he's twisted the truth, exaggerated, or otherwise made bold statements that fall apart under scrutiny, that happen to suit his theories.

 

[fubert]

I'm afraid you have to take his record into account. It's not like it's the first time he's twisted the truth, exaggerated, or otherwise made bold statements that fall apart under scrutiny, that happen to suit his theories.

as far as i'm aware he just cites stuff from other sites. i don't think he makes it up on his own.