Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

How to debunk just about anything

  • 28-02-2007 10:33pm
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 414 ✭✭


    FAO: honest truth seekers. Ever wonder why these debunkers that infest forums like this the world over are so incessant in their efforts to debunk everything? If you thought something was BS, would you bother wasting so much of your time discussing it with the "loons" purporting these "theories"?
    Summat is amiss there...

    As for their tactics, I think you will find this an interesting read...

    http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/scepticism/drasin.html

    there are so many of these tactics used here on boards.ie and I think this is why the debunkers have been so effective at killing threads here....

    I'll list a couple of the obvious tactics which anyone who has been following the threads here will recognise immediately as being used by the chief resident boards debunkers.

    "Put on the right face. Cultivate a condescending air that suggests that your personal opinions are backed by the full faith and credit of God. Employ vague, subjective, dismissive terms such as "ridiculous" or "trivial" in a manner that suggests they have the full force of scientific authority."

    Portray science not as an open-ended process of discovery but as a holy war against unruly hordes of quackery- worshipping infidels. Since in war the ends justify the means, you may fudge, stretch or violate the scientific method, or even omit it entirely, in the name of defending the scientific method.

    Practice debunkery-by-association. Lump together all phenomena popularly deemed paranormal and suggest that their proponents and researchers speak with a single voice. In this way you can indiscriminately drag material across disciplinary lines or from one case to another to support your views as needed. For example, if a claim having some superficial similarity to the one at hand has been (or is popularly assumed to have been) exposed as fraudulent, cite it as if it were an appropriate example. Then put on a gloating smile, lean back in your armchair and just say "I rest my case."

    Always refer to unorthodox statements as "claims," which are "touted," and to your own assertions as "facts," which are "stated."

    Equate the necessary skeptical component of science with *all* of science. Emphasize the narrow, stringent, rigorous and critical elements of science to the exclusion of intuition, inspiration, exploration and integration. If anyone objects, accuse them of viewing science in exclusively fuzzy, subjective or metaphysical terms.

    Insist that the progress of science depends on explaining the unknown in terms of the known. In other words, science equals reductionism. You can apply the reductionist approach in any situation by discarding more and more and more evidence until what little is left can finally be explained entirely in terms of established knowledge.


    I hope this posting will somehow help fellow honest truth seekers to recognise and combat these tactics that are being used against them and continue to search for truth and keep an open mind.

    peace to all :cool:


Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    Debunk

    from about.com

    "To expose and disprove false or exaggerated claims"

    And Websters

    "to expose the sham or falseness of"

    We all enjoy debunking.


    /*Sits back and gloats*/


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 88,972 ✭✭✭✭mike65


    You know what you are right. The conspiracy theorists are correct everytime.

    We never did get to the moon (but Arizona sure looked good under arc lights), JFK was killed by the mafia working with the CIA and Castro, Princess Di was murdered at the behest of Madge and Phil the Greek, 9/11 was the work of CIA/FBI/Mossad/the Banks and Halliburton. We are all fools.

    Or could it be that the real conspiracy is the conspiracy theorists who are in the employ of this chap using distraction and reverse plausibility techniques so that when they take over as we sleep we wont have seen it coming because the rest of us so flatly refused to belive it was ever possible so mad were the posting on the interweb.

    Well its possible is'nt it?

    Mike.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 23,556 ✭✭✭✭Sir Digby Chicken Caesar


    truth seekers.. my god

    to think that a somewhat grown person would refer to themselves as a truth seeker.. that makes me sad


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 414 ✭✭jessop1


    /is that so/... I'd say that the term has taken more of a meaning of skeptic rather than someone who disproves... gloat on though...

    Mike: anything is possible..we live in a world of utter deception, so keep an open mind on what may be possible. Perhaps all the conspiracy theorists themselves are part of the conspiracy and somehow aiding the deception, knowingly or not......the most convincing conspiracy is the one closest to the truth.

    Mordeth thanks for your posting... dont be sad :D


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,472 ✭✭✭So Glad


    Mordeth wrote:
    truth seekers.. my god

    to think that a somewhat grown person would refer to themselves as a truth seeker.. that makes me sad

    Erm, how? Oh, since we all should be living with a guise of falsehood, I see, sorry didn't understand you there!


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 414 ✭✭jessop1


    mike65 wrote:
    You know what you are right. The conspiracy theorists are correct everytime.

    We never did get to the moon (but Arizona sure looked good under arc lights), JFK was killed by the mafia working with the CIA and Castro, Princess Di was murdered at the behest of Madge and Phil the Greek, 9/11 was the work of CIA/FBI/Mossad/the Banks and Halliburton. We are all fools.


    Mike.

    =
    "Practice debunkery-by-association. Lump together all phenomena popularly deemed paranormal and suggest that their proponents and researchers speak with a single voice. In this way you can indiscriminately drag material across disciplinary lines or from one case to another to support your views as needed. For example, if a claim having some superficial similarity to the one at hand has been (or is popularly assumed to have been) exposed as fraudulent, cite it as if it were an appropriate example. Then put on a gloating smile, lean back in your armchair and just say "I rest my case." "

    in practice.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,472 ✭✭✭So Glad


    jessop1 wrote:
    =



    in practice.

    Lets not forget the highly accepted method of "educated skepticism".


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 414 ✭✭jessop1


    So Glad wrote:
    Lets not forget the highly accepted method of "educated skepticism".

    Indeed.. discernment is key. But my point that you quoted stands - debunkery by association is exactly what Mike was doing there...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,472 ✭✭✭So Glad


    jessop1 wrote:
    Indeed.. discernment is key. But my point that you quoted stands - debunkery by association is exactly what Mike was doing there...

    Yep, smudging all the areas grey.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    jessop1 wrote:
    debunkery by association is exactly what Mike was doing there...

    Whereas your assertion that debunkers are all the same, following some well-established methodology, etc. is ... what, exactly, if not the same?

    Similarly, your condescension to debunkers is apparently perfectly understandable, reasonable and allowable, whereas the condescension of debunkers towards you is a cynical plot.

    I see.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    And why is everyone who disagrees with a conspiracy theory, automatically a debunker? There are the conspiracy theorists, those who want to expose the theories, but there's also people in the middle who want to weigh up things for themselves. But according to you, if the third group don't agree with you, they are obviously debunkers in disguise. That's just paranoia.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    I can answer the question of why debunkers "infest" fora like this without any irrational appeal to a one-sided judgement of traits.

    If you believe yourself to be a "truth seeker" and you post in this forum, ask yourself why you do it. Could it be that you want to try and convince others of the truth you believe in? Could it be that you wish to ensure that those who believe differently to you are not given an open platform with no dissenting voices? Could it be that you want to see how your beliefs stand up to challenges from those who have differing beliefs and/or different information on a subject? Could it be that you believe in learning through the challenging of other's beliefs, to see how they can justify them?

    Now consider....I presented those questions about people seeking truth. Unlike Jessop1, I did not once suggest that people seeking truth can only be those who believe in Conspiracy Theories.

    Unlike Jessop1, I won't ascribe motive to his actions. I aill allow the weakness of the action to speak for itself.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 414 ✭✭jessop1


    bonkey wrote:
    I can answer the question of why debunkers "infest" fora like this without any irrational appeal to a one-sided judgement of traits.

    If you believe yourself to be a "truth seeker" and you post in this forum, ask yourself why you do it. Could it be that you want to try and convince others of the truth you believe in? Could it be that you wish to ensure that those who believe differently to you are not given an open platform with no dissenting voices? Could it be that you want to see how your beliefs stand up to challenges from those who have differing beliefs and/or different information on a subject? Could it be that you believe in learning through the challenging of other's beliefs, to see how they can justify them?

    I do it to learn more and to hear other peoples views and decipher truth for myself. As I have repeatedly said, I dont have a problem with people disagreeing with my views, I welcome it, I welcome debate and I am open to changing my mind based on the information I hear.

    But when people act by the debunkers bible like you and diogenes and oscar so very obviously do, this is not conducive to ongoing debate. Ridicule is a debate killer.

    Bonkey, it seems very clear to me that you and co are not interested in seekeing truth, all ye do here is try and supress and ridicule any discussion which goes agaisnt the official story of events.
    bonkey wrote:
    Now consider....I presented those questions about people seeking truth. Unlike Jessop1, I did not once suggest that people seeking truth can only be those who believe in Conspiracy Theories.

    ...Only those who believe in conspiracy theories... what conspiracy theories??? theres quite a few, are you saying they are all BS?? I smell the Debunkery by associated tactic being used here again.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 414 ✭✭jessop1


    humanji wrote:
    And why is everyone who disagrees with a conspiracy theory, automatically a debunker? There are the conspiracy theorists, those who want to expose the theories, but there's also people in the middle who want to weigh up things for themselves. But according to you, if the third group don't agree with you, they are obviously debunkers in disguise. That's just paranoia.

    I welcome the third group, as I have already said. I reject dirty tactics an will gladly expose them wherever possible. Thats what this thread is all about. If you want to debate reasonably on the topics I am happy to do so with you. You are more than entitled to your views and to disagree and I respect that. You are NOT (IMO) entitled to use the sly and dirty tactics of the debunkers bible. (not saying you have done or would do, but others here have).


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    jessop1 wrote:
    Ridicule is a debate killer.
    Indeed....and this "debunkers bible" isn't an attempt to ridicule anyone. Its a genuine heartfelt, evidence-based criticism of a clearly-identifiable group who are the only ones to engage in "dirty" tactics.
    Bonkey, it seems very clear to me that you and co are not interested in seekeing truth, all ye do here is try and supress and ridicule any discussion which goes agaisnt the official story of events.
    In many threads, the assigning of actions to a given motive is one I have often criticised. It is easy to decide on a motive and then assign actions. It is less easy to show that this is the only motive that can fit - a difficulty which is typically gotten around by the assigner of motive insisting that its somehow "clear", "obvious" or something that your "gut instinct" will tell you is true.

    I can tell you that in this particular case, you are definitively wrong in your selection of motive, despite it being "clear" to you.

    As I've said before...I'm not interested in assigning motive. You know why I'm not? Because I really don't know enough detail to be able to assign motive meaningfully. Even if it was "clear" to me what someone's motive was, I wouldn't comment on it....because I really can't be sure enough and I certainly couldn't supply anything in terms of meaningful proof to back up my claims.

    I'm not interested in suppressing anything. If I ridicule anyone, it is not deliberate and I would far rather a PM saying "that was a bit out of line, and here's why" so I can improve my style rather than a thread where someone has assigned motive to my actions because of the way I form my arguments.

    But here's the kicker...I'm not even all that interested in convincing you of this.

    What I'm interested in is being given an equal platform to put my side of things and to allow the interested reader to form their own opinion.

    The interested reader can decide for themselves how genuine I am, and how well I make my case.

    If someone wishes to believe I'm a card-carrying, paid-up disinformation agent of the NWO, thats just fine by me. I don't particularly care. What I do think, however, is that it would be a shame for anyone to immediately dismiss an argument out of hand because of who made it. It would be an even greater shame for someone to insist an argument can have no worth because of who has made it.

    To be honest, I would have applauded your starting of a thread such as this had you recognised in your original post that the article at hand applies just as much to the tactics used by some to "debunk" what you refer to as the "official version" of various events as it does to any other group.

    Rather than use this thread to victimise one group of posters, you could have used it to appeal across the board for a rejection of such tactics.

    Its a lost opportunity. Lets assume that you're correct in believing what is clear to you about my (and others') motives. Lets also assume that the implicit suggestion that such dirty tactics are only abused by debunkers. Why not then suggest that all posters agree to not use these tactics, and to withdraw any point/post made where they do engage them once it is pointed out. If what is "clear" to you is correct (which we're assuming for now), it would have put us debunkers in an untenable position. We'd either have to refuse to agree to something and thus nail our true colours to the mast, or we'd agree and be utterly screwed when it came to discussing issues.

    The only cost of such a play would be that the non-debunkers of the forum would also have to not engage in such tactics.

    Like I said...a lost opportunity. Shame, really.

    Edit to add
    I've just noticed the following item in the debunkers bible, which strikes me as ironic...

    "If you're unable to attack the facts of the case, attack the participants"
    ...Only those who believe in conspiracy theories... what conspiracy theories??? theres quite a few, are you saying they are all BS??

    No. I not saying that. I never even suggested such a thing.

    What I suggested is that there is absolutely no connection between seeking truth and believing in Conspiracy Thories. You can be a truth seeker and believe not a one of them. You can be a truth seeker and believe in some of them. You can be a truth seeker and believe in all of them. Similarly, you can be a believer in none, some or all, and not really be interested in seeking truth at all.

    Tangentially, I was suggesting that labelling something as a "debunkers bible" doesn't mean that every person who challenges a conspiracy theory is doing so unreasonably, nor that the tactics listed are only engaged in by debunkers. And no, for the record, I was not tangentially suggesting that no debunkers ever engage in such practices.

    As to whether or not "they" are "all" BS - seeing as you asked - no I don't believe something so ill-defined for a second.

    JC


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 88 ✭✭Flyingfish


    I'm going to go out on a limb here. Bonkey, I applaud your last post, but why stop there? If you are serious about what you said.

    In particular:
    Why not then suggest that all posters agree to not use these tactics, and to withdraw any point/post made where they do engage them once it is pointed out
    Debate is healthy. The tactics as described in the fist post are definitely not, regardless of what side uses them. The debate in general would benefit if this were agreed.

    If both sides of the debate will agree to this, to avoid the use of said tactics (including those who have had threads dedicated in their honour) I for one will agree to do the same. Providing it applies across the board and we ALL do our utmost to uphold it and point out breaches even if they occur on our own “side”.

    So who agrees?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,701 ✭✭✭Diogenes


    Flyingfish wrote:

    So who agrees?

    So this means so you'll stop doing things like call me an "idiot" or "goldfish"?


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,830 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Flyingfish wrote:
    So who agrees?
    /raises hand


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 88 ✭✭Flyingfish


    Diogenes wrote:
    So this means so you'll stop doing things like call me an "idiot" or "goldfish"?

    Absolutely!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,388 ✭✭✭Kernel


    Goodness, this forum is dead. Don't feed the trolls here jessop, it's far too hostile to any views apart from the mass media shíte served up by news corporations. It's certainly useless to attempt to discuss conspiracy theories (I just skipped through Bonkey's usual 5,000 word reply).

    Try abovetopsecret.com or similar forums (prisonplanet etc). Most former contributors don't post here anymore. I think it should be taken to feedback, but I get the impression that most of the mods on the site have no time for the subject, or don't take it seriously (even those who believe in Witches and Fairies, and discuss such things openly in Paganism forum) so....

    *shrug*


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    Kernel wrote:
    It's certainly useless to attempt to discuss conspiracy theories

    If by "discuss" you mean "discuss with fellow believers, free of those damned skeptics", then, yes.
    (I just skipped through Bonkey's usual 5,000 word reply).
    Clear proof of just how much you want to discuss.

    As you say....*shrug*


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,830 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Kernel wrote:
    I think it should be taken to feedback...
    So take it to Feedback.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    Kernel wrote:
    Don't feed the trolls here
    ...

    I just skipped through Bonkey's usual 5,000 word reply
    ...
    I get the impression that most of the mods on the site have no time for the subject

    Who's the troll here?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,388 ✭✭✭Kernel


    oscarBravo wrote:
    So take it to Feedback.

    I was banned from feedback quite a long time ago, but as I said, it wouldn't do any good because there is a general feeling that this forum is for the crazies, and it is not taken seriously by many mods. Disparaging comments ahoy! :)
    bonkey wrote:
    Who's the troll here?

    I've a feeling I will regret engaging with you bonkey, but anyway; you're the troll, since you are inexorably opposed to even the most plausible theory, and I don't recall you ever agreeing with any conspiracy theorist or conceding any points.... Am I wrong?? Are you even slightly interested in conspiracy theories, or is it sport for you to shout people down?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,701 ✭✭✭Diogenes


    Kernel wrote:



    I've a feeling I will regret engaging with you bonkey, but anyway; you're the troll, since you are inexorably opposed to even the most plausible theory,

    Frankly Bonkey's dealed with everything from no planes at the WTC, to Danny Jowenko, in a calm level headed and rational, and incredibly even handed manner.
    and I don't recall you ever agreeing with any conspiracy theorist or conceding any points.... Am I wrong??

    Can you give an example of a successful point from a conspiracy theorist, a plausible theory, that was well made, with solid evidence supporting it, that Bonkey either refused to consider, or refused to concede.
    Are you even slightly interested in conspiracy theories, or is it sport for you to shout people down?

    I think thats an unfair and disinegnious comment. Bonkey has never made a single point "shouting people down" or indeed acting in any form of abusive behaviour. In fact he's politely and rationally discussed issues with people who behave in the exact opposite to him. Indeed, you have started not one, not two, but three threads who's title accuses bonkey of being a paid liar, an incredibly offensive accusation, yet bonkey again engages you in a polite and rational debate in this matter.

    Frankly my opinion of the mods of this forum, they are far too leniant on the behaviour of the pro conspiracy side. You get to start three threads calling a respected forum member a paid liar, and no punative sanctions are encured. Jessop gets to call my behaviour sick, and doesnt get called on it, and in fact, when his actions are pointed out to Mods it's greeted with silence. Yet if I innocously bump a thread twice, asking a Mod for information he claimed he had, I get an unnotificed, indefinatify ban.

    Kernel you're annoyed that you need to discuss matters with people who will challenge and will robustly debate your claims. If you have a theory and it honest and plausible and accurate, it should stand up to rigorous debate, your bleating that you don't want criticism of your opinions suggests that your "theories" cannot stand up to basic criticism


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    I consider myself fairly cynical but not paranoid. So whether its the moon landings, 911, JFK's death, princess whatsherface's death... I like to think I’ll take a somewhat cynical view but open-minded to the facts as they are available. So through all the reading I've done I've found that the conspiracy theorists take a much more selected view of the facts than any other group. But at the end of the day wanting something to be true doesn't make it so. I've yet to hear a major conspiracy theory that actually stands up to proper scrutiny. If you want to discuss the issue then fine but if you want people to just agree with you I’d say boards.ie is the wrong place for it.

    I've watched those online films about 911, can't think of the names right now. Very well put together but extremely selective. They talk to 5 people who say it wasn't a plane that hit the Pentagon but don't bother with the 100 that saw one. They say the hole in the building was too small for a plane even though it came in with the speed of a missile to the newly reinforced section of the building so surprise surprise the wings just snapped off and went into the same hole. They say there wasn't any plane wreckage but when you look at all the footage available there's bits of plane all over the place. I mean there where marks from at least one wing along the grass.

    You can prove the moon landing is real in 30 seconds. Just look at the footage of the astronauts walking around on the moon surface. The dust they kick up falls straight back down. On earth air friction would cause it to settle slowly... end of story.

    I could go on.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,388 ✭✭✭Kernel


    Diogenes wrote:
    Frankly my opinion of the mods of this forum, they are far too leniant on the behaviour of the pro conspiracy side. You get to start three threads calling a respected forum member a paid liar, and no punative sanctions are encured.

    I made a double post of a thread due to a browser error, and it wouldn't allow me to delete, iirc I apologised for that and said the mods could delete the second thread. But 3 threads? One thread, that was a double post.
    Diogenes wrote:
    Kernel you're annoyed that you need to discuss matters with people who will challenge and will robustly debate your claims. If you have a theory and it honest and plausible and accurate, it should stand up to rigorous debate, your bleating that you don't want criticism of your opinions suggests that your "theories" cannot stand up to basic criticism

    With all due respect, you are making assumptions about me, and why I'm 'annoyed'. I know that some theories are bull****, but I believe there is way too much close mindedness coming from certain people here, who will always be on the opposing side of what this forum purports to discuss (it's your paradigm, but it opposes the paradigm of the conspiracy theorist).

    Again I say look at the paranormal/islam/paganism/etc. forums and you will understand that those forums cannot function properly if a flood of firmly entrenched skeptics question the very core of the forum. Why don't all the skeptics go onto Islam and debate the existence of Allah? Because it's not permitted, as it would merely kill the whole idea of the forum. Conspiracy theorists are interested in discussion of ideas, and exchange of facts not hostile debate and constantly attempting to persuade (inexorable) skeptics.

    I could understand such a debate arising from one conspiracy theory, or aspect of a theory, yet time and time again it's the old reliables out to debunk even those which are highly plausible (even probable) to any 'reasonable' unbiased person.

    The proof of my words is in the forum itself, you lads have killed it off, despite quite an amount of interest in it.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 88 ✭✭Flyingfish


    Kernel wrote:
    With all due respect, you are making assumptions about me, and why I'm 'annoyed'. I know that some theories are bull****, but I believe there is way too much close mindedness coming from certain people here, who will always be on the opposing side of what this forum purports to discuss (it's your paradigm, but it opposes the paradigm of the conspiracy theorist).

    Again I say look at the paranormal/islam/paganism/etc. forums and you will understand that those forums cannot function properly if a flood of firmly entrenched skeptics question the very core of the forum. Why don't all the skeptics go onto Islam and debate the existence of Allah? Because it's not permitted, as it would merely kill the whole idea of the forum. Conspiracy theorists are interested in discussion of ideas, and exchange of facts not hostile debate and constantly attempting to persuade (inexorable) skeptics.

    I could understand such a debate arising from one conspiracy theory, or aspect of a theory, yet time and time again it's the old reliables out to debunk even those which are highly plausible (even probable) to any 'reasonable' unbiased person.

    The proof of my words is in the forum itself, you lads have killed it off, despite quite an amount of interest in it.

    Well said! I must agree, it does seem a lot more like a forum for pointless argument rather than genuine discussion ;)


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,830 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Kernel wrote:
    Again I say look at the paranormal/islam/paganism/etc. forums and you will understand that those forums cannot function properly if a flood of firmly entrenched skeptics question the very core of the forum. Why don't all the skeptics go onto Islam and debate the existence of Allah? Because it's not permitted, as it would merely kill the whole idea of the forum.
    The "whole idea" of the religious forums is to provide a place where people who subscribe to a particular faith can discuss aspects of that faith. The religions in question are not presented as "theories", but as philosophies to which individuals have chosen to subscribe, and on which they are not inviting debate.

    A conspiracy theory, on the other hand, ought to live up to its name. If it's an actual theory in the scientific sense of the word - a hypothesis that seeks to explain events on the basis of people conspiring to make them happen - then it needs to present a falsifiable hypothesis and be prepared to defend it.

    If you're happy to think of conspiracy theories as religions, whose central tenets are beyond question and which don't permit debate on their core beliefs, then fair enough - but until I'm told differently I'll continue to perceive this forum as a place to discuss the plausibility or otherwise of theories.
    Kernel wrote:
    Conspiracy theorists are interested in discussion of ideas, and exchange of facts not hostile debate and constantly attempting to persuade (inexorable) skeptics.
    Scientists, on the other hand, are interested in discussing hypotheses to see if they stand up in the face of robust debate. You're disingenuously presenting skeptics here as people who refuse to be convinced of anything other than their own preconceived ideas; whereas in reality we're just waiting to be presented with theories that are sufficiently plausible as to survive questioning.
    Kernel wrote:
    I could understand such a debate arising from one conspiracy theory, or aspect of a theory, yet time and time again it's the old reliables out to debunk even those which are highly plausible (even probable) to any 'reasonable' unbiased person.
    Bull. Look at the last page or two of the 9/11 thread. I looked at the "frozen fireball" clip, and thought to myself: that's pretty bizarre. I wonder what's up with that? It's clear that bonkey also initially accepted the premise that the fireball was frozen in the clip (but asked an intelligently skeptical question as to why that appeared to be the case).

    So, I checked the premise. With a little bit of work, I was able to demonstrate that the apparently "frozen" fireball was actually animated, and what we were looking at was a simple optical illusion.

    Now, the "frozen fireball" hypothesis was plausible (even probable) to any 'reasonable' unbiased person. Being reasonable and unbiased, and finding it plausible looking (but implausible in concept), I investigated further and found the hypothesis failed under scrutiny.

    Are you honestly going to tell me that's not the kind of debate we want in this forum? Is anybody?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    Kernel wrote:
    yet time and time again it's the old reliables out to debunk even those which are highly plausible (even probable) to any 'reasonable' unbiased person.

    I guess this is a matter of perspective, and its where the root problem arises.

    Like OscarBravo, I take the notion of plausability and probability quite seriously and would maintain that while you argue something may be plausible or possible, that doesn't make it so from a strict perspective.

    As an example...there have been all-too-often appeals to common sense on this forum. Amusingly, there is almost not one single part of the computer you use to write your posts which works according to common sense. When science and common sense collide, its a rare, rare day when science walks away with bloodied nose.

    But seriously...if you think I'm being unreasonable, then lets try one small experiment. Post up what you believe to be the single most plausible and probable idea that people like me are being unreasonable in dismsising. Just one. I'm genuinely interested...I can't think of a single one that stands up to any sort of close scrutiny.

    Just one. And we'll discuss whether its plausible, whether its possible, and if it were true what the implications would be.
    The proof of my words is in the forum itself, you lads have killed it off, despite quite an amount of interest in it.

    I got involved in this forum, as I have clarified previously, because I wasn't willing to sit by and allow one particular perspective to go unchallenged when it was clearly wrong. The perspective at the time can generally be summed up as gushing praise for the Loose Change video which was being touted so strongly across multiple forums that I was even suspicious there was a marketing campaign behind it. (A conspiracy!)

    So I checked the video out and was appalled at the quality. I did some reading around, and was even more appalled.

    So, rather than sit back and give the supporters a free run, I decided to offer the other side of the story. I never once wanted those people stopped from promoting and praising what I saw to be a dishoenst, manipulative piece of rubbish....I simply wanted equal freedom of speech. I think people deserve to hear both sides of the story, not just one. The LC fans were aggressively promoting their "champion", recruiting followers to the cause. I felt it was only right ad proper that the counter-argument be heard.

    Now...don't get me wrong. I very much doubt that there's a single person here today who will honestly stand up and say that Loose Change is a good example of high quality 911 research. But the thing is that they did back then. In droves.

    But we have to ask ourselves...what has changed. Why was LC Second Edition touted loudly as such a revelation, whereas today its generally seen as being (at best) badly flawed??? Could it possibly be that people have stood up and shown the amount of dishonesty, inaccuracy, logical fallacy etc. in Loose Change and that some of it has been accepted?

    If not, then I'm open to another suggestion, but seriously...people were getting as irate then as you are now that people like me dared to suggest that Loose Change didn't stand up to close scrutiny. But the thing is that Loose Change doesn't stand up to close scrutiny.

    And so it continued.

    After LC, there was some other video. And another video, and another and another. Sooner or later, I stopped responding to video because the poster supplied a link to the video, with some "debunk this!" challenge, or some "this will open your eyes" stock commentary, and nothing else.

    Discussion? I'd have loved discussion. Instead, I got every excuse why I should watch the video rather than ask for the poster to discuss the content.

    If I did watch and comment on it, instead of a discussion following my comments, I typically got more outrage or dismissal because I dared to critically analyze it.

    And sooner or later, people stopped posting. My take is that its because they don't enjoy being asked to defend what they claim to believe in, that they don't enjoy being held to the very standard that they're insisting the so-called "official story" doesn't meet. They wanted to post tehir links, have others nod and say somethign positive, or to express a preference for something else, to which they too would supply a link to youTube for.

    Frankly, I'm disappointed that the forum has dried up. I would have hoped that people would have risen to the challenge of having the theories they claimed to support put to close scrutiny....that they would appreciate having the weaknesses shown to them so that they could improve them, see where they needed to do additional research, see where their arguments were weak or lacking.

    Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case. As I said...CT-supporters seem to think it would be preferable to have a forum where you're not allowed express an opinion unless you are willing to suspend some or all critical analysis...supposedly in the name of finding truth.

    Just bear one thing in mind...if thats what had happened, you'd probably still all be hailing Loose Change as a masterpiece of truth-finding.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,701 ✭✭✭Diogenes


    Kernel wrote:
    I made a double post of a thread due to a browser error, and it wouldn't allow me to delete, iirc I apologised for that and said the mods could delete the second thread. But 3 threads? One thread, that was a double post.

    You're right and I apologise. But the fact remains you made a post calling in the title, a user of this forum a paid liar, and the mods allowed it to run to two pages before locking it.

    With all due respect, you are making assumptions about me, and why I'm 'annoyed'.

    No I'm not, I'm inferring from your posts your opinion.

    You don't want people who disagree with conspiracy theories to post on this forum, correct? Or more accurately you have posters with a higher degree of skepticism to not post here. You want a degree of credibility, but heaven forfend you if you see some science, rationality or critical thinking on this forum.
    I know that some theories are bull****, but I believe there is way too much close mindedness coming from certain people here, who will always be on the opposing side of what this forum purports to discuss (it's your paradigm, but it opposes the paradigm of the conspiracy theorist).

    Generally I find all hope of rational debate is lost when I see the word "paradigm". Where is the closemindedness? You've specifically said that certain theories have been dismissed by certain posters without discussion, yet have failed to give an example, again.

    Hell I believe in conspiracies. Iran Contra? Yup. Watergate? Yup. The continunal cover up of intelligence failures in the run up to 911? Yes.

    I think what you want Kernel is a forum where the margin of credibility and plausibility is set just a little lower than some of the forum members who post here are satisified with. You'd be more happy with a forum that supposed "If a witch weighs as much a duck?"
    Again I say look at the paranormal/islam/paganism/etc. forums and you will understand that those forums cannot function properly if a flood of firmly entrenched skeptics question the very core of the forum. Why don't all the skeptics go onto Islam and debate the existence of Allah? Because it's not permitted, as it would merely kill the whole idea of the forum.

    Actually if you look at the Christianity forum theres an exceptional long thread debating evolution. I still subscribe to it, and I know bonkey still posts on it, and frankly it makes arguing with tunaman look postively rewarding. Is the christianity forum dying? No.

    So your assertion is false


    Conspiracy theorists are interested in discussion of ideas, and exchange of facts not hostile debate and constantly attempting to persuade (inexorable) skeptics.

    Facts I'll debate, and listen to. More often however Conspiracy theorists dislike having it pointed out, that what they call "facts" are more often supposition, conjecture, speculation, or just flat out wrong.
    I could understand such a debate arising from one conspiracy theory, or aspect of a theory, yet time and time again it's the old reliables out to debunk even those which are highly plausible (even probable) to any 'reasonable' unbiased person.


    Again I don't suppose you have an example of this lying around do you?
    The proof of my words is in the forum itself, you lads have killed it off, despite quite an amount of interest in it.

    Actually the interest in 911 conspiracy theories appears to be waning across the internet, theres a statisitic on webtraffic to most 911 conspiracy theory sites, I should dig it up.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,388 ✭✭✭Kernel


    Bonkey et Diogenes, let me give a short, simple answer to your posts. I have absolutely no desire to discuss any of my conspiracy interests here or with you two. The reason is simply that it is too hostile here and that you both have an agenda to debunk and as such will always remain in your firmly entrenched viewpoint - to debate with you would therefore be a waste of my time.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,370 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    Kernel wrote:
    The reason is simply that it is too hostile here and that you both have an agenda to debunk
    So you dont want to debate it rationally because you think there is a conspiracy on this forum? :rolleyes:
    And then you wonder why some people dismiss these theories out of hand?

    If your ideas are shifted from the norm then you have to put in some pretty hefty groundwork to convince people to even think about thinking about your ideas.
    Conspiracy theorists typically throw their hands up in the air uttering some "you are so blind/gullible" comment when someone chooses not to immediately change their opinion of the event.

    *Anyone* can come up with *any* theory about *anything*, but unless you have some sort of logical argument or facts to prove/support your theory then people are right and correct to question you.

    Questioning and testing theories is how we learn things.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    Kernel wrote:
    Bonkey et Diogenes, let me give a short, simple answer to your posts. I have absolutely no desire to discuss any of my conspiracy interests here or with you two. The reason is simply that it is too hostile here and that you both have an agenda to debunk and as such will always remain in your firmly entrenched viewpoint - to debate with you would therefore be a waste of my time.

    Fair enough, I can accept that, and see why this forum isn't the place for you, given that it explicitly says in the charter that its not "believers only".

    That you aren't willing take the time to present your most plausible scenario to conclusively prove your allegations, though, isn't a terribly flattering comment on its plausability. You're convinced, thats good enough for you, and you're perfectly entitled to believe that it should be enough for anyone else too.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,701 ✭✭✭Diogenes


    Kernel wrote:
    Bonkey et Diogenes, let me give a short, simple answer to your posts. I have absolutely no desire to discuss any of my conspiracy interests here or with you two. The reason is simply that it is too hostile here and that you both have an agenda to debunk and as such will always remain in your firmly entrenched viewpoint - to debate with you would therefore be a waste of my time.

    I prefer to see it as your unwilliness to rise to debate aganist anyone who robustly challenges your viewpoint. Which says much about how firmly you believe what you do, if you are unwillingly to go forth and discuss your beliefs with those who disagree with you.

    Take tunaman, like someone arguing for Intelligent Design in the Christianity forum, I sincerely doubt there is anything I can say or demostrate to tunaman, that would change his opinion of the events of 911. This is a man who started a poll asserting that it was his opinion that something other than flight 77 hit the pentagon, then after tens of pages of arguments announced that he did now in fact believe a plane it the pentagon, but the gubiment did it. I dont think theres any way to sway tunaman, but I will continue to debate with him. Why? Because I'm not interested in tunaman, I'm interested in the people who read tunaman's posts, and I feel for those people, the lies, distortions, and inaccuracies need to be pointed out.

    Kernel you've posted several threads and commented on one more, calling bonkey a paid liar, and getting outraged about the moderation of the forum. If you don't like it. Leave.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 414 ✭✭jessop1


    Kernel wrote:
    ... there is way too much close mindedness coming from certain people here, who will always be on the opposing side of what this forum purports to discuss (it's your paradigm, but it opposes the paradigm of the conspiracy theorist).

    Again I say look at the paranormal/islam/paganism/etc. forums and you will understand that those forums cannot function properly if a flood of firmly entrenched skeptics question the very core of the forum. Why don't all the skeptics go onto Islam and debate the existence of Allah? Because it's not permitted, as it would merely kill the whole idea of the forum. Conspiracy theorists are interested in discussion of ideas, and exchange of facts not hostile debate and constantly attempting to persuade (inexorable) skeptics.

    I could understand such a debate arising from one conspiracy theory, or aspect of a theory, yet time and time again it's the old reliables out to debunk even those which are highly plausible (even probable) to any 'reasonable' unbiased person.

    The proof of my words is in the forum itself, you lads have killed it off, despite quite an amount of interest in it.

    Good point. This is the giveaway that the motives of the 'debunkers' is to kill any kind of open minded debate.

    What this forum needs is an 'ignore' button, that way open minded folks could discuss possibilties without having to suffer the rantings and ridicule of "you know who".


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,388 ✭✭✭Kernel


    bonkey wrote:
    That you aren't willing take the time to present your most plausible scenario to conclusively prove your allegations, though, isn't a terribly flattering comment on its plausability. You're convinced, thats good enough for you, and you're perfectly entitled to believe that it should be enough for anyone else too.

    No need to be condescending or try to gain some kind of 'moral victory' over my decision not to post here. The fact that I and others interested in this field do no feel welcome to post is fatally detrimental to the forum. That is the sole reason I no longer want to post here - it's not conducive to DISCUSSION of conspiracy theories at all.

    As for what you or anyone else believe, that is of no interest to me, except in the context that you aggressively destroy a forum which could have been interesting and fun. For the record: I'm not a simpleton as you imply, and I *do not* believe that if I am convinced of something then everyone else should also be.... I have no interest (or time) in debating my 'most plausible' theories here, since all I get is frustration and your stubborness to remain fixed squarely in the dogma of skepticism (actually, neocon would seem more suitable than skepticism), peppered with occasional ridicule and snide implications.
    Diogenes wrote:
    I prefer to see it as your unwilliness to rise to debate aganist anyone who robustly challenges your viewpoint. Which says much about how firmly you believe what you do, if you are unwillingly to go forth and discuss your beliefs with those who disagree with you.

    You see it anyway you choose to Diogenes, after all; your blinkered view on world events clearly demonstrates your tendency to do this anyway. There's a difference between robust debate and your aggressive tactics to defend your Fox News-fed worldview.

    You're a great man for making assumptions anyhow, as you have again demonstrated. The age old debating tactic of putting unspoken words in someone elses mouth. Your insinuation that I do not firmly believe my own conspiracy beliefs is laughable to say the least. You lack the sublety of Bonkey, although he gives me the intellectual credit of a gnat, or at least attempts to portray me unfairly in that light with his above quote. He did it in an almost imperceptable way, perhaps you can get such skills after some more thousand posts.
    Diogenes wrote:
    Kernel you've posted several threads and commented on one more, calling bonkey a paid liar, and getting outraged about the moderation of the forum. If you don't like it. Leave.

    Err.. I have left. Left debating with those who portray themselves as being so close minded that it would simply be a waste of my time to attempt (barring this little exchange of course). Again, I note you have mentioned that I called bonkey a 'paid liar' (actually I raised the point that he acted like a 'disinformation agent', due to his obvious disdain and lengthy posts rebuking all things vaguely conspiracy), you're throwing that mud in an attempt to destroy my credibility and paint me as being one who is detrimental to this forum, when in fact it was quite the opposite.

    Anyway, fair play, you've dragged me into another long and tedious debate with you, in which never the twain shall meet.

    I'm going to leave it at this, I might take something to feedback, but I don't know if I would get any support as I'm one of the tin-foil hat wearing loonies after all... Either way, Bonkey and your chum Diogenes, feel free to take the last word... as you alllllwayyys... allllwayyys seem to do. ;)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    Kernel wrote:
    No need to be condescending or try to gain some kind of 'moral victory' over my decision not to post here.

    I'm not. I'm taking your and jessop1's approach of presuming to know what the motives of other posters are, and to declare them openly.

    Apparently, when you do it regarding me and others, you find it perfectly in order. I wanted to see what your response was when I returned the favour.

    Let's just say I'm undurprised to find that you don't see it as equally acceptable when the tables are turned and your own tactics are applied to yourself


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,701 ✭✭✭Diogenes


    Kernel wrote:
    You see it anyway you choose to Diogenes, after all; your blinkered view on world events clearly demonstrates your tendency to do this anyway. There's a difference between robust debate and your aggressive tactics to defend your Fox News-fed worldview.

    Y'know it's funny you're ranting about how I "shouldn't make assumptions" yet here you are talking to me presuming I'm led by "Fox News".

    You don't know a thing about me, what I do, what my political philosophy is, you just presume because I have the temerity to question what you say, I am some right wing zombie.

    If you position is so robust and strong, you shouldn't be reduced to insults and name calling.
    You're a great man for making assumptions anyhow, as you have again demonstrated. The age old debating tactic of putting unspoken words in someone elses mouth.

    And what are you doing in the above?
    Your insinuation that I do not firmly believe my own conspiracy beliefs is laughable to say the least.

    Well you've come here, and repeataly demanded that the people who vigirously challenge conspiracy theories, go away, so you can discuss this, with a, ahem, less rigorous, burden of proof. So I stand by my assertion. Oh and it's not an insinuation, I flat out said it. You use of language to try and make this seem all the more sinister is rather obvious.
    You lack the sublety of Bonkey, although he gives me the intellectual credit of a gnat,

    You're making another assertion here, and putting words into someone's mouth, my my my sauce for the goose though eh Kernel?

    I've never seen Bonkey insult someones intelligence, or be anything but astonishingly polite as you fling insults and accusations at him.
    or at least attempts to portray me unfairly in that light with his above quote. He did it in an almost imperceptable way, perhaps you can get such skills after some more thousand posts.

    I find his quote to be an accurate description of your behaviour.

    Err.. I have left. Left debating with those who portray themselves as being so close minded that it would simply be a waste of my time to attempt (barring this little exchange of course). Again, I note you have mentioned that I called bonkey a 'paid liar' (actually I raised the point that he acted like a 'disinformation agent', due to his obvious disdain and lengthy posts rebuking all things vaguely conspiracy), you're throwing that mud in an attempt to destroy my credibility and paint me as being one who is detrimental to this forum, when in fact it was quite the opposite.

    I imagine if Bonkey was a disinfo agent he would be paid a salary to spread his lies, so I find you're "I have been wronged" dance a little dishonest. If anyone's destroying your credibility its you yourself, making asinine accusations that some posters are disinfo agensts, and demanding that "the mean kids go away and let us have fun with our ball".

    I cannot see how someone who is prepared to politely and rationaly discuss issues raised in this forum is detreimental to the form. I can see how someone who posts threads accusing other users of being "paid liars" without a shred of supporting evidence, to be detremental to any forum.
    Anyway, fair play, you've dragged me into another long and tedious debate with you, in which never the twain shall meet.

    I'm going to leave it at this, I might take something to feedback, but I don't know if I would get any support as I'm one of the tin-foil hat wearing loonies after all... Either way, Bonkey and your chum Diogenes, feel free to take the last word... as you alllllwayyys... allllwayyys seem to do. ;)

    I somehow doubt this is the last we've heard out of you on this matter.
    jessop1 wrote:
    What this forum needs is an 'ignore' button, that way open minded folks could discuss possibilties without having to suffer the rantings and ridicule of "you know who".

    There is an "ignore user" button, you can choose not to read another users posts. However they can still read yours.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,388 ✭✭✭Kernel


    Diogenes wrote:
    Y'know it's funny you're ranting about how I "shouldn't make assumptions" yet here you are talking to me presuming I'm led by "Fox News".

    I'm not ranting. Why do you say that I am ranting when I have remained calm and level headed? Another example of your use of language to attempt to portray me in a certain (unfavourable) light to other readers.
    Diogenes wrote:
    If you position is so robust and strong, you shouldn't be reduced to insults and name calling.

    I am not reduced to this, I'm not insulting anyone, or name-calling in a derogatory way. I'll always call a spade a spade however. If you're insulted by your own behaviour then I humbly suggest altering it?
    Diogenes wrote:
    Well you've come here, and repeataly demanded that the people who vigirously challenge conspiracy theories, go away, so you can discuss this, with a, ahem, less rigorous, burden of proof.

    No, I've demanded nothing (language thing again you see..). I've suggested that you and Bonkey are in no way open-minded about any issues discussed here, and aggressively attack, mock and discredit those who are genuinely interested in conspiracy theories. I have no problem debating with another person who is open to being convinced - ye ain't. Again, the word inexorable comes to mind with you two, so there's no point in wasting my time and breath arguing.
    Diogenes wrote:
    So I stand by my assertion. Oh and it's not an insinuation, I flat out said it. You use of language to try and make this seem all the more sinister is rather obvious.

    Well, your assertation is completely false so. There, I've said it. :rolleyes:
    Diogenes wrote:
    You're making another assertion here, and putting words into someone's mouth, my my my sauce for the goose though eh Kernel?

    Incorrect. Bonkey put words in my mouth by presuming that I hold the belief that if I believe something is true, everybody else should too. This is total nonsense, and anyone who thinks like this (as he deduced I did) would imo have the intellectual capacity of a gnat. Hence, my assertation is true. Bonkey tried to insinuate that I believed this in an attempt to discredit me.
    Diogenes wrote:
    I've never seen Bonkey insult someones intelligence, or be anything but astonishingly polite as you fling insults and accusations at him.

    What insults?
    Diogenes wrote:
    I imagine if Bonkey was a disinfo agent he would be paid a salary to spread his lies, so I find you're "I have been wronged" dance a little dishonest.

    If he was yes, but if someone has a clear agenda to disprove and spread disinformation and misinformation, they may not be intelligence agents. Many people do this intentionally or subconsciously - and they aren't 'paid liers'.
    Diogenes wrote:
    If anyone's destroying your credibility its you yourself, making asinine accusations that some posters are disinfo agensts, and demanding that "the mean kids go away and let us have fun with our ball".

    I don't think I'm destroying my credibility - indeed several people have pmed and posted here supporting and agreeing with me. You might be surprised. Again, trying to paint me, in this forum, as a tantrum throwing child is another attempt at yours to discredit me.
    Diogenes wrote:
    I cannot see how someone who is prepared to politely and rationaly discuss issues raised in this forum is detreimental to the form.

    Politely and rationally eh? Come on Diogenes, you're really making me laugh now. If you went through all the threads and posts ever in conspiracy I'm sure you'd see some irrational thought and plenty of mockery and disdain for other posters views. I'll compile a list when I have time perhaps.
    Diogenes wrote:
    I can see how someone who posts threads accusing other users of being "paid liars" without a shred of supporting evidence, to be detremental to any forum.

    Paid liars? In quotes to insinuate to others that I've actually said that eh? tut. I've never called anyone a paid liar. Sure, I've suggested that there may be disinformation agendas going on. And my evidence is the very words, posts and views expressed in this forum.
    Diogenes wrote:
    I somehow doubt this is the last we've heard out of you on this matter.

    Perhaps not, I thought when you shouted down the regular posters that I would just stay away, but I cant help feeling sorry for those new posters who wander in and get lambasted by people with zero interest in the topic - save for a good argument and a feeling of smug superiority from condescending another. I don't think it's fair, and I don't think it's a good turn that this forum took.

    Needless, this is my last word on the matter for now.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    Kernel wrote:
    Bonkey put words in my mouth by presuming that I hold the belief that if I believe something is true, everybody else should too. This is total nonsense, and anyone who thinks like this (as he deduced I did) would imo have the intellectual capacity of a gnat. Hence, my assertation is true. Bonkey tried to insinuate that I believed this in an attempt to discredit me.

    You are, of course, perfectly correct. That is excactly what I did.

    (Edit to Add)
    Except the bit about the intellectual capacity of a gnat. That's your own opinion of such things, as you point out. I never suggested any such thing, nor would I.
    (Edit End)

    As I've already explained, I did so to see what your reaction would be when you were the subject of such treatment, rather than the person dishing it out.

    Your continued outrage at the injustice of being treated this way only serves to make my point for me.


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,830 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Kernel wrote:
    I have no problem debating with another person who is open to being convinced - ye ain't. Again, the word inexorable comes to mind with you two, so there's no point in wasting my time and breath arguing.
    I beg to differ. If you can make a logical case for an argument, supported by evidence, you'll find us (although I'm not sure whether to be pleased or bothered by the fact that I haven't earned a place in your diatribes) entirely open to accepting it.

    It's interesting to note that, with the exception of Flyingfish, none of the self-styled "truth seekers" bothered to comment on my refutation of the "frozen fireball" theory, which leads me to question their definition of "truth".


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,701 ✭✭✭Diogenes


    Kernel wrote:
    I'm not ranting. Why do you say that I am ranting when I have remained calm and level headed? Another example of your use of language to attempt to portray me in a certain (unfavourable) light to other readers.

    Semantic quibbling. This seems to be what you are reduced to. I see your repeated attempts to ask posters to refrain from posting as this forum as a rant. You disagree, rather than discuss the issue as to why you feel posters should not be allowed post here, you run away from the substance of the debate, and argue my language.
    I am not reduced to this, I'm not insulting anyone, or name-calling in a derogatory way. I'll always call a spade a spade however. If you're insulted by your own behaviour then I humbly suggest altering it?

    Again more semantics. You called Bonkey a Disinfo Agent, and I likened that to the term "paid liar". Speaking of "calling a spade a spade" do you have any credible evidence to support your claim that he his a "disinfo agent". Or are you just assuming? It seems to me that you're looking in a tool shed and seeing a wooden handle and presuming its a spade.

    No, I've demanded nothing (language thing again you see..).

    Repeatadly made the same request time after time it becomes a demand.
    I've suggested that you and Bonkey are in no way open-minded about any issues discussed here, and aggressively attack, mock and discredit those who are genuinely interested in conspiracy theories. I have no problem debating with another person who is open to being convinced - ye ain't. Again, the word inexorable comes to mind with you two, so there's no point in wasting my time and breath arguing.

    Give me solid credible evidence and I will be convinced.
    Well, your assertation is completely false so. There, I've said it. :rolleyes:

    Well then prove me wrong. Theres threads here on 911, 7/7, UFOs, and JFK, jump back in with two feet and discuss the issues. If you have solid credible rational evidence and facts you'll be heard in an open minded way.
    Incorrect. Bonkey put words in my mouth by presuming that I hold the belief that if I believe something is true, everybody else should too. This is total nonsense, and anyone who thinks like this (as he deduced I did) would imo have the intellectual capacity of a gnat. Hence, my assertation is true. Bonkey tried to insinuate that I believed this in an attempt to discredit me.

    No it's not. You put words in his mouth, and presumed to tell us what he thinks of you. Reprenhensible behaviour when you claim I do it you. But utterly acceptable when you do it.

    What insults?

    You called several people Disinfo Agents, people spreading false or misleading information.
    If he was yes, but if someone has a clear agenda to disprove and spread disinformation and misinformation, they may not be intelligence agents. Many people do this intentionally or subconsciously - and they aren't 'paid liers'.

    Then why call them "agents' Kernel? If they are not operatives of some organisations? Why did you use the word "agent"?

    I don't think I'm destroying my credibility - indeed several people have pmed and posted here supporting and agreeing with me. You might be surprised. Again, trying to paint me, in this forum, as a tantrum throwing child is another attempt at yours to discredit me.

    No it's not. Sorry but it's as if, I walked into politics and announced that this forum would be infinitely better if everyone who supports a Unitied Ireland leave. Or Soccer and asked for all Liverpool fans to stop posting.

    You've not posted anything substantial asides from whinges about other posters in this forum for months now.
    Politely and rationally eh? Come on Diogenes, you're really making me laugh now. If you went through all the threads and posts ever in conspiracy I'm sure you'd see some irrational thought and plenty of mockery and disdain for other posters views. I'll compile a list when I have time perhaps.

    Please do, it'd be nice to see you read some of the posts on this forum. And by the way Kernel, when you're building this list, please draw from Bonkey's posts only Because I was refering to Bonkey's behaviour explicitly.

    Paid liars? In quotes to insinuate to others that I've actually said that eh?

    No if you'd said "paid liars" I'd have actually used the quote function to show where you said it. I infer that you think Bonkey and et all, are paid liars, because you called us "disinfo agents", which to me suggests "one who is a worker for an organisation that spreads false information"

    Apparently you've a flexible definition of the word agents.

    tut. I've never called anyone a paid liar. Sure, I've suggested that there may be disinformation agendas going on.

    No you've actually come out and said is this person a disinfo agent.
    And my evidence is the very words, posts and views expressed in this forum.

    Well then I'm sure it won't be too difficult to come up with some of the false, or inaccurate comments that have been posted here.
    Perhaps not, I thought when you shouted down the regular posters that I would just stay away, but I cant help feeling sorry for those new posters who wander in and get lambasted by people with zero interest in the topic - save for a good argument and a feeling of smug superiority from condescending another. I don't think it's fair, and I don't think it's a good turn that this forum took.

    Just again on the use of language that you perniciously accuse me of abusing. Could you give me an example of when a new poster who was "lambasted" or treated in a "condescending" manner, or indeed "shouted down"? Kernel you seem to exist in a world of a double standard, flinging around accusations that I abuse language to twist your position, while at the same time, merrily doing the same to me.
    Needless, this is my last word on the matter for now.

    Again. I wait with baited breath.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,701 ✭✭✭Diogenes


    I'll drop the whole "disinfo agents" business, I've looked at the thread in question, and the thread title is formed in the manner of question, and in the actual thread you do say;
    Kernel wrote:
    I therefore ask, are the likes of Bonkey and Diogenes et al misinformation agents or are they simply those people who have a psychological make up to be contrary and argue with others?

    You're asking a question, not making an accusation.

    Never let it be said I will stand and dogmatically refuse to admit I get it wrong occasionally.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 463 ✭✭tunaman


    Diogenes wrote:
    Take tunaman, like someone arguing for Intelligent Design in the Christianity forum, I sincerely doubt there is anything I can say or demostrate to tunaman, that would change his opinion of the events of 911.

    I like the way you try to twist things round, as it is you who are a believer not me. You have no evidence to back up your beliefs, instead only what you are told by highly paid experts.
    This is a man who started a poll asserting that it was his opinion that something other than flight 77 hit the pentagon

    Wrong again, which is not unpredictable as you have a habit of jumping to conclusions. If you take a closer look you will find that the thread has been merged and somebody else created that poll, but don't let the facts get in the way of your appeal.
    then after tens of pages of arguments announced that he did now in fact believe a plane it the pentagon, but the gubiment did it.

    More evidence of facts being ignored...

    I never said anything other than a plane hit the pentagon, but that doesn't seem to matter to you, so carry on with your appeal, based on lies?
    I dont think theres any way to sway tunaman, but I will continue to debate with him. Why? Because I'm not interested in tunaman, I'm interested in the people who read tunaman's posts, and I feel for those people, the lies, distortions, and inaccuracies need to be pointed out.

    Indeed they do, my advice is for you to stop trying to point the finger at me and take a look in the mirror...


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,830 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    tunaman wrote:
    I never said anything other than a plane hit the pentagon...
    You did, however, say that you didn't think it was Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon, but you've never explained what did, or where the plane, passengers and crew are now.


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,830 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    By the way, tunaman: is there a particular reason you pop up every couple of months, fire off a couple of posts and disappear again? It makes it very hard to have a coherent discussion (not that I think you're interested in having one, but that's another story).


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 463 ✭✭tunaman


    oscarBravo wrote:
    You did, however, say that you didn't think it was Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon, but you've never explained what did, or where the plane, passengers and crew are now.

    This is exactly what I was talking about in the other thread, as it's just like groundhog day with you...

    I was wrongfully accused months ago of saying that something other than a plane hit the pentagon before, which was a lie or mistake I suppose...

    You then got involved to say that I didn't think it was flight 77, which may have been true, but this was not what I was being accused of, therefore your posts are irrelevant...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    tunaman wrote:
    T
    You then got involved to say that I didn't think it was flight 77, which may have been true,

    Its not something that may have been true. It is true. You clearly stated that you didn't believe that flight 77 was what hit the Pentagon.
    but this was not what I was being accused of, therefore your posts are irrelevant...

    I would have said that OB was pointing out where teh misunderstanding came from. Given that its a long time ago in a long and convoluted thread with no real search facility, I would see his posts as a clarification where the misunderstanding probably arose from, rather than being irrelevant.

    I had to smile, though, having just read Diogenes response to your post over on the JFK thread where you make a point about eye witnesses saying what happened to JFK in opposition to the physical evidence. I smiled because here you have reminded me that when it comes to flight 77, the existence of vast numbers of eye witnesses who say that a commercial airliner hit the Pentagon (with only one or two exceptions, and a handful more who can be quoted out of context to change the apparent meaning of what they said) is not sufficient grounds for you to accept that a commercial airliner did, in fact, hit the Pentagon.

    Can you explain why this inconsistency? Why eyewitnesses are more important than physical evidence in one conspiracy, but in another they take a back seat to a reinterpretation of the physical evidence?

    Is it, perhaps, a technique of debunking official, researched accounts of events?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement