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

News reports that were quickly dropped, never to be heard again.

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Put yourself in his position, he put a lot of time and effort into a very interesting OP for the sake of discussion and he gets this response.

    Wouldn't you be frustrated? This is after all supposed to be a CT forum.
    And by putting time and effort in, you mean stuff other than checking to be sure that the articles you're posting don't directly refute the theory you're putting forward?


  • Options
    #33
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    meglome wrote: »
    Sorry you feel that way. I'm just trying to get to whether he wants people to agree with him or discuss.

    That's strange because you never attempted to ascertain either just lectured on how you are wiser than the OP and other users of the forum.


    meglome wrote: »
    He copied and pasted, and gave no opinion.

    I've seen no indication of that,

    meglome wrote: »
    It is a CT forum but doesn't mean that these mass CT's are plausible or factual.

    No it doesn't ( nor should they have to be in a CT forum) but who made you the final authority on deciding?

    What it does should mean is that people should be able to make posts without their points being referred to as "bullshyt", or others (you) lecturing to them, especially new users. As I said, only in the conspiracy theory debunker forum.

    Do you agree with the bolded part?


    meglome wrote: »
    I asked you a number of times to explain how that documentary is biased, which you have failed to do. You certainly say it is so maybe you can explain. Assume I'm stupid.

    If I have to explain to you in light of the information that is freely available to be "sceptically" analysed there is no hope.


  • Options
    #34
    meglome
    Registered Users Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    That's strange because you never attempted to ascertain either just lectured on how you are wiser than the OP and other users of the forum.

    Didn't we have this discussion before. I've never even thought that I was wiser than other users. But that doesn't bar me from making a helpful (or wise) suggestion.
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    I've seen no indication of that,

    That post and the most of the rest of his posts don't look like copy paste? They can still be relevant and interesting but they do look like copy paste.
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    No it doesn't ( nor should they have to be in a CT forum) but who made you the final authority on deciding?

    I don't seem to recall being a mod nor stating I had authority.
    If you posted any of these things in the Politics forum you'd have to prove it or it would be deleted. You can post here without proof but that doesn't stop anyone pointing out the obvious flaws.
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    What it does should mean is that people should be able to make posts without their points being referred to as "bullshyt", or others (you) lecturing to them, especially new users. As I said, only in the conspiracy theory debunker forum.

    I can't understand why people think if you state something as fact and it clearly isn't that no one should mention this. At a cursory glance many of the things posted here can be shown to be false, i can understand that people might get frustrated that people just don't bother to check.
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Do you agree with the bolded part?

    I do. Though this doesn't also mean the post wasn't bullshít.
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    If I have to explain to you in light of the information that is freely available to be "sceptically" analysed there is no hope.

    The documentary was made before the UN report came out. Now either you can explain to me (the idiot) what is biased about it or it's not biased. I'll leave it up to you.


  • Options
    #35
    Awake1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 28 ✭Awake1


    Gawd, what is wrong with you ?


  • Options
    #36
    Duiske
    Registered Users Posts: 3,087 ✭✭✭Duiske


    meglome wrote: »
    I can't understand why people think if you state something as fact and it clearly isn't that no one should mention this. At a cursory glance many of the things posted here can be shown to be false, i can understand that people might get frustrated that people just don't bother to check.

    Mentioning that something is not factual and stating why you think its not factual is fine, and leads on to debate about whatever is being discussed. It actually makes for interesting reading.

    On the other hand, when a persons first sentence in a thread calls the opening post, or parts of it, "Bull****" then it just gets peoples backs up. At least people had the good sense not to respond to that particular post.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Jeboa Safari
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,202 ✭✭✭Jeboa Safari


    meglome wrote: »
    That post and the most of the rest of his posts don't look like copy paste? They can still be relevant and interesting but they do look like copy paste.

    It is a copy paste, this was on abovetopsecret a few days before it, I think its still on the front page there.
    Same for the rest of his posts, copy paste, not a big effort like Brown Bomber thinks. And for someone who looks so hard for the truth Brown Bomber, you don't seem to scrutinize things too hard if you didn't even spot something like that. How come you don't complain about his posts where he calls people here a 'miserable bunch of sorry ****ers', or his patronizing post towards bleg, instead of accusing meglome of being patronizing for responding to the op?


    He looks like a troll to me, one thats been here before.

    OK, So the LCROSS Story fizled out, much like teh mission itself, how about we keep movin on down the list, see how many more of them you can find later references to
    It was back on the front page of the BBC today, and will probably be in the papers tomorrow :)


  • Options
    #38
    meglome
    Registered Users Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    Duiske wrote: »
    Mentioning that something is not factual and stating why you think its not factual is fine, and leads on to debate about whatever is being discussed. It actually makes for interesting reading.

    On the other hand, when a persons first sentence in a thread calls the opening post, or parts of it, "Bull****" then it just gets peoples backs up. At least people had the good sense not to respond to that particular post.

    I agree. However there are people on both sides of any debate in here who will have an attitude. I usually either ignore it or I report it. Crying into my milk just seems pointless.


  • Options
    #39
    meglome
    Registered Users Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    Awake1 wrote: »
    Gawd, what is wrong with you ?

    Me?


  • Options
    #40
    The Highwayman
    Registered Users Posts: 1,227 ✭✭✭The Highwayman


    Any chance of getting back on topic? FFS


Advertisement