"Truthers", 9/11 and Operation Northwoods

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by JU_88

You mean every time someone posts, it prompts another response?, isn't that purpose of a discussion board
If we all just ignored threads/post that we didnt agree with, GT would be pretty boring wouldnt it? Just sayin'.

This assumes that the content is a discussion worth having. Not all art is valid, and neither are all opinions. Just sayin'.

[JU_88]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

This assumes that the content is a discussion worth having. Not all art is valid, and neither are all opinions. Just sayin'.

Isnt that just an opinion too though? How can one person determine which opinions are valid or which threads are worth discussing in GT? What if that one person is wrong?

With all due respect, If there is an 8 page thread on page 1 of GT, it means at least two people are having a discussion. If we personally think the content of a thread is invalid/irrelivant/pointless/, (Assuming it isnt breaking any rules) Isnt it best we just choose to ignore it and let it die of natural causes - rather than actively discouraging people from posting in it? (while ironically bumping it back up)

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by JU_88

Isnt that just an opinion too though? How can one person determine which opinions are valid or which threads are worth discussing in GT? What if that one person is wrong?

With all due respect, If there is an 8 page thread on page 1 of GT, it means at least two people are having a discussion. If we personally think the content of a thread is invalid/irrelivant/pointless/, (Assuming it isnt breaking any rules) Isnt it best we just choose to ignore it and let it die of natural causes - rather than actively discouraging people from posting in it? (while ironically bumping it back up)

If speaking as moderator, I would have included the subtext 'The Management'. Since I am not speaking as moderator, I would reply that blue is not red and up is not down. As such, I would reiterate that not all opinions are valid. Irony is not a player in the game.

[JU_88]

.......
Ooo-kay, I'll bear that in mind.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by JU_88

.......
Ooo-kay, I'll bear that in mind.

I only with that everyone would do so. It would save a lot time tooth gnashing and grief.

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

up is not down

But leaves fly south for the winter. Just look at a map - South is down. Thus someone standing at the south pole would have to look "down" (toward the north) to see their feet. Thus - they would be looking "up" toward the North Pole.

So in the right circumstances - can't up be down?

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

But leaves fly south for the winter. Just look at a map - South is down. Thus someone standing at the south pole would have to look "down" (toward the north) to see their feet. Thus - they would be looking "up" toward the North Pole.

So in the right circumstances - can't up be down?

I've been looking at this statement for awhile and can only come to the natural conclusion that Dick Lugar and Russ Feingold conspired together with the Reptilians to bring down the World Trade Center in an effort to clear space in Manhattan for a new Wegman's Supermarket. Now I both am scared and at the same time filled with a strange desire to check out the produce isle.

[Sailor Steve]

I'm starting to get worried; not because of the context of the last several posts but because they make perfect sense to me.

[JU_88]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

But leaves fly south for the winter. Just look at a map - South is down. Thus someone standing at the south pole would have to look "down" (toward the north) to see their feet. Thus - they would be looking "up" toward the North Pole.

So in the right circumstances - can't up be down?

In a nut shell, Takeda is saying that if our opinions contradict what he considers to be widely accepted fact, then he would prefer that we dont post them here.
That would be fine if all widely accepted facts were established though a simple a means of 'is it black or white' (as per his example) but not all of them are.
In the case of 9/11, (according to polls) about 60% agree its black, about 20% suggest its some shade of off-white or another -and about another 20% think it still looks pretty grey.
So I guess he is going for a 'majority rule' here.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by JU_88

In a nut shell, Takeda is saying that if our opinions contradict what he considers to be widely accepted fact, then he would prefer that we dont post them here.
That would be fine if all widely accepted facts were established though a simple a means of 'is it black or white' (as per his example) but not all of them are.
In the case of 9/11, (according to polls) about 60% agree its black, about 20% suggest its some shade of off-white or another -and about another 20% think it still looks pretty grey.
So I guess he is going for a 'majority rule' here.

You know what's in his mind? It looked to me like he was joking. You put a horse laugh at the end, but it also looks to me that you're trying to use humor to disguise a certain bitterness. There is no need to be insulting, even when couching it in supposed humor.

[JU_88]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

You know what's in his mind? It looked to me like he was joking. You put a horse laugh at the end, but it also looks to me that you're trying to use humor to disguise a certain bitterness. There is no need to be insulting, even when couching it in supposed humor.

A) No, I can only try to interpret it by what he says. But ok fine, I will go with "What Tak 'seems' to be saying is" -instead, that still works for me.

B) Im confused, is he is allowed to joke and I'm not, or rather - how come you detected and chastised me for the underlying feeling of distain behind my joke, but not his? Was it the fact that he didnt use a laughing smiley or....?

C) If you are going to 'unmask' every poster that uses a smiley to aid sarcasm or to disguise another feeling - and flag it as 'insulting', you are going to be a very busy man indeed, as virtually everyone does it to some degree.

Forgive me for saying this, but your points do seem rather selective, Steve.

[August]

Originally Posted by JU_88

In a nut shell, Takeda is saying that if our opinions contradict what he considers to be widely accepted fact, then he would prefer that we dont post them here.
That would be fine if all widely accepted facts were established though a simple a means of 'is it black or white' (as per his example) but not all of them are.
In the case of 9/11, (according to polls) about 60% agree its black, about 20% suggest its some shade of off-white or another -and about another 20% think it still looks pretty grey.
So I guess he is going for a 'majority rule' here.

My guess it'd be closer to 95% / .5% / 1.5%

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by JU_88

B) Im confused, is he is allowed to joke and I'm not, or rather - how come you detected and chastised me for the underlying feeling of distain behind my joke, but not his? Was it the fact that he didnt use a laughing smiley or....?

I try to keep people from directly attacking each other. I thought his comments were generic, but yours were aimed directly at him.

C) If you are going to 'unmask' every poster that uses a smiley to aid sarcasm or to disguise another feeling - and flag it as 'insulting', you are going to be a very busy man indeed, as virtually everyone does it to some degree.

I see a difference between joking with someone and attacking them. "I disagree with so-and-so and think he's wrong" is debate. "So-and-so is just trying to limit free speech" is not exactly an attack, but it is an accusation that requires either proof or the qualification "in my opinion". That's the difference I see.

Forgive me for saying this, but your points do seem rather selective, Steve.

Of course that's possible. I screw up all the time. I try to be fair in my observations. I just like honest debate, and there's so little of that anywhere. Just one place would be nice.

[JU_88]

Originally Posted by August

My guess it'd be closer to 95% / .5% / 1.5%

Well possibly,
I was basing my approximation on these polls (whos accuracy is entirely debatable of course.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion...iracy_theories
Yes I know its a WIKIPEDIA link and not everything on wiki is automatically Right, (nor is it automatically wrong.)
And I also know polls are just an approximation at best. Ive not found an alternative, but if you have feel free to link.
I still think the poll is kinda intresting though, especially the number of middle easterners who seem think it was Isreal - in their oh so fair and balanced opinion (insert sarcasm).
But yes, in essance 'your guess' is as good as anybodys really.

[JU_88]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I try to keep people from directly attacking each other. I thought his comments were generic, but yours were aimed directly at him.


I see a difference between joking with someone and attacking them. "I disagree with so-and-so and think he's wrong" is debate. "So-and-so is just trying to limit free speech" is not exactly an attack, but it is an accusation that requires either proof or the qualification "in my opinion". That's the difference I see.


Of course that's possible. I screw up all the time. I try to be fair in my observations. I just like honest debate, and there's so little of that anywhere. Just one place would be nice.

Fair play Steve, Im not going to argue with any of that, I have nothing personal against you or Takeda or anybody here.
I felt that what Takeda started as a 'semi-joke' ended up sounding slightly tyranical by the end of it.
But hey, I screw up too and im sorry if I caused you, him or anyone else any offence.