|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
 Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 9:31 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Bulsajo wrote: |
Eagle: unless IGTG has gone and *beep* ed up the search function by changing the title of the thread yet again, you can find all this stuff by searching for the thread with "Charlie Sheen" in the title in the Current Events forum, with IGTG as the author.
And when you do, you'll see that IGTG is hoping that his hypocrisy in that thread will be forgotten.
To summarize, we laughed when he started using Charlie Sheen as a source and started ridiculing him (as usual) and making Charlie Sheen jokes.
He got all indignant and told us we should be debating the issues not attacking the man (you know, ad hominem attacks etc.).
Then, on the same page(!), he started doing the same thing he was condemning us for doing (i.e. ad hominem attacking the source- in this case the writer of the PM article- rather than the article itself)!
And the punchline is- when he got called on it he didn't even understand! He didn't get it!
|
I bumped up the thread but here's the xref:
http://www.eslcafe.com/forums/korea/viewtopic.php?t=41680 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
fiveeagles
Joined: 19 May 2005
Location: Vancouver
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 9:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jinju wrote: |
| God hates little ***** and you are a real pathetic ******* 5eagles. |
lol. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 9:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Thank god he didn't use the word 'jackass'. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fiveeagles
Joined: 19 May 2005
Location: Vancouver
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 9:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| igotthisguitar wrote: |
It's too bad this thread didn't have a POLL feature.
We've done similar threads in the past, and results have shown the majority suspect the "official" conspiracy theory. Even after the "Official" 9/11 WHITEWASH ( think the Warren Report "re-loaded" ), there have lingered too many unanswered questions.
Then again:
"You can fool some of the people some of the time ..."  |
I'll ask again. Which of the PM facts do you dispute? Great, the author has an important cousin. What does that actually have to do with the arguments he puts forward? |
Because its a conspiracy. I watched a show the other day where they claimed Bush's cousin blew up the towers. Too funny.
Last edited by fiveeagles on Thu Aug 10, 2006 9:44 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 9:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| deadman wrote: |
The logical leap from conspiracy theories x, y, and z are wrong, therefore what the govt says is true is the point where it departs from the scientific standards you assume a magazine with "mechanics" in the title would adhere to. |
Yeah, kinda, but the government case is built on the very facts the conspiracy nuts dispute. Showing why the facts are to be believed and not disbelieved inexorably implies support for the government. If you can weave the facts into a whole new theory, then more power to you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
deadman
Joined: 27 May 2006
Location: Suwon
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 10:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| deadman wrote: |
The logical leap from conspiracy theories x, y, and z are wrong, therefore what the govt says is true is the point where it departs from the scientific standards you assume a magazine with "mechanics" in the title would adhere to. |
Yeah, kinda, but the government case is built on the very facts the conspiracy nuts dispute. |
Maybe, but the PM article doesn't mention any "facts" that the government case rests on. Its stated intent is to "refute the most persistent conspiracy theories", which is all it does. (I just double-checked).
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| Showing why the facts are to be believed and not disbelieved inexorably implies support for the government. |
Maybe, if you believe the government has a monopoly on the facts, but then, that pre-supposes your arguments conculsion.
On re-reading, I was quite surprised to find no conclusion, no discussion of the significance of the 16 successful debunkings, so the rather brief introduction is all the treatment the data gets. So the article claims, and delivers, nothing more that 16 debunkings of specific conspiracy theories.
Yet the last line of the introduction/conclusion, their final word, is (I'll requote):
| PM wrote: |
| Only by confronting such poisonous claims with irrefutable facts can we understand what really happened on a day that is forever seared into world history |
Therefore I stand by what I said before:
The logical leap from conspiracy theories x, y, and z are wrong, therefore what the govt says is true - is wrong.
And since that false leap of logic is what most readers of the article will go away believing (wrongly), then that places it well over the line between scientific investigation and misinformation/propaganda.
Thats what I have to say on the subject of the PM article, fiveeagles, in answer to your question. What do you have to say to that? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| deadman wrote: |
Maybe, but the PM article doesn't mention any "facts" that the government case rests on. Its stated intent is to "refute the most persistent conspiracy theories", which is all it does. (I just double-checked).
|
Errr. The government's case is the plane's fuel weakened the WTC steal and caused a collapse. The conspiracy nuts say this was impossible. The PM article says yes it was. So, you're wrong. The article does mention facts that the government case rests on.
| deadman wrote: |
Maybe, if you believe the government has a monopoly on the facts, but then, that presupposes your arguments conclusion.
|
Who said that? The case is it was four planes piloted by Islamic terrorist. A lot of people, government and non-government, believe that and bring facts to the table, when taken together, STRONGLY POINT TO THE GOVERNMENT CASE.
| Quote: |
The logical leap from conspiracy theories x, y, and z are wrong, therefore what the govt says is true - is wrong.
And since that false leap of logic is what most readers of the article will go away believing (wrongly), then that places it well over the line between scientific investigation and misinformation/propaganda. |
You're really just playing word games. Parsimony would dictate the facts support the same case the government supports. Sure maybe space aliens are behind it, which is not (yet) part of theory x, y, z. You could really posit anything. But it would seem to me parsimony dictates Islamic terrorists is the simplest explanation. You got another one? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 11, 2006 11:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| fiveeagles wrote: |
Because its a conspiracy.
I watched a show the other day where they claimed Bush's cousin blew up the towers.
Too funny. |
 Oh yes indeed ... ho ho ho ...
MY guess is someone here is confusing the fact that his brother was in entrusted with
SECURITY for the WTC complex ... up until Sept. 11th ... 
9/11 Security Courtesy of Marvin Bush
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911security.html
Marvin P. Bush, the president�s younger brother, was a principal in a company called Securacom that provided security for the World Trade Center, United Airlines, and Dulles International Airport. The company, Burns noted, was backed by KuwAm, a Kuwaiti-American investment firm on whose board Marvin Burns also served. [Utne]
According to its present CEO, Barry McDaniel, the company had an ongoing contract to handle security at the World Trade Center "up to the day the buildings fell down."
The company lists as government clients "the U.S. Army, U.S. Navy, U.S Air force, and the Department of Justice," in projects that "often require state-of-the-art security solutions for classified or high-risk government sites."
Stratesec (Securacom) differs from other security companies which separate the function of consultant from that of service provider. The company defines itself as a "single-source" provider of "end-to-end" security services, including everything from diagnosis of existing systems to hiring subcontractors to installing video and electronic equipment. It also provides armored vehicles and security guards.
The Dulles Internation contract is another matter. Dulles is regarded as "absolutely a sensitive airport," according to security consultant Wayne Black, head of a Florida-based security firm, due to its location, size, and the number of international carriers it serves.
Black has not heard of Stratesec, but responds that for one company to handle security for both airports and airlines is somewhat unusual. It is also delicate for a security firm serving international facilities to be so interlinked with a foreign-owned company: "Somebody knew somebody," he suggested, or the contract would have been more closely scrutinized.
As Black points out, "when you [a company] have a security contract, you know the inner workings of everything." And if another company is linked with the security company, then "What's on your computer is on their computer." [American Reporter]
| mindmetoo wrote: |
I'll ask again. Which of the PM facts do you dispute? Great, the author has an important cousin.
What does that actually have to do with the arguments he puts forward? |
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2006/100806popularmechanics.htm
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=popular+mechanics+911+nonsense |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
some waygug-in
Joined: 25 Jan 2003
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 11, 2006 5:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| According to the following article, more than 1/3 Americans have suspicions about the official version of 9/11. |
And I recall seeing the results of a poll in 2002/03 where something like almost two thirds of the respondents thought that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 11, 2006 5:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bulsajo wrote: |
| Quote: |
| According to the following article, more than 1/3 Americans have suspicions about the official version of 9/11. |
And I recall seeing the results of a poll in 2002/03 where something like almost two thirds of the respondents thought that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11. |
There was a survey that an overwhelming majority of American troops thought Bush lied about WMD in Iraq. When asked why they were in Iraq, a similar number believed they were there to punish those responsible for 9/11. Errrr. Basically all brown people are the reason for 9/11 and they were there to kill brown people. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 11, 2006 9:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bulsajo wrote: |
| Quote: |
| According to the following article, more than 1/3 Americans have suspicions about the official version of 9/11. |
And I recall seeing the results of a poll in 2002/03 where something like almost two thirds of the respondents thought that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11. |
Still, the Hussein scapegoating ploy has proved to be utter & rightfully embarassing nonsense.
Honestly, is there even any disputing this anymore?
Aimed at "de-bunking" alternative investigative 9/11 scenarios, the Chertoffs' Poop-u-lar Mechanics whitewash piece actually did more to raise even more suspicions & doubt re: the story-line the insiders have worked so at propagating to the world at large.
Have no fear mind you Bully:
REPETITION = TRUTH
George Orwell
Last edited by igotthisguitar on Fri Aug 11, 2006 10:18 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 11, 2006 10:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| igotthisguitar wrote: |
REPETITION = TRUTH
George Owell |
Is that an Orwell quote? What book? What page? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 11, 2006 10:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bulsajo wrote: |
| igotthisguitar wrote: |
REPETITION = TRUTH
George Orwell |
Is that an Orwell quote? What book? What page? |
FREEMASONS  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 11, 2006 10:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So, making up quotes and attributing them to famous people.
That's typical of your posting style.
Just wanted to make sure everyone knows.
And people who call you on your BS are freemasons. whatever. Maybe I'm a rosicrucian. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
