|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
 Posted - 10/08/2006 : 16:17:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
How does the above demonstrate anything?
I followed your example of simply stating things and expecting you to concede their truth value is one. If you are unwilling to accept such a standard, then I've got a list of things for which you need to provide actual evidence in order to demonstrate them to be true. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2006 : 16:22:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
How does the above demonstrate anything?
I followed your example of simply stating things and expecting you to concede their truth value is one. If you are unwilling to accept such a standard, then I've got a list of things for which you need to provide actual evidence in order to demonstrate them to be true.
But I'm not trying to demonstrate anything is true...! |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2006 : 16:22:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Always a claim, never supporting evidence...
You are projecting. It's a psychological fault wherein you claim that other people are exhibiting the behaviour that you, yourself, are guilty of.quote:
Alternative conclusion: Dave locked the thread when he did because he was frustrated I had him on the ropes.
On the topes of what? You refuse to answer because you know you are lying.quote:
You have yet to prove this alternative conclusion wrong.
You have yet to provide any evidence at all in favor of your "alternative conclusion." I already provided evidence that it is false.quote:
I have never insisted that any alternative be seriously considered.
Yes, you have insisted that Ross' analysis shows that it was impossible for the towers to fal via gravity alone. If that wasn't supposed to be taken seriously, then why did you defend it?quote:
Again, you make claims and make up the evidence to support it.
Nah, you're just lying.quote:
Why do you do that?
Why do you lie? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2006 : 16:28:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
But I'm not trying to demonstrate anything is true...!
No, you are claiming things are true without demonstrating it. That's the point behind asking you for evidence to support your claims. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2006 : 16:45:07 [Permalink]
|
| You are absolutely right, Dave. But I'm not looking to validate my theory or claim I've made here. I'm looking to validate the official conspiracy theory . I don't care if you think any claim I've made is true. I'm not looking for your pov on my theory. To be honest, I don't value your opinion one bit. You have asked me for evidence that my theory is true and i have declined your request. It's not that i don't understand your request, i just choose not to comply with your request. Repeating your request will only result in me continuing to say "no." |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2006 : 16:52:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
I don't care if you think any claim I've made is true.
Great, then you won't mind if I conclude that the below claim is false:I'm looking to validate the official conspiracy theory. In its place is the much-more reasonable claim, that you're looking to validate your own theory by having a handful of random people fail to meet your standards when trying to validate the official theory. Now that the truth is out in the open, and it's been repeatedly shown that you're a liar, we can all move on. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
McQ
Skeptic Friend
USA
258 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2006 : 16:54:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
You are absolutely right, Dave. But I'm not looking to validate my theory or claim I've made here. I'm looking to validate the official conspiracy theory . I don't care if you think any claim I've made is true. I'm not looking for your pov on my theory. To be honest, I don't value your opinion one bit. You have asked me for evidence that my theory is true and i have declined your request. It's not that i don't understand your request, i just choose not to comply with your request. Repeating your request will only result in me continuing to say "no."
And if you don't stop asking him for evidence he'll stomp his feet, and take his ball and go home!
|
Elvis didn't do no drugs!
--Penn Gillette |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2006 : 18:15:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Alternative conclusion: Dave locked the thread when he did because he was frustrated I had him on the ropes. You have yet to prove this alternative conclusion wrong.
How can anyone prove such a conclusion? You are making assumptions on Dave's internal thoughts, which you cannot prove since you are not a mind reader.
Saying that Dave locked the thread out of frustration is a positive claim. It's a hypothesis until you can provide evidence for it.
Another positive claim is that the thread was locked because it reached a pre-determined limit of pages. There is an abundance of evidense to support that claim. Besides "witness testimony" we have physical evidence in form of links to threads (recent and old).
Your hypothesis is unsubstantiated, our claim is well evidenced.
Pitting these two against eachother, your hypothesis is rejected.
My evidence,
#1: Thread locked my Dr. Mabuse
#2: Thread locked by Dave_W.
#3: Thread locked by Kil.
#4: Thread locked by Kil. (also see moderator Valiant Dancer's message about the absent moderator Gezzam prior to the lock)
#5: Thread locked by Cuneiformist.
These are but a few examples of locked threads.
There are instances where the moderator in charge didn't have the time to lock the thread on time, and those managed to progress to page 16. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2006 : 18:32:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
I don't care if you think any claim I've made is true.
Great, then you won't mind if I conclude that the below claim is false:I'm looking to validate the official conspiracy theory.
Not a bit, Dave. Conclude what you like. If it makes you feel better to nit pick common english phrases and to purposefully misinterpret me, then have at it. Oh claim you are just trying to be clear--but we both know it's not about that, don't we. We both know it's about me coming here and disrupting your ostrich-like view of the events of 9-11-01: If you don't know the story is false, it must be true, right? Is that how it goes with you, Dave? Sorry to pull your head out of your... er, out of the sand.
quote:
In its place is the much-more reasonable claim, that you're looking to validate your own theory by having a handful of random people fail to meet your standards when trying to validate the official theory. Now that the truth is out in the open, and it's been repeatedly shown that you're a liar, we can all move on.
But how would failure to support the official conspiracy theory validate my conspiracy theory. That makes no sense at all! |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2006 : 18:34:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by McQ
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
You are absolutely right, Dave. But I'm not looking to validate my theory or claim I've made here. I'm looking to validate the official conspiracy theory . I don't care if you think any claim I've made is true. I'm not looking for your pov on my theory. To be honest, I don't value your opinion one bit. You have asked me for evidence that my theory is true and i have declined your request. It's not that i don't understand your request, i just choose not to comply with your request. Repeating your request will only result in me continuing to say "no."
And if you don't stop asking him for evidence he'll stomp his feet, and take his ball and go home!
McQ.: Why do you make things up? I have no intention of "going home." I'm content with saying "no" each time. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2006 : 18:48:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Alternative conclusion: Dave locked the thread when he did because he was frustrated I had him on the ropes.
quote:
On the topes of what? You refuse to answer because you know you are lying.
I refuse to answer because it is not related to my quest for evidence in support of the official conspiracy theory. And I'm not interested in keeping score of your errors.
quote:
You have yet to prove this alternative conclusion wrong.
quote:
You have yet to provide any evidence at all in favor of your "alternative conclusion." I already provided evidence that it is false.
But all your evidence comes from the official conspiracy theory itself. You can't support the official conspiracy theory with the official conspiracy theory! That's like saying the bible is the word of god because it says so in the bible! I haven't looked, but I'm sure (or at least I hope!) that a sight like this would pounce on "logic" like that!
quote:
I have never insisted that any alternative be seriously considered.
quote:
Yes, you have insisted that Ross' analysis shows that it was impossible for the towers to fal via gravity alone. If that wasn't supposed to be taken seriously, then why did you defend it?
I offered it up for consideration but never insisted it was true and/or neverinsisted it even be considered. If you assumed I did so, it was an incorrect assumption on your part.
|
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2006 : 19:04:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Alternative conclusion: Dave locked the thread when he did because he was frustrated I had him on the ropes. You have yet to prove this alternative conclusion wrong.
How can anyone prove such a conclusion? You are making assumptions on Dave's internal thoughts, which you cannot prove since you are not a mind reader.
You are partially correct. I am making assumptions about Dave's motivations. But one not need be a mind reader to make valid assumptions on his behavior. Dave is pretty text-book. Not a lot of mystery or complexity there. I have an advanced degree in statistics, research methods and psychology (as trogdor or the U of Illinois if you want validation). So while dave might seem complex to you, he is as transparent as lead crystal to me. Dave, of course will deny it to save face, but he knows I'm right.
quote:
Saying that Dave locked the thread out of frustration is a positive claim. It's a hypothesis until you can provide evidence for it.
You guys are so funny! You must feel so safe in your world that only exists if you have evidence. To you my claim is a hypothesis. To dave and I, it is known to be true.
quote:
Another positive claim is that the thread was locked because it reached a pre-determined limit of pages. There is an abundance of evidense to support that claim. Besides "witness testimony" we have physical evidence in form of links to threads (recent and old).
I object, your honor... oh, wait, we aren't in court are we... You are correct in that dave's claim is a positive statement. It is an incomplete statement, but a positive one. But as I've pointed out, behavior is overdetermined. Let me know if you don't know what that means and I'll explain it to you.
quote:
Your hypothesis is unsubstantiated, our claim is well evidenced.
Pitting these two against eachother, your hypothesis is rejected.
That's fine with me--I know my hypothesis is true (and so does dave!).
quote:
My evidence,
#1: Thread locked my Dr. Mabuse
#2: Thread locked by Dave_W.
#3: Thread locked by Kil.
#4: Thread locked by Kil. (also see moderator Valiant Dancer's message about the absent moderator Gezzam prior to the lock)
#5: Thread locked by Cuneiformist.
These are but a few examples of locked threads.
There are instances where the moderator in charge didn't have the time to lock the thread on time, and those managed to progress to page 16.
Didn't have the time or wanted them to go on a bit longer so didn't make the time...? By the way, are you a mind reader? Because only a mind reader would know the thoughts of the moderator as to when they locked a given thread. Regardless, you seem to have a lot of time on your hands! |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
McQ
Skeptic Friend
USA
258 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2006 : 19:18:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
quote:
Originally posted by McQ
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
You are absolutely right, Dave. But I'm not looking to validate my theory or claim I've made here. I'm looking to validate the official conspiracy theory . I don't care if you think any claim I've made is true. I'm not looking for your pov on my theory. To be honest, I don't value your opinion one bit. You have asked me for evidence that my theory is true and i have declined your request. It's not that i don't understand your request, i just choose not to comply with your request. Repeating your request will only result in me continuing to say "no."
And if you don't stop asking him for evidence he'll stomp his feet, and take his ball and go home!
McQ.: Why do you make things up? I have no intention of "going home." I'm content with saying "no" each time.
When you say, "No", does your lower lip jut out and curl down, and are your arms folded? I just want to be clear. |
Elvis didn't do no drugs!
--Penn Gillette |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2006 : 19:38:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Not a bit, Dave. Conclude what you like. If it makes you feel better to nit pick common english phrases and to purposefully misinterpret me, then have at it.
How could I possibly misinterpret "I don't care if you think any claim I've made is true?"quote:
Oh claim you are just trying to be clear--but we both know it's not about that, don't we.
Oh, you mean in your third thread? There, yes, I am trying to get you to lay out your criteria for what you will consider evidence and what you won't, in more concrete terms than you used there originally.quote:
We both know it's about me coming here and disrupting your ostrich-like view of the events of 9-11-01
How could you possibly do that without presenting evidence of some other scenario, which you've made clear you aren't going to do?quote:
If you don't know the story is false, it must be true, right? Is that how it goes with you, Dave?
Nope, it's if I don't know of any other plausible stories, then the official one is the most plausible. Is that not self-evident?quote:
Sorry to pull your head out of your... er, out of the sand.
I find the irony of you insulting me after telling me that you don't care what I think to be quite delicious.quote:
But how would failure to support the official conspiracy theory validate my conspiracy theory. That makes no sense at all!
You're right, but not much else you've said has made sense, so why should I give you any benefit of any doubt on your reasons for being here? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2006 : 19:42:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
By the way, are you a mind reader? Because only a mind reader would know the thoughts of the moderator as to when they locked a given thread.
That means that you're claiming to be a mind reader. You know, James Randi will give you over a million bucks if you can demonstrate your ability to read minds for him. I wouldn't use me as a subject, 'cause you're real bad at reading my mind - but you claim to be able to, nonetheless. Go figure.
Oh, and the real juicy bit obviously missing from your catalog of facts is that Dr. Mabuse is a moderator here. He should be able to read his own mind, yes? He referenced one of the threads that he locked, after all. And it's not like us moderators don't chit-chat about SFN administration...
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
NIST Report Deserves Skepticism
Topic Locked
