Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Conspiracy Theories
 NIST Report Deserves Skepticism
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Previous Page | Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 15

Neurosis
SFN Regular

USA
675 Posts

Posted - 10/09/2006 :  11:03:27   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Neurosis an AOL message Send Neurosis a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123

The official story is a theory that is based on a conspiracy...





No. It is basd on analysis of the evidence. Do you know what a conspiracy is? The terrorist plot was a conspiracy (due to them conspiring against us). That is not the official story however, it is a subset of it revealing the why not the how. The how is based on data analysis.

Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson

[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink

Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.]
Go to Top of Page

Neurosis
SFN Regular

USA
675 Posts

Posted - 10/09/2006 :  11:06:29   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Neurosis an AOL message Send Neurosis a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Kil

[quote] ergo123:

Okay dokey. Since you have an advanced degree in psychology, what would you call a person who manifests these symptoms?

“suspects, without sufficient basis, that others are exploiting, harming, or deceiving him or her”

“is reluctant to confide in others because of unwarranted fear that the information will be used maliciously against him or her”

“reads hidden demeaning or threatening meanings into benign remarks or events”

“persistently bears grudges, i.e., is unforgiving of insults, injuries or slights”

“perceives attacks on his or her character or reputation that are not apparent to others and is quick to react angrily or to counter attack”




What is insane? For 1000 Alex. Or a better answer: Paranoid, Narcissistic, with an anger problem. Possibly even a sociopath.

Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson

[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink

Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.]
Go to Top of Page

ergo123
BANNED

USA
810 Posts

Posted - 10/09/2006 :  12:04:46   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send ergo123 a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Neurosis

quote:
Originally posted by ergo123

The official story is a theory that is based on a conspiracy...





No. It is basd on analysis of the evidence. Do you know what a conspiracy is? The terrorist plot was a conspiracy (due to them conspiring against us). That is not the official story however, it is a subset of it revealing the why not the how. The how is based on data analysis.



You are right. The NIST Report is just a part of the official conspiracy theory. I'll try to remember to refer to it as such in the future. Just remember, according to White House officials, we don't know if the 19 people identified as the "terrorists" were even in our country on 9-11-01, let alone involved in the conspiracy.

No witty quotes. I think for myself.
Go to Top of Page

Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend

Sweden
9666 Posts

Posted - 10/09/2006 :  15:15:42   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Dr. Mabuse an ICQ Message Send Dr. Mabuse a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123

quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Because I find these threads fascinating in the same way as the site of a traffic accident. I know I shouldn't look when I drive past, but then I can't help myself. I suppose it's my fascination for gory stuff that make me do it.
I'm sure you have a profound psychological insight for my behaviour.


Wow. That is kind of sick. I make it a point not to look at accident scenes. I think it is more respectful to those involved not to look. Yes, well your disclosure for a fascination of gory stuff is revealing.

I have a curiosity. It makes me want to figure/find out how and why stuff happened, and what factors contributed to the event. Seeing skidmarks (where you wrongly assumed to have figured out the main reason why your thread was closed, then back-pedaling in order to make an excuse for your mistake) and points of impact (like weight vs mass, or missing responses to our debunking of Ross) gives me a general idea of how the crash happened.

I do have a somewhat morbid sense of humour. That's why I love the TV series Dead Like Me, and have a picture in my mobile phone of the burning towers and the Star Wars' Death Star blasting the second tower (the moment after the second plane hit it, making it look like the fireball is from the Death Star blast).
I'm not posting that pic though, because I realise that some people won't understand, and will most certainly take offense.


quote:
quote:
Reading through your latest answers, I also starting to
realise why you have such a hard time considering scientific reports and theories, and especially your choice to label the 9/11 Commission Report "a conspiracy theory".

The official story is a theory that is based on a conspiracy...

The official story is a theory how a number of people conspired to perform an act of terror and how they carried it out. It's still not a "conspiracy theory".

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.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25973 Posts

Posted - 10/09/2006 :  15:35:03   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123 over here

What I find frustrating on this site, is that while people say they keep an open mind, there are at least some topics where these supposed skeptical minds are clearly closed. I'm sure you will counter that--given you know the topic of which I speak and who I am--that the situation I am referring to is somewhat of a special case. I think you would say that many are responding to ME and how I presented my pov, and not the issue itself. If this is a correct assessment of your view, it would prove my point.
It is not a correct assessment. It wasn't you or the way you presented your ideas, but your clear assertions of truth that people were responding to.

After your first posts, and prior your later attempts to get to what you say you really wanted to do, it was absolutely crytstal clear that you'd come to some firm conclusions about the issue:
...The administration's conspiricy theory doesn't hold up, unless "the terrorists" are able to suspend the laws of physics...

...But the one thing they can't do is change the laws of physics...
And you later on continued to claim that Ross' paper demonstrates that it was impossible (a word you used) for the actual building to have collapsed by gravity alone. You defended this view quite vigorously for a while. And it was that "theory" which was primarily criticized. Not you, not your presentation, but the actual theory you were proposing as true.

Now, whether or not the NIST's conclusions are actually true is irrelevant to whether or not Ross' paper demonstrates that it was impossible for the buildings to fall by gravity alone. Ross' paper doesn't model the actual buildings, nor does it discuss the fact that the floors weren't strong enough to support the top 16 stories by themselves, so Ross' paper is irrelevant to the "government's conspiracy theory" which does address all those things (rightly or wrongly).

Yet you continued to assert that Ross' conclusions show the government is wrong. And then you began to expand into other aspects of the events in question, posting more and more assertions of fact about the collapses, many of which I hadn't even heard, and some of which can be falsified by very casual inspection of the available evidence. No matter how much you tried to take it all back later, you clearly were saying that the things you claimed to be true were disproofs of the government's story.

Again, whether it is correct or not, the government's physics are highly referenced and detailed in observation, experimental method, results and conclusions. Most people here don't have the time or resources to go double-checking all of the NIST's math and physics, but you didn't actually criticize any of the government's detailed work to show that any of it is wrong, and instead you introduced other alleged facts, and claimed the government didn't take them into account.

So, given a detailed and highly referenced report which actual independent experts have already reviewed (and they're not making the news by claiming the analysis is wrong) on the one hand, and your plain, unreferenced statements of fact on the other, you were given lots of chances to make your case. You were repeatedly asked to provide some sort of evidence that what you were saying was true, and refused.

We (and I'm taking the liberty of speaking for all the regulars here) have seen this same thing happen a zillion times. Someone comes here, plops down some "fact" or other that they claim "disproves" some sort of "official dogma," and expects us all to quiver in embarrassment at being shown up by a random layperson with access to that one critical piece of data that's been overlooked (or hidden, or violently suppressed) for years. Einstein, evolution, atheism, liberalism, crop circles, 9/11, the Illuminati, solar physics and more... all "targets" of actions like I just described. But what happens? Some member here says, "is that 'fact' actually a fact?" and the whole thing crumbles. The proponent of said "fact" refuses to supply supporting information, changes the subject, and/or rapid-fire begins to dump more and more "facts" into a thread without supplying and evidence whatsoever. It doesn't matter if these people are correct or not, because they can't demonstrate their points.

You fit that bill. It doesn't matter if you're right or wrong, or if the government is right or wrong. You were being criticized because you claimed knowledge of facts that you wouldn't support. The government has supplied all of its references, you were being held to the same standard. That was all, at the beginning. Things got worse when you were unresponsive to the normal, rational inquiries about your statements.
quote:
To me, a person doesn't have a truly open mind unless s/he is open to different ways of reaching a conclusion (one need not always use a linear process to uncover truth) and is open to different styles of people (some of the most important and vision-changing things I've learned came out of the mouths of people who were tremendous A-holes).

What I see here is a closed mindedness to different styles of people and to different approaches to critical thinking. What I have experienced on the few threads I've started is a pack mentality. Exactly the type of pack mentality you warn against.
The pack mentality I warn about is one of conclusions. The only conclusion I ever offered about the government's story is that the NIST report is the government's detailed physics of the collapses. I know it's not 100% true, for the simple fact that the NIST researchers state it's not 100% true. If memory serves, nobody else said that the NIST report is "true," either. You weren't ganged-up on for questioning the NIST report, you were ganged-up on for failing to present a relevant case against it using more than your say-so about the evidence. And you did present a case against it, and defended that case for some time.

Had you actually presented evidence which made sense and from which conclusions about the veracity of the NIST report could be formed, most of us here would have been very interested. You would have seen the extent that we generally bend over backwards in giving "alternative" points-of-view the benefit of a doubt. Regardless of your "style" of your "approach," many of us would have taken the data you presented and run with it to the most favorable conclusion possible for your hypotheses. "Follow the evidence where it leads" is the key of science in general, and it's paramount here, too.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

ergo123
BANNED

USA
810 Posts

Posted - 10/09/2006 :  19:20:08   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send ergo123 a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.


quote:
Originally posted by ergo123 over here

What I find frustrating on this site, is that while people say they keep an open mind, there are at least some topics where these supposed skeptical minds are clearly closed. I'm sure you will counter that--given you know the topic of which I speak and who I am--that the situation I am referring to is somewhat of a special case. I think you would say that many are responding to ME and how I presented my pov, and not the issue itself. If this is a correct assessment of your view, it would prove my point.


quote:
It is not a correct assessment. It wasn't you or the way you presented your ideas, but your clear assertions of truth that people were responding to.


So you prefer unclear assertions? It certainly can't be the "truth" part--because many of you assert that the NIST Report is true--to the point of not even looking for alternatives. It seems to me that the only reason to stop looking for truth is when you find it.

quote:
After your first posts, and prior your later attempts to get to what you say you really wanted to do, it was absolutely crytstal clear that you'd come to some firm conclusions about the issue:[bq]...The administration's conspiricy theory doesn't hold up, unless "the terrorists" are able to suspend the laws of physics...


You are so "this or that." Why is it so hard for you to imagine a situation where a person has firm conclusions about theory X but still tries to vigorously examine theory Y? It's called being intellectually honest and being objective. At least I'm examining a theory that seems obviously a sham. But I'm looking for actual support for the official conspiracy theory. As crazy as that theory seems to me, I want to give it an objective examination to be sure it's not what actually happened. You all seem to be afraid to do the same with the controlled demolition theory.

quote:
...And you later on continued to claim that Ross' paper demonstrates that it was impossible (a word you used) for the actual building to have collapsed by gravity alone. You defended this view quite vigorously for a while. And it was that "theory" which was primarily criticized. Not you, not your presentation, but the actual theory you were proposing as true.


And is it that you don't like vigorously defended views in general, or is it only when the vigorously defended views are different from yours? That's really rich--a skeptics site that doesn't tolerate vigorously defended views...

quote:
Now, whether or not the NIST's conclusions are actually true is irrelevant to whether or not Ross' paper demonstrates that it was impossible for the buildings to fall by gravity alone. Ross' paper doesn't model the actual buildings, nor does it discuss the fact that the floors weren't strong enough to support the top 16 stories by themselves, so Ross' paper is irrelevant to the "government's conspiracy theory" which does address all those things (rightly or wrongly).


What's your point here--that the official conspiracy theory and my conspiracy theory are 2 separate theories? I've known that all along. I guess you really do have trouble with someone considering 2 different theories at the same time.

quote:
Yet you continued to assert that Ross' conclusions show the government is wrong. And then you began to expand into other aspects of the events in question, posting more and more assertions of fact about the collapses, many of which I hadn't even heard, and some of which can be falsified by very casual inspection of the available evidence. No matter how much you tried to take it all back later, you clearly were saying that the things you claimed to be true were disproofs of the government's story.


I haven't tried to take anything back. That you didn't get what the Ross paper was doing (responding to Greenings paper) isn't my fault.

quote:
Again, whether it is correct or not, the government's physics are highly referenced and detailed in observation, experimental method, results and conclusions. Most people here don't have the time or resources to go double-checking all of the NIST's math and physics, but you didn't actually criticize any of the government's detailed work to show that any of it is wrong, and instead you introduced other alleged facts, and claimed the government didn't take them into account.


If you can see that the recipe is wrong, you don't need to bake the cake to prove it. Well, maybe you do... And there are lots of facts the government didn't take into account. You've watched the videos, you've read the accounts. At least you said you had.

quote:
So, given a detailed and highly referenced report which actual independent experts have already reviewed (and they're not making the news by claiming the analysis is wrong) on the one hand, and your plain, unreferenced statements of fact on the other, you were given lots of chances to make your case. You were repeatedly asked to provide some sort of evidence that what you were saying was true, and refused.


What part of "I wasn't comparing the two theories" do you not understand? All I was asking for was a list or link to the "independent experts" you refer to above.

quote:
We (and I'm taking the liberty of speaking for all the regulars here) have seen this same thing happen a zillion times. Someone comes here, plops down some "fact" or other that they claim "disproves" some sort of "official dogma," and expects us all to quiver in embarrassment at being shown up by a random layperson with access to that one critical piece of data that's been overlooked (or hidden, or violently suppressed) for years.


Wow, you've got issues, Dave. I was just vigorously defending a point of view.

quote:
Had you actually presented evidence which made sense and from which conclusions about the veracity of the NIST report could be formed, most of us here would have been very interested. You would have seen the extent that we generally bend over backwards in giving "alternative" points-of-view the benefit of a doubt.


I wasn't looking for a validity test of my theory--I was looking for support of the official conspiracy theory. (I should program that line onto a function key.)


No witty quotes. I think for myself.
Go to Top of Page

H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard

USA
4574 Posts

Posted - 10/09/2006 :  19:49:28   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send H. Humbert a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
You all seem to be afraid to do the same with the controlled demolition theory.
What!!??? After all the time people have spent practically begging you to provide some evidence, any evidence at all, that demolitions were used to bring down the towers (only to have you refuse to do so), where on Earth do you get off calling us close-minded or afraid?

What sort of fantasy world are you living in?


"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman

"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25973 Posts

Posted - 10/09/2006 :  20:18:34   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123

So you prefer unclear assertions? It certainly can't be the "truth" part--because many of you assert that the NIST Report is true--to the point of not even looking for alternatives. It seems to me that the only reason to stop looking for truth is when you find it.
You're assuming that people here have stopped looking for the truth of this matter.
quote:
You are so "this or that." Why is it so hard for you to imagine a situation where a person has firm conclusions about theory X but still tries to vigorously examine theory Y?
Apparently, you failed to read my entire post. Oh, no, you did read it, and even quoted the part that directly responds to the above from you, and you missed the point completely.
quote:
It's called being intellectually honest and being objective.
No, what you're doing is dishonest and entirely subjective.
quote:
At least I'm examining a theory that seems obviously a sham. But I'm looking for actual support for the official conspiracy theory. As crazy as that theory seems to me, I want to give it an objective examination to be sure it's not what actually happened.
The actual evidence the government used has been presented to you, yet still you harp on us as if you've got nothing.
quote:
You all seem to be afraid to do the same with the controlled demolition theory.
Until you present evidence in favor of controlled demolition, there's nothing to examine.
quote:
And is it that you don't like vigorously defended views in general, or is it only when the vigorously defended views are different from yours? That's really rich--a skeptics site that doesn't tolerate vigorously defended views...
Another incorrect assumption, since there are vigorously defended views all over this site. Vigor implies passion, which is often good. But my reference to your vigorous defense of your theory early on was just to demonstrate the lie behind "I'm just here looking for evidence in support of the government's case."
quote:
quote:
Now, whether or not the NIST's conclusions are actually true is irrelevant to whether or not Ross' paper demonstrates that it was impossible for the buildings to fall by gravity alone. Ross' paper doesn't model the actual buildings, nor does it discuss the fact that the floors weren't strong enough to support the top 16 stories by themselves, so Ross' paper is irrelevant to the "government's conspiracy theory" which does address all those things (rightly or wrongly).
What's your point here--that the official conspiracy theory and my conspiracy theory are 2 separate theories? I've known that all along.
No, my point was that, contrary to the assertions you made in your first few posts here, Ross' paper doesn't demonstrate anything about the "government's conspiracy theory." You claimed that it did, and you were wrong.
quote:
I guess you really do have trouble with someone considering 2 different theories at the same time.
You actually haven't presented your theory, so your theory is literally a no-brainer.
quote:
I haven't tried to take anything back. That you didn't get what the Ross paper was doing (responding to Greenings paper) isn't my fault.
Fact #1: Ross' paper was responding to Brazat & Zhou, and used Greening's assumption of pulverization, so you're terribly confused. Fact #2: you said that Ross' paper shows that the "government's conspiracy theory" defies the laws of physics. You're now trying to backpedal to avoid having to defend your own arguments, back to the haven of "I'm just looking for evidence..." which has outlived its usefulness (at least, I hope nobody else here buys into that baloney anymore).
quote:
If you can see that the recipe is wrong, you don't need to bake the cake to prove it.
See, that's the thing about science. What's "obvious" has been shown to be wrong so many times that scientists don't trust themselves to just "see" that the recipe is wrong. They do need to go about doing experiments to show that a particular hypothesis is incorrect, instead of just assuming it.
quote:
Well, maybe you do...
I certainly hope so, since otherwise I'd be dismissive of your controlled demolition theory whether you presented evidence for it or not.
quote:
And there are lots of facts the government didn't take into account.
Pick one and then demonstrate that it's a fact. Oh, that's right: you don't do evidence. Forget I asked.
quote:
You've watched the videos, you've read the accounts. At least you said you had.
No, I quite clearly wrote that I'd seen a bunch of stuff, but that I don't know what you have seen. The assumption you're making - that I know of everything you know - is quite false.
quote:
What part of "I wasn't comparing the two theories" do you not understand?
I understand that it's very difficult for you to let go of that lie you've turned into a security blanket.
quote:
All I was asking for was a list or link to the "independent experts" you refer to above.
Well, that is obviously bullshit, as demonstrated by your first few posts.
quote:
Wow, you've got issues, Dave. I was just vigorously defending a point of view.
Not at all - you've spent page after page attacking the members here for not being open-minded. Open-minded for what? For you to ask for evidence of the "government's conspiracy theory?" Of course not, that makes no sense. The logical answer is that you screwed up and let slip your real agenda prematurely. If you were just here to gather evidence in favor of the government's position, then there's no need for any of us to be open-minded to any other theories, now is there? But you can't stop criticizing us for your mistaken impression that we're all closed-minded on "this issue." (This is much like the Intelligent Design proponents, who know they can't link their ideas to God and get them into the classroom, but can't stop talking about God when arguing in favor of ID.)
quote:
I wasn't looking for a validity test of my theory--I was looking for support of the official conspiracy theory.
Which is completely unresponsive to my reply to the suggestions that you were making about us all being of closed minds. Stick with the context next time.
quote:
(I should program that line onto a function key.)
Yeah, it'll make it easier for you to justify your lie to yourself, as well as save you time.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

ergo123
BANNED

USA
810 Posts

Posted - 10/09/2006 :  21:28:49   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send ergo123 a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert

quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
You all seem to be afraid to do the same with the controlled demolition theory.
What!!??? After all the time people have spent practically begging you to provide some evidence, any evidence at all, that demolitions were used to bring down the towers (only to have you refuse to do so), where on Earth do you get off calling us close-minded or afraid?

What sort of fantasy world are you living in?





it's called objective observation. I highly recommend it.

If you used it, you would see that I never asked anyone here to validate the cd theory. but there are several posts stating that the cd theory isn't even worth examination. That's closed minded.

No witty quotes. I think for myself.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25973 Posts

Posted - 10/09/2006 :  21:36:01   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123

If you used it, you would see that I never asked anyone here to validate the cd theory.
Since you never asked anyone to validate it, then how is it that you know people are afraid of it?
quote:
but there are several posts stating that the cd theory isn't even worth examination. That's closed minded.
Only if they haven't examined the claims elsewhere, before. Do you know that they have not?

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

ergo123
BANNED

USA
810 Posts

Posted - 10/09/2006 :  21:59:47   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send ergo123 a Private Message
dave: i understand you just don't like or get how i can hold one theory to be true while giving another a fair examination. if you read my very first post on this site you will see i asked for evidence of the official conspiracy theory.

i get that you don't like it when i use the phrase 'official conspiracy theory.' i get that you don't believe the cd theory is correct.

what i don't get is why you think i'm being dishonest or have some plan to make fun of skeptics.

i get paid to find patterns in data. the patterns i have seen with respect to nyc on 9-11 point me to conclude the cd theory reflects reality. I'm not asking anyone to believe my theory.

No witty quotes. I think for myself.
Go to Top of Page

Dude
SFN Die Hard

USA
6891 Posts

Posted - 10/09/2006 :  22:04:54   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Dude a Private Message
ergo(liar)123 said:
quote:
what i don't get is why you think i'm being dishonest


The only thing you have done in these forums is drop a steady string of straw-man arguments on us. You continue to repeat them after they have been pointed out to you.

That makes you a deliberate liar.


Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson

"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin

Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth
Go to Top of Page

H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard

USA
4574 Posts

Posted - 10/10/2006 :  01:04:27   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send H. Humbert a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
If you used it, you would see that I never asked anyone here to validate the cd theory.but there are several posts stating that the cd theory isn't even worth examination. That's closed minded.

I haven't seen any dismiss the cd theory without consideration. Many have pointed out the enormous logistical obstacles such a theory would need to overcome to approach any degree of plausibility, but see that is only possible because they have given the matter consideration.


"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman

"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25973 Posts

Posted - 10/10/2006 :  04:25:04   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123

what i don't get is why you think i'm being dishonest...
Because you think that I "don't believe that cd theory is correct" is one way that you're being dishonest. You haven't presented any evidence for it, so I couldn't have possibly evaluated it, yet you've somehow managed to come to the conclusion that I think it's wrong. There are other ways that you're being dishonest, as well, but I have no time to explain them again.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

ergo123
BANNED

USA
810 Posts

Posted - 10/10/2006 :  04:46:31   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send ergo123 a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.

quote:
Originally posted by ergo123

If you used it, you would see that I never asked anyone here to validate the cd theory.
Since you never asked anyone to validate it, then how is it that you know people are afraid of it?
quote:
but there are several posts stating that the cd theory isn't even worth examination. That's closed minded.
Only if they haven't examined the claims elsewhere, before. Do you know that they have not?



yes.

No witty quotes. I think for myself.
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 15 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | Next Page
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.8 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000