|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
 Posted - 10/29/2006 : 13:47:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
I am not moving on to the next thread because all of your threads are the same, old, endless bullshit. It's this one or none.
Now what's yout theory? If you have one, that is.
Well, my theory is being built on the other thread. So that's where you will find it.
I find it interesting, though, that you didn't defend your little story above. I think you even realized it total  . |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
 |
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2006 : 14:02:01 [Permalink]
|
Filthy's typical self-deprecating description of himself as a redneck, and your pointed use of the word to mean a stereotypical rural Southern ignoramus, are entirely different things. As evidenced by your crude attempt at mocking a "Southern" dialect: ("heep of learnin' to do 'fore you even move on to the next thread").
But lie and deny your insult all you like, ergo. As with your denial of evidence throughout your several threads on the same topic, (and your continued refusal to come clean and state the whole of your underlying paranoid 9/11 "theory"), people continue see right through you.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2006 : 15:04:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Filthy's typical self-deprecating description of himself as a redneck, and your pointed use of the word to mean a stereotypical rural Southern ignoramus, are entirely different things. As evidenced by your crude attempt at mocking a "Southern" dialect: ("heep of learnin' to do 'fore you even move on to the next thread").
But lie and deny your insult all you like, ergo. As with your denial of evidence throughout your several threads on the same topic, (and your continued refusal to come clean and state the whole of your underlying paranoid 9/11 "theory"), people continue see right through you.
You know, I will probably hate myself for defending him this way, given that he has said things that he really should apologies for, but I think ergo was just playing along with the “redneck” remark and did not intend an ad-hominem in his response… |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2006 : 15:22:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Filthy's typical self-deprecating description of himself as a redneck, and your pointed use of the word to mean a stereotypical rural Southern ignoramus, are entirely different things. As evidenced by your crude attempt at mocking a "Southern" dialect: ("heep of learnin' to do 'fore you even move on to the next thread").
But lie and deny your insult all you like, ergo. As with your denial of evidence throughout your several threads on the same topic, (and your continued refusal to come clean and state the whole of your underlying paranoid 9/11 "theory"), people continue see right through you.
You know, I will probably hate myself for defending him this way, given that he has said things that he really should apologies for, but I think ergo was just playing along with the “redneck” remark and did not intend an ad-hominem in his response…
You may be right, kil. I'm not at all sure you are, but I'll leave off on my line of attack unless and until I see more evidence.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2006 : 15:53:28 [Permalink]
|
| You know, it wasn't the "redneck" part of "I'm not sure I'll be able to cut it up into pieces small enough for a redneck to understand" that I thought was insulting, because filthy has called himself a redneck. |
- 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 - 10/29/2006 : 16:07:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Filthy's typical self-deprecating description of himself as a redneck, and your pointed use of the word to mean a stereotypical rural Southern ignoramus, are entirely different things. As evidenced by your crude attempt at mocking a "Southern" dialect: ("heep of learnin' to do 'fore you even move on to the next thread").
But lie and deny your insult all you like, ergo. As with your denial of evidence throughout your several threads on the same topic, (and your continued refusal to come clean and state the whole of your underlying paranoid 9/11 "theory"), people continue see right through you.
You know, I will probably hate myself for defending him this way, given that he has said things that he really should apologies for, but I think ergo was just playing along with the “redneck” remark and did not intend an ad-hominem in his response…
Finally, someone who understands banter... |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2006 : 18:46:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
quote:
Originally posted by moakley
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
But I, having the patience of a corpse, shall ask again: How were the charges set and what was the secondary explosive?
To my satisfaction, not yours. You, it seems, would be satisfied with 'most any, old fairy tale as long as it was spectacular enough.
I'm with filthy on this. You have a huge logistical problem that you have not adequately explained. Actually, I can't even recall an attempt at an explanation.
How many charges? How many locations?
How much detonating cord?
How many delay elements?
How many pounds of explosives?
How many man hours to plant the explosives?
Without this you're just pissing into the wind. You've got nothing but idle speculation.
Yes, but a huge logistical problem does not invalidate a theory. If you can prove the logistical problem is impossible to overcome, then you will have invalidated the theory.
For someone whose argument is based solely on idle speculation your response was not unexpected. It's clear you are not able to make a case supporting CD, so you insist that others prove you wrong.
Congratulations on being consistent. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2006 : 19:35:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by moakley
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
quote:
Originally posted by moakley
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
But I, having the patience of a corpse, shall ask again: How were the charges set and what was the secondary explosive?
To my satisfaction, not yours. You, it seems, would be satisfied with 'most any, old fairy tale as long as it was spectacular enough.
I'm with filthy on this. You have a huge logistical problem that you have not adequately explained. Actually, I can't even recall an attempt at an explanation.
How many charges? How many locations?
How much detonating cord?
How many delay elements?
How many pounds of explosives?
How many man hours to plant the explosives?
Without this you're just pissing into the wind. You've got nothing but idle speculation.
Yes, but a huge logistical problem does not invalidate a theory. If you can prove the logistical problem is impossible to overcome, then you will have invalidated the theory.
For someone whose argument is based solely on idle speculation your response was not unexpected. It's clear you are not able to make a case supporting CD, so you insist that others prove you wrong.
Congratulations on being consistent.
So are you saying that a huge logistical problem does invalidate a theory? Because if so, I totally disagree. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2006 : 19:48:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
So are you saying that a huge logistical problem does invalidate a theory? Because if so, I totally disagree.
Without a reasonable explanation and evidence, then this is just your opinion, which I do not find very compelling. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2006 : 19:59:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by moakley
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
So are you saying that a huge logistical problem does invalidate a theory? Because if so, I totally disagree.
Without a reasonable explanation and evidence, then this is just your opinion, which I do not find very compelling.
It's just my opinion that a huge logistical problem does not invalidate a theory? |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2006 : 20:12:23 [Permalink]
|
| Wow, look at all of ergo's nitpicking and strawmanning, and without any help from me. Is that really how "regular" people have a discussion? If so, I want nothing to do with them, since the example ergo is presenting is one of dishonesty, rudeness and a complete inability to communicate reasonably. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2006 : 00:32:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
quote:
Originally posted by moakley
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
So are you saying that a huge logistical problem does invalidate a theory? Because if so, I totally disagree.
Without a reasonable explanation and evidence, then this is just your opinion, which I do not find very compelling.
It's just my opinion that a huge logistical problem does not invalidate a theory?
Yes. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 10/30/2006 : 01:49:08 [Permalink]
|
I do not have to 'defend' my little story because, as far as it goes, it is factual and I put it forth as an hypothesis. I find it amusing that you, who spurns the report, will not hesitate to use it when you think it's convenient.
By the way, smoke is also a signature of trash burning; trash such as office furniture and equipment, paneling, wire insulation, and so forth. Did you think that only kerosene was burning?
Now, as the other thread is not a jot nor a tittle different from this one, why don't you post the 'theory' in both? Or better yet, why don't you just post it?
Your redundancy is getting really boring, ergo. Shit or get off the pot.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2006 : 09:14:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by tomk80
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
quote:
Originally posted by moakley
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
So are you saying that a huge logistical problem does invalidate a theory? Because if so, I totally disagree.
Without a reasonable explanation and evidence, then this is just your opinion, which I do not find very compelling.
It's just my opinion that a huge logistical problem does not invalidate a theory?
Yes.
Splitting the atom was a huge logistical problem but that didn't invalidate the theory that said it could be split. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2006 : 09:17:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Splitting the atom was a huge logistical problem but that didn't invalidate the theory that said it could be split.
But here the theory that explosives were used is not one of having to figure out how to do it. It has to already have been possible to do it with current technology and current (in this case) politics and psychology. That is where the trouble for this scenario occurs.
The two scenarios are not comparable. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
What I don't get...
Topic Locked
