Top Professor receives Stand Down Order from BYU

gumboot said:
I just have to say...

Even entertaining the notion that the President of the USA might have discussed getting rid of Steven Jones from BYU for saying mean things about him...

Wait, scratch that.

Even thinking that GWB knows who Steven Jones is (let alone cares)...

...is the stupidest thing I have heard all week.

-Andrew
Click to expand...
Uhm, no, actually.
That would be: you implying that I have Nazi sympathies.
 
brumsen said:
Uhm, no, actually.
That would be: you implying that I have Nazi sympathies.
Click to expand...

You've denied it Brumsen, and unlike many 9-11 theorists, you've been consistently quite civil, so I'll refrain from beating you over the head with it.

That being said, however, we have confirmed a strong prescence of neo-nazis, white supremacists and old-fashioned anti-semites among the "truth" movement.

You can expect to see continued grilling of 9-11 theorists over the nazi issue because alot of them deserve it, and there's plenty of evidence to justify it.
 
WildCat said:
And this is where the arrogance and self-importance of the denial movement comes in. They really think that Bushco losses sleep at night, knowing that the troofers are just one more smoking gun away from unraveling the whole nefarious plot.

Far more likely is that Bush/Cheney never even heard of any of these idiots.
Click to expand...

Not only that, it's far more likely that they're on their knees, thanking God for these idiots. They're the KKK of the left. Anytime Bush & co. want to paint an opponent as an extremist kook, all they have to do is associate them with the CTists. The CTists have probably generated more backlash support for Bush than they've convinced to leave his side.

Damn them.
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
You've denied it Brumsen, and unlike many 9-11 theorists, you've been consistently quite civil, so I'll refrain from beating you over the head with it.
Click to expand...
I hope you are not thinking that one recognizes Nazi's by their being uncivil.
 
Maybe it's a language thing, but I thought it was pretty clear from Gumboot's post that he was being IRONIC.
I think he was saying that living under nazi rule is something which you would not enjoy and that thanks to the allied forces and Winston Churchill it is not something which you have to endure.
Seemed pretty obvious to me.
 
Brainache said:
Maybe it's a language thing, but I thought it was pretty clear from Gumboot's post that he was being IRONIC.
I think he was saying that living under nazi rule is something which you would not enjoy and that thanks to the allied forces and Winston Churchill it is not something which you have to endure.
Seemed pretty obvious to me.
Click to expand...
Nah.. 'course he was.
Just thought it was in bad taste. Irony is not exempt from potentially being in bad taste.

ETA: and as for Gumboot's point which you so kindly elaborate... does the fact that my ancestors were liberated by the allied mean that still, every time any of the countries from those allies starts a war, we Europeans have to be thankful? I am not alone in being troubled by that idea. [/derail]
 
Last edited:
Not IMO. Canada helped as well, but if we started a war that your country felt was imoral or corrupt, I personally would not expect your support.

Just My Opinion.

TAM
 
brumsen said:
Nah.. 'course he was.
Just thought it was in bad taste. Irony is not exempt from potentially being in bad taste.

ETA: and as for Gumboot's point which you so kindly elaborate... does the fact that my ancestors were liberated by the allied mean that still, every time any of the countries from those allies starts a war, we Europeans have to be thankful? I am not alone in being troubled by that idea. [/derail]
Click to expand...

Thankful for the prior assistance, yes. Go along with the new war, no.
 
If the President is making an agenda of removing teachers from classrooms that subscribe to the 9/11 CT, why does Kevin Barret still have a job? That was a pretty big deal in WI and he was even on national TV talking about it.
 
Last edited:
which teacher was fired.

S. Jones was put on paid leave was he not?
 
dirtywick said:
If the President is making an agenda of removing teachers from classrooms that subscribe to the 9/11 CT, why does Kevin Barret still have a job? That was a pretty big deal in WI and he was even on national TV talking about it.
Click to expand...

Nice edit.

TAM:)
 
I cullled this from 911blogger:

I am LDS, and I have rarely if ever crticized the Church, but I think that you should all know that it is my opinion that the final decision made in this case WILL constitute a referrendum by the LDS church on the 9/11 truth movement. I can not believe that, given the implications of this, that this decision will be made purely at the level of BYU administration. I also am trying not to be too cynical about the timing of this, given the recent meeting (last week) between President Bush and church officials.

I hope that this situation does not present me with the type of crisis of faith that will be inevitable if they sign on in endorsement and protection of the "Official religous myth" of the Neo-Con nation-state.
Click to expand...

Let me explain what's happening here with this guy.

Today, he believes that a band of israelites settled the Yucatan peninsula in 600 BC. He believes that Jesus visited and walked with the ancestors of the aztec and maya, having "beamed over" shortly after his crucifixion and ressurection. He believes that God and Jesus revealed the ancient hidden gospel to a 14 year old boy in New York state in 1820.

He believes this, as all mormons do, on the grounds that he recieved a personal revelation by the power of the Holy Ghost.

If Steven Jones doesn't return to work in the next couple weeks, he's going to decide that since the mormon leaders didn't rubber stamp his pet political cause, that all of the above is not true. He is going to decide that on those grounds that it wasn't really the Holy Ghost that whispered in his ear and said the church was true.

I suppose that, he will blame on the Bush administration too. :p
 
Hey guys-- I was debating a CTer on another forum and found a couple things on Steven Jones that I thought you'd get a kick out of.

Here is the first part of Jones' response to an accusation that his paper hasn't been presented at a scientific meeting or peer reviewed by any scholars in the same discipline:

I did indeed present my paper (as much of it as I had time for) at the Utah Academy of Sciences in April 2006, a fact which is announced on the very first page of my Answers to Questions and Objections (AnsQ). Much of the specific, scientific data given in
AnsQ was presented at the Utah Academy of Sciences meeting. My abstract for the meeting
was submitted, reviewed and accepted for presentation at that meeting. The data are now in
the public domain.
Click to expand...

And here are the rules for submission as stated on the Utah Academy of Sciences website:

Send title of paper or poster and short abstract (150 words or less) by March 7, 2006 to the appropriate Division Chair (see below for Division Chair listing).
Click to expand...

He is responding to a claim that his paper hasn't been peer reviewed by referencing a 150-word or less abstract he wrote describing it.

Also from the site:

Conference papers will be considered for publication in the refereed Journal of the Utah Academy.
Click to expand...

I wonder if his paper was published? He forgot to address this in his answer.

The rest of his response has to do with the Journal of 9/11 Studies, of which he himself is a co-chair.

Also, here is Jones evading a question about peer review after a presentation he gave earlier this year:
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4997804576359751731
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom