• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

(UK) The Daily Mail joins the circus!

jon said:
This is a thread about the Mail. Use another thread for a broader debate, if you'd like one.
Click to expand...

Right.. but presumably in the context of this forum? And I quote: "a place to discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science...".

Not entirely sure where "give your subjective opinion on members of the British media" fits into that, so naturally I have assumed that we are actually talking about the notion of the article rather than the article itself.. SILLY ME?! :jaw-dropp
 
Maybe you should change the tag line to "Communal, mutual, homoerotic ego-wanking. Spunking on the guy who doesn't agree with our (metaphorically) AIDS infested brain goo"?
 
mookid said:
Right.. but presumably in the context of this forum? And I quote: "a place to discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science...".

Not entirely sure where "give your subjective opinion on members of the British media" fits into that, so naturally I have assumed that we are actually talking about the notion of the article rather than the article itself.. SILLY ME?! :jaw-dropp
Click to expand...
In your six posts, you have said nothing substantial about 9/11. You have done nothing but complain that we are focusing on the author and the Mail, rather than the claims made in the article (that have been thoroughly picked over many times on other threads).

You could have addressed one of the few posts that did mention claims presented in the article. You could have chosen your own parts of the article that you would like to discuss. You could have joined a different thread in which the topic is more to your liking. You could have started your own thread. Instead you complain (wrongly) that we don't address the more "sensible questions", whatever those may be.

So which path will you choose? Your future is up to you. Your destiny is in your hands. Will you be swept along by the ebb and flow of the JREF tides, or will you man your oar and row confidently in the direction of your choosing? Will you gather the confidence and will-power to realize that life is not happening to you? Take up your arms, son, and charge! Charge!
 
Last edited:
mookid said:
Just wanted to quote this as evidence of a poor effort to:


1. Retort

2. Be e-cool (troll's so passé :catfight:)
Click to expand...
Are you trying to score points? Because I'm not. If you want to talk about something other than the Mail author, then

RANT! GET ON WITH IT OR MOVE ALONG!!!

Thus far, you've done nothing but troll.
 
I don't know how anyone can deny a 9/11 conspiracy. Why, last weekend, my Clue game showed that it was:

Lee Harvey Oswald
With the thermite
In the Trade Centers.

What more proof do you need?

Speaking of 9/11, a conference will be held here in a Phoenix suburb at the end of the month:

9/11 Accountability
Strategies and Solutions Conference
Crown Plaza San Marcos
Chandler, Arizona - February 23-25, 2007

More at its web site, http://911accountability.org/accountability/

Hey, it costs only $129 for the whole conference! Such a deal!
 
chipmunk stew said:
In your six posts, you have said nothing substantial about 9/11. You have done nothing but complain that we are focusing on the author and the Mail, rather than the claims made in the article (that have been thoroughly picked over many times on other threads).
Click to expand...
I'm not saying "anything substantial" because I don't really see the point in doing so.. the information is there to find on the net as my friends above have clearly pointed out so I don't really see the point in re-iterating that. I'm just asking people to tell me what they do or don't believe and why.. rather than just making broad, sweeping statements that don't mean an awful lot! :eek:

chipmunk stew said:
You could have addressed one of the few posts that did mention claims presented in the article. You could have chosen your own parts of the article that you would like to discuss. You could have joined a different thread in which the topic is more to your liking. You could have started your own thread. Instead you complain (wrongly) that we don't address the more "sensible questions", whatever those may be.
Click to expand...
I don't have a problem with this.. I'd rather that others cited their previous posts with links that address specific points, rather than forcing me to wade through swamps of previous posts looking for the contributors that I am accusing of unreasoned ranting.

chipmunk stew said:
So which path will you choose? Your future is up to you. Your destiny is in your hands. Will you be swept along by the ebb and flow of the JREF tides, or will you man your oar and row confidently in the direction of your choosing? Will you gather the confidence and will-power to realize that life is not happening to you? Take up your arms, son, and charge! Charge!
Click to expand...

Do you know what Delusional Disorder and Petrol are, because they seem quite similar according to this little piece of pseudo-intellectual commentary? :(
 
chipmunk stew said:
Will you gather the confidence and will-power to realize that life is not happening to you?
Click to expand...

I love the way you can describe one side of an ancient philosophical debate surrounding determinism as fact that I need to 'realise'. Brilliant stuff! ;)
 
mookid said:
I'm not saying "anything substantial" because I don't really see the point in doing so.. the information is there to find on the net as my friends above have clearly pointed out so I don't really see the point in re-iterating that. I'm just asking people to tell me what they do or don't believe and why.. rather than just making broad, sweeping statements that don't mean an awful lot! :eek:


I don't have a problem with this.. I'd rather that others cited their previous posts with links that address specific points, rather than forcing me to wade through swamps of previous posts looking for the contributors that I am accusing of unreasoned ranting.



Do you know what Delusional Disorder and Petrol are, because they seem quite similar according to this little piece of pseudo-intellectual commentary? :(
Click to expand...
Do you know how many hundreds (perhaps thousands, depending on how granular you want to get) of "specific points" have been addressed? Which ones are you interested in?

You mentioned "sensible questions" in contrast, I suppose, to senseless ones (of which there are a great many). Apparently, these are the questions you're interested in. But we're not mind-readers. Which points would you like references to? Preferably they relate in some way to the article, this being a thread about the article and all.
 
mookid said:
I love the way you can describe one side of an ancient philosophical debate surrounding determinism as fact that I need to 'realise'. Brilliant stuff! ;)
Click to expand...

Well, if determinism is incorect then yes you should "realize" it, if it is not correct then chipmunk stew had no choice but to post thta, your recation is only mitigated by the fact that you had no choice but to post that.
 
mookid said:
I love the way you can describe one side of an ancient philosophical debate surrounding determinism as fact that I need to 'realise'. Brilliant stuff! ;)
Click to expand...

I love the way you misrepresent philosophical debate around determinism as polarised into two 'sides' (do you see the debate as determinism vs free will?) Brilliant stuff! The most interesting positions on determinism, imo, move beyond this polarisation - for example, a spinozean might take a wholly determinist position, but also emphasise the value of self-determinism.

Anyway, if you want to discuss the 9/11 attacks, or determinism, please start another thread. This one is meant to be about the Daily Mail article :D
 
mookid said:
I love the way you can describe one side of an ancient philosophical debate surrounding determinism as fact that I need to 'realise'. Brilliant stuff! ;)
Click to expand...
The philosophy forum is that-a-way =>

Why do you latch onto my hyperbole? Is it to distract from your vagueness? Were you lying when you suggested that you are more interested in substantive discussion and sensible questions?
 
"I'm not saying "anything substantial" because I don't really see the point in doing so.. the information is there to find on the net..."

>> Oh, lordy, that old chestnut: "Go look, you'll find it." Save us all some time and give us one -- just one -- claim you would like to have addressed or assessed.

"Do you know what Delusional Disorder and Petrol are?"

>> I don't, but my daughter thinks they opened for Weezer on their last tour.
 
Unsubstantiated Speculation No. 3872: "mookid" is Sue Reid!!! :yikes: It even SOUNDS similar!!!1!!!11!1!!ELEVENTYONE!!!1!!!
 
jon said:
I love the way you misrepresent philosophical debate around determinism as polarised into two 'sides' (do you see the debate as determinism vs free will?) Brilliant stuff!
Click to expand...

At what point did I say there's was only two sides.. ? One word: polygon.
 
mookid said:
At what point did I say there's was only two sides.. ? One word: polygon.
Click to expand...

Actually, fair enough - I misread your post. Still, if one views the debate as many sided, then 'life not just being something that happens to you' would surely be many sides of the debate, not just one side.
 
hilliag said:
"I'm not saying "anything substantial" because I don't really see the point in doing so.. the information is there to find on the net..."

>> Oh, lordy, that old chestnut: "Go look, you'll find it." Save us all some time and give us one -- just one -- claim you would like to have addressed or assessed.
Click to expand...
I don't have an agenda, I don't have an objective, I don't want to change your mind I just want to (try and) understand it. I'm merely addressing the points that were originally raised at the beginning of this article that the Mail is spouting meaningless, fictional ******** in order to damage reputations and cause a stir.

I'll elaborate briefly:

If you believe that this paper is making claims that are based on nothing but thin air, then cite either:

1. Legitimate facts that directly contradict the facts on which you are basing these accusations against the article.

2. The logic behind what you believe.

Whether you chose to give a link to a previous posting you or someone else has made, or write it out specifically in this thread; is up to you.
 
mailman said:
You have lost me?

Mailman
Click to expand...

The Architect was pointing out that the PCC covers the Uk as a whole, not just England, and complaint about your characterization of the Mail as an English, rather than national paper.
I was pointing out that although the first was a legitimate complaint, not associating the Mail with Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland should be seen as a good thing by the Scottish Welsh and Northern Irish. If i could have found some way of disassociating the Mail from the English I would have. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom