BBC now admits al qaeda never existed

In terms of internal consistency, Clayton's claim that he has prior military service because he was involved in the shooting of a war movie seems pretty much in line with the usual level of distinction conspiracy theorists are able to draw between reality and fiction.

Dave
 
You know, folks... while the whole question of CM's experience is illuminating as far as his character goes, it's ultimately unimporant. His claims are demonstrably wrong on their own merits, nevermind the experience he employs or claims to employ in the construction of them. Even if it turns out he has relevant military experience, and even if it turns out nothing is a lie or exaggerated, he's still wrong. The evidence demonstrates this. No one doubts Jesse Ventura's experience, for example, but it doesn't change the fact that he advocates for demonstrably incorrect claims.

This statement is not meant to shut down the discussion, though. It's merely to remind us all of the proper perspective. By all means, feel free to continue it. :D
 
Will we be getting back to the OP, and the fact that the BBC has NOT claimed that AQ never existed, and the fact that the doc producer never claimed that AQ did NOT exist, and the fact that all that CM illustrated here was that GWB et al exaggerated?

You know, folks... while the whole question of CM's experience is illuminating as far as his character goes, it's ultimately unimporant. His claims are demonstrably wrong on their own merits, nevermind the experience he employs or claims to employ in the construction of them. Even if it turns out he has relevant military experience, and even if it turns out nothing is a lie or exaggerated, he's still wrong. The evidence demonstrates this. No one doubts Jesse Ventura's experience, for example, but it doesn't change the fact that he advocates for demonstrably incorrect claims.

This statement is not meant to shut down the discussion, though. It's merely to remind us all of the proper perspective. By all means, feel free to continue it. :D

Thank you, for a while there I was becoming convinced that CM only mentions all this about the movie so that no one will notice the 400 pound gorilla in his room, that his claim that the "BBC now admits al qaeda never existed " has been demonstrated incorrect and that neither has the docuementary producer at the supposed center of his arguement.
 
Thank you, for a while there I was becoming convinced that CM only mentions all this about the movie so that no one will notice the 400 pound gorilla in his room, that his claim that the "BBC now admits al qaeda never existed " has been demonstrated incorrect and that neither has the docuementary producer at the supposed center of his arguement.

Well, quite obviously he's dodging it now. But that's an element of the slower Gish Gallop (The Gish Canter? The Gish Trot? ;) :D). Make the claim, and only slowly turn to other claims. All the while ignoring the refutations for the base or initial one.

No matter how it's characterized, it's still avoidance. I'd guess it's a defense against the onset of cognitive dissonance, but I honestly don't know; it could be that many conspiracy peddlers' cognition is so broken that they could hold deliberately refuted beliefs as true without their minds exploding. Who knows?
 
Well, quite obviously he's dodging it now. But that's an element of the slower Gish Gallop (The Gish Canter? The Gish Trot? ;) :D). Make the claim, and only slowly turn to other claims. All the while ignoring the refutations for the base or initial one.

No matter how it's characterized, it's still avoidance. I'd guess it's a defense against the onset of cognitive dissonance, but I honestly don't know; it could be that many conspiracy peddlers' cognition is so broken that they could hold deliberately refuted beliefs as true without their minds exploding. Who knows?

Its like he never tires, perhaps even feeds off of, having his original claims proven wrong so that he can have a forum to make tangentially related claims.
Its hard to comprehend such a psyche. of
 
You know, folks... while the whole question of CM's experience is illuminating as far as his character goes, it's ultimately unimporant. His claims are demonstrably wrong on their own merits, nevermind the experience he employs or claims to employ in the construction of them. Even if it turns out he has relevant military experience, and even if it turns out nothing is a lie or exaggerated, he's still wrong. The evidence demonstrates this. No one doubts Jesse Ventura's experience, for example, but it doesn't change the fact that he advocates for demonstrably incorrect claims.

This statement is not meant to shut down the discussion, though. It's merely to remind us all of the proper perspective. By all means, feel free to continue it. :D

But since there is little to no chance of actually getting cm to admit that he was wrong, it's simply amuzing to rub his nose in some of his other more ludicrous statements made when he didn't even realize he'd be called on in it.

In rather the same way that others rub their dog's noses into messes they make when they are caught at it -- with the major difference that a dog eventually learns that such messes are not acceptable.
 
TSR said:
You know, folks... while the whole question of CM's experience is illuminating as far as his character goes, it's ultimately unimporant. His claims are demonstrably wrong on their own merits, nevermind the experience he employs or claims to employ in the construction of them. Even if it turns out he has relevant military experience, and even if it turns out nothing is a lie or exaggerated, he's still wrong. The evidence demonstrates this. No one doubts Jesse Ventura's experience, for example, but it doesn't change the fact that he advocates for demonstrably incorrect claims.

This statement is not meant to shut down the discussion, though. It's merely to remind us all of the proper perspective. By all means, feel free to continue it. :D

But since there is little to no chance of actually getting cm to admit that he was wrong, it's simply amuzing to rub his nose in some of his other more ludicrous statements made when he didn't even realize he'd be called on in it.

In rather the same way that others rub their dog's noses into messes they make when they are caught at it -- with the major difference that a dog eventually learns that such messes are not acceptable.
Yes, it's not his experience/lack of which matters one way or the other. It's his use of a blatantly ludicrous "argument from authority" to support his patently false claim.

Not to mention it's funny to watch him dance around the subject rather than simply answering the question one way or the other. Why would someone do that? :rolleyes:
 
Hey guys, I just wandered into the CT subfora out of abject boredom . . . and great suff'rin' Christ on a cracker, how do you people stand it? These guys are worse than the Young Earth Creationists.
 
Hey guys, I just wandered into the CT subfora out of abject boredom . . . and great suff'rin' Christ on a cracker, how do you people stand it? These guys are worse than the Young Earth Creationists.

It's sort of like the Japanese game show Endurance, but without any prizes at the end.
 
.......You stated that the BBC has stated that AQ does not exist.
They have not done this so that's strike 1

The creator of the doc shown on the BBC has not stated this either, strike 2

In fact you have produced no one, other than yourself, who does , and you have no demonstrable credibility, strike 3

What you have done is show that the clowns in the GWB admin exaggerrated.

Congrats, next are you going to illustrate that water is wet or that bears defecate in wooded areas?

It is now past two weeks since I posted this and nary a response from Clayton.

I will no longer pester the forums with requests that he do so.
I will however assume that CM either agrees that his thread title is incorrect
or
that he at least sees it as a 'no contest' situation in which he simply cannot illustrate or prove the point, while not abandoning the position (albeit inexplicably).
 
It is now past two weeks since I posted this and nary a response from Clayton.

I will no longer pester the forums with requests that he do so.
I will however assume that CM either agrees that his thread title is incorrect
or
that he at least sees it as a 'no contest' situation in which he simply cannot illustrate or prove the point, while not abandoning the position (albeit inexplicably).

It's explicable, all right -- but doing so would get me dinged
 
It is now past two weeks since I posted this and nary a response from Clayton.

I will no longer pester the forums with requests that he do so.
I will however assume that CM either agrees that his thread title is incorrect
or
that he at least sees it as a 'no contest' situation in which he simply cannot illustrate or prove the point, while not abandoning the position (albeit inexplicably).
He did the same thing in his "Virus CT" topic.
 
To be fair to the movie producer, he did rock up in his 'ALEC Exposed thread' to point out he actually used a real publication in his defence.
 

Back
Top Bottom