I especially like those that deal with the meta-argument.
There are thousands of great ones, but I'm choosing this one by
William Seger because it's current.
"
> italics" denotes quotes from
StrictlyRockers at DU.
William Seger:
I have no need to "make friends" in the "truth movement" until it starts showing some respect for the truth.
So, the wacky thermite group has split with the wacked out space beam group because at least thermite is not science fiction; very impressive. You'll get to the bottom of this now, huh -- at least on that "serious, sober" site where you've shed the flakes. Maybe another "peer reviewed journal" will help now that you've shucked the wackier peers. Meanwhile, the wacky Loose Change group is splitting with their wacked out "no planes" contingent. But the movement keeps growing because you've got conclusive proof of... something or other.
>
This movement is now growing exponentially.
I dunno, you might take another look behind you if you think it's still growing exponentially (I personally doubt that), but since growth rather than truth definitely seems to be the major objective, that would explain why you play Loose with the truth.
>
I can tell you, unequivocally, that you are totally wrong. Sander Hicks just told you this, too, but you obviously didn't read the article to see the hypocrisy of what you are posting here, in this thread, which is about his article, and it harshly criticizes what you do in each and every post here.
I couldn't possibly care less what Sander Hicks -- or you -- perceive my motivations to be, or how wrong you think I am about the wackiness of
almost the entirety of the "truth movement," and your accusation of hypocrisy makes me wonder if you know what the word means. You live in a world of self-delusion with a capacity for expanding as much as needed to keep your core delusions safe from attack. But it's not hard to figure out why you would much rather cast aspersions on the motivations of "movement" critics than deal with the issues. If you were actually anywhere near the truth -- in fact, if you were really concerned about getting at the truth -- you wouldn't be the least bit concerned about the "negativity" of your critics. But snake oil salesmen worry a lot about negativity, don't they -- because it's bad for the "exponential growth" of their business.
>
I give you a few examples of the dishonesty you engage in to illustrate my point.
"...if it weren't for the fact that those wacky theories have become the very meaning of the "truth movement"...
Um, that's ********. Take it from someone inside the movement.
Maybe you're so close that you can't see the Forrest Gump for the elf-trees, but that doesn't give you the right to call my honest opinion dishonest. I came by it honestly by visiting many, many "truth" sites (including the one you call serious and sober) and by reading boards like this. My opinion doesn't become dishonest just because you don't want your own pet theories mixed up with someone else's, and your pet theories don't became any less wacky just because some are even wackier. (That seems to be the source of some of your confusion here, so just to clarify: yes, controlled demolition of the towers with thermite is only slightly less wacky than "dustification.")
>
The negative hits just keep on coming. I have yet to see a single bit of positivism from you on this subject. Nothing. it is hard to justify conversing with someone who has this kind of attitude on any subject, let alone an important one. Now the Truth Movement is a beast, and not just any beast...a beast with a LAIR. Naw, that doesn’t sound a bit negative to me. You don’t have any agenda here.
If you detected negativity in that statement, then I must have succeeded in my goal to express myself clearly. As for "positivism" it sounds like you'd be happier in a support group than an open discussion forum, and I think the Loose Change board is that-a-way--->. If you don't want to converse with me, that's easy: keep your mouse away from the Reply button on my posts.
Agenda? Of course I have an agenda here, but you apparently refuse to understand or confront what it really is, so you make one up that makes you feel better about your wacky "movement." But as this thread proves, discussing my agenda is pointless, so why not just get back to trying to convince rational people that your theories aren't wacky.
