Docker's OKC Bombing Conspiracy Thread

[chipmunk stew]

Man, even when we do just post links for him, he won't read that material. I guarantee he hasn't looked at the provious OKC thread here either.

Docker, why are you doing this? What satisfaction does trolling bring you? What is missing in your life that this behavior supplies?

...

 

[gumboot]

Are you people that stupid?

Attack the message, not the messenger.

-Gumboot

 

[Docker]

Attack the message, not the messenger.

-Gumboot

Erm I also attacked the message but you cut that bit out

 

[Docker]

You presented two links. He and others (eventually, after trying to engage you in a discussion) presented several other links that refuted it.

You were so totally PWND!!!11!!1ONE!!!ELEVEN1!!!11!!

Well why weren't these links posted at the beginning of the thread? If gravy hadn't pissed about with his childish quizzes it would have been fine.

 

[chipmunk stew]

Not to mention that no ATF got killed,

How many were wounded? Where were their offices located?

 

[Gravy]

How many were wounded? Where were their offices located?

Now we'll see if he has actually read anything we've provided.

 

[chipmunk stew]

Well why weren't these links posted at the beginning of the thread? If gravy hadn't pissed about with his childish quizzes it would have been fine.

You said he couldn't refute it. He refuted it. What's more important to you? Style? Or substance?

 

[gumboot]

Erm I also attacked the message but you cut that bit out

So it's okay to insult people, as long as you ALSO address their argument?

-Gumboot

 

[dirtywick]

You said he couldn't refute it. He refuted it. What's more important to you? Style? Or substance?

It seems like he goes with whatever's convenient at the time.

 

[Docker]

You said he couldn't refute it. He refuted it. What's more important to you? Style? Or substance?

Substance. I realised quickly gravy had none, thats why he's on ignore.

 

[Augustine]

Substance. I realised quickly gravy had none, thats why he's on ignore.

Is this said with a hint of irony? I cannot recall seeing any substantive criticism from you since your arrival. Your "questions" are paper-thin, and you really have no alternate working hypothesis that I can see.

 

[Docker]

Is this said with a hint of irony? I cannot recall seeing any substantive criticism from you since your arrival. Your "questions" are paper-thin, and you really have no alternate working hypothesis that I can see.

Why does disbelieving something mean I have to have another hypothesis?

 

[Gravy]

Substance. I realised quickly gravy had none, thats why he's on ignore.

Someone ask him again how many ATF agents were wounded in the bombing. Thanks!

 

[gumboot]

Someone ask him again how many ATF agents were wounded in the bombing. Thanks!

Please respond Docker.

-Gumboot

 

[Augustine]

Why does disbelieving something mean I have to have another hypothesis?

Well, if your disbelief is rooted in some kind of rational logical analysis, then your disbelief must arise because of some viable alternate explanation for the observed events.

Quite right, if your disbelief is purely irrational or emotional, then you would of course have no other explanation. Then the question arises how you expect to have a reasoned discussion if you are operating irrationally.

 

[Docker]

Well, if your disbelief is rooted in some kind of rational logical analysis, then your disbelief must arise because of some viable alternate explanation for the observed events.

Quite right, if your disbelief is purely irrational or emotional, then you would of course have no other explanation. Then the question arises how you expect to have a reasoned discussion if you are operating irrationally.

Thats not true at all. I disbelieve the OKC thing because of the John Doe business and the eyewitnesses etc. That doesn't mean I know who else might be involved.

 

[Gravy]

Thats not true at all. I disbelieve the OKC thing because of the John Doe business and the eyewitnesses etc. That doesn't mean I know who else might be involved.

Ah, the "eyewitnesses etc." That explains it. Well taken, sir!

 

[Augustine]

Thats not true at all. I disbelieve the OKC thing because of the John Doe business and the eyewitnesses etc. That doesn't mean I know who else might be involved.

Well, first, let's stop being vague. What exactly do you disbelieve? "The OKC thing" is hardly descriptive. So let's be specific as to what precisely you disbelieve. Then you will see that you either have an alternate explanation or hypothesis that is founded in some kind of logic or reason or you do not.

But first, stop the muddy thinking and be specific.

 

[Augustine]

Has he toddled off again?

eta: Hmmm...apparently so. Like little Billy from Family Circus, wandering through the neighborhood...

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Well, first, let's stop being vague. What exactly do you disbelieve? "The OKC thing" is hardly descriptive. So let's be specific as to what precisely you disbelieve. Then you will see that you either have an alternate explanation or hypothesis that is founded in some kind of logic or reason or you do not.

But first, stop the muddy thinking and be specific.

Very well said in both this, and your previous post.