Dylan Avery Gets Schooled By The BBC (Video)
- Thread starter Walter Ego
- Start date
-
- Tags
- dylan avery
Jonnyclueless
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2007
- Messages
- 5,546
No the issue here is treating others as they treat you. If he is going to accuse others of lying because they disagree or because he misunderstand what they are saying, then that is how he is going to be treated. And the fact is that in our discussions these issues have been discussed and he has moved beyond the possibility of ignorance. It's one thing to make claims not knowing all the facts, but when one continues to make such claims, knowing they are wrong, having been shown they are untrue, then it's the same as a lie in my book. It's all about intent. His intent is dishonest in that he now knows these claims about things like the IM warning are not true, yet continues to argue them. He knows that I never made any literal claims about what he actually said, but instead pointed out the the fault in his argument. he knows this, but instead uses the argument as a means to accuse me of putting words in his mouth which I never did. After this being pointed out well over 5 times, it's no longer ignorance.
He has long past the benefit of doubt and came out of the gate making such assertions without giving anyone the benefit of the doubt as we gave him, simply because he didn't like being disagreed with.
Drudgewire
Critical Doofus
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2006
- Messages
- 9,421
Exactimundo.
While I'll take an occasional cheap shot, I usually enjoy the back and forth with the twoofers because I was once one of them and because being misguided is no reason to attack someone personally (both RedIbis and Max should back me up here, we get into it all the time but at the end of the day I like both of them).
This guy is much worse. Not only has he played the victim card, he played it to project his own modus operandi onto the members who made the mistake of giving him the time of day. He's EITHER dishonest or a troll... with the most likely answer being somewhat of a combo platter.
Takes a lot to make my ignore list, as is evidenced by the fact this time yesterday there was only one name on it.
Edx
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2008
- Messages
- 5,642
Yes, but that doesnt mean Im saying they should have included every truther and every single possible subject. I listed some examples of people and subjects they could have interviewed, brought up or even mentioned, but didnt. I never implied what you claim Im saying.
I also said they misrepresented them by claiming they are saying things they arent, like claiming that Avery is denying Delta flight 1989 even existed and the passenger never took the flight.
Where did I lie about the instant messages? What I wrote was written in the news reports. The graphic really isnt totally accurate, and NIST did go against the many pancaking theories.
<snipped taunting trolling insults>
Last edited:
Edx
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2008
- Messages
- 5,642
I tried replying to yourpost and then lost it all half way through, you'll have to forgive me if it takes a little longer to reply to it. I wont forget though.
SatansMaleVoiceChoir
Illuminator
Firstly; sorry - I am a bit late to the party, and I have only read about the first 4 pages.
Secondly; to those who are not familiar with me, I am about as far from being a CTist as it is possible to get (without being an NWO member!).
I wish to say this:
The phrase 'Drop-out' has been used in the UK for about just as long as it has the US, and colloquially has no positive connotations whatsoever in the UK. For any of my British Brethren to claim it has any sort of positive meaning - or could even be considered a compliment - would suggest they are misinformed at best, and talking utter Dog Toffee at worst.
The BBCs reputation as fair and balanced when it comes to news is highly questionable (especially when it comes to the British Army). In fact, during the second Gulf War it was nicknamed 'The Baghdad Broadcasting Corporation' by the British Military for its bias in reporting events pertaining to the conflict. The sad fact is, that the BBC - like many other broadcasting corporations - has its own agenda.
Viewers should be presented with a fair and unbiased program and be allowed to draw their own conclusions; the facts should win out. Yes, there is some satisfaction to seeing the 'truthers' get a taste of their own medicine, but sinking to their level somewhat sours the victory. Let the hard facts speak for themselves!
Secondly; to those who are not familiar with me, I am about as far from being a CTist as it is possible to get (without being an NWO member!).
I wish to say this:
The phrase 'Drop-out' has been used in the UK for about just as long as it has the US, and colloquially has no positive connotations whatsoever in the UK. For any of my British Brethren to claim it has any sort of positive meaning - or could even be considered a compliment - would suggest they are misinformed at best, and talking utter Dog Toffee at worst.
The BBCs reputation as fair and balanced when it comes to news is highly questionable (especially when it comes to the British Army). In fact, during the second Gulf War it was nicknamed 'The Baghdad Broadcasting Corporation' by the British Military for its bias in reporting events pertaining to the conflict. The sad fact is, that the BBC - like many other broadcasting corporations - has its own agenda.
Viewers should be presented with a fair and unbiased program and be allowed to draw their own conclusions; the facts should win out. Yes, there is some satisfaction to seeing the 'truthers' get a taste of their own medicine, but sinking to their level somewhat sours the victory. Let the hard facts speak for themselves!
Walter Ego
Illuminator
Oh, for God's sake don't brink up the dropout thing! Edx went on about that for pages! We’ve agreed it’s not relevant to the main discussion of this thread which is what was factually wrong about the BBC program.
Any alleged bias by the BBC is irrelevant to the topic at hand. Which, again, is were there any FACTUAL statements in the show about the truthers claims that were incorrect.
Last edited:
Edx
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2008
- Messages
- 5,642
SatansMaleVoiceChoir, you do know you will now be called a truther dont you. 
Btw thank you. I thought Ive been going crazy over here. In retrospect I should have approached it the same way you did, but then I would still likely have had a similar reaction.
Btw thank you. I thought Ive been going crazy over here. In retrospect I should have approached it the same way you did, but then I would still likely have had a similar reaction.
Last edited:
SatansMaleVoiceChoir
Illuminator
Edx
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2008
- Messages
- 5,642
Yea, but when people call into question my honesty it gets to me. I shouldnt let it bother me. It is after all just a pointless internet debate, even more pointless than usual really.
Drudgewire
Critical Doofus
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2006
- Messages
- 9,421
News REPORTS should be unbiased. Investigative shows, by their very nature, take a side.
Should 60 Minutes have given balance to the tobacco industry when they interviewed Lowell Bergman? Should Chris Hansen, after every Dateline bust, take a few minutes to explain the societal variables or tell about all the charity work that person did prior to trying to arrange sex with a 14 year old?
If you think the answer to either of these is yes, please take a course in journalism. You'll be VERY suprised at what the standard of "balanced" really is.
Last edited:
SatansMaleVoiceChoir
Illuminator
SatansMaleVoiceChoir
Illuminator
I don't have an answer; I am English and not familiar with any of the things you mentioned. I will say that in the case of paedophiles, most news programs or documentaries probably WOULD mention things like charity work carried out; simply for the "Well, you never can tell.." juxtaposition of it all.
Walter Ego
Illuminator
Which sort of begs the question of why you're wasting you're time here, doesn't it? You say you’re a 24 year old university student in the UK so let me ask you what would be the reaction of one of your teachers if you turned in an academic paper as sloppy in argumentation and sourcing as what you’ve presented here? I realize the context is different but I’d love to hear the answer anyway.
Edx
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2008
- Messages
- 5,642
Im not going to respond to you or Jonnys baiting taunts and childish insults anymore. I have never done that to you.
Last edited:
Drudgewire
Critical Doofus
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2006
- Messages
- 9,421
Granted if you've never seen it it's sort of hard to imagine, but they're usually parading too many perps through the house to get involved in the backstory beyond their job... and maybe a hair more if they're someone like a rabbi or teacher who's in a position of trust with children.
And SMVC, don't worry about being painted with the same brush. Bringing up a valid issue, even it seems like it's going against the grain of the conversation, doesn't get you lambasted here. We love debate, it's dishonesty and ridiculous baiting tactics that tend to raise the ire of our less patient members (a category which I'm certainly falling into this thread).
Last edited:
SatansMaleVoiceChoir
Illuminator
Granted if you've never seen it it's sort of hard to imagine, but they're usually parading too many perps through the house to get involved in the backstory beyond their job... and maybe a hair more if they're someone like a rabbi or teacher who's in a position of trust with children.
And SMVC, don't worry about being painted with the same brush. Bringing up a valid issue, even it seems like it's going against the grain of the conversation, doesn't get you lambasted here. We love debate, it's dishonesty and ridiculous baiting tactics that tend to raise the ire of our less patient members (a category which I'm certainly falling into this thread).
I know; I too enjoy a bit of healthy debate. Thanks, Drudge.
Walter Ego
Illuminator
I will take that to mean you have a higher standard for your school work than you do for your posts on this discussion board.
The "dropout" stuff is pointless, and you made so many post on a pointless debate? I forgot what you thought about the OP, while you were supporting the false information of 9/11 truth. Read up on 9/11, it will save you from making pointless debates about minor issues, and distract you from real knowledge on the subject. You seem behind on 9/11 topics about 4 years or more.
What did you say about the OP again? If you post, I assume you do not really mean it was a pointless debate you perpetuated.
Edx
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2008
- Messages
- 5,642
I never said they should do anything of the kind. What would be wrong is to pretend the peados were worse than they are just for the purposes of making them look bad. Whats the need? They dont need to be made to look bad, what they are is already bad enough. Of course rarely does anyone claim to do an impartial objective investigation into the paedophilia or the tobacco industry and if they did do an investigation into the tobacco industry they also wouldnt need to misrepresent them. Whats so hard to understand about what Im saying?
Ed