• 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.

How does Gage make a living?

Quiproquo said:
Ha ha ha! Horatius do you truly believe Man can functionally live in a world in which such a lie exists and maintain his moral sanity?
Click to expand...

I am not at all convinced that any large percentage of twoofers are at all sane. Gage clearly isn't.

Not many of them are particularly bright, either.

Some few of them have mastered a few skill sets in mathematics, but, if you plug in the wrong numbers or try to apply a formula to a situation to which it bears no relevance, as Hoffman does, it's just garbage-in-garbage-out.
 
leftysergeant said:
...Not many of them are particularly bright, either...
Click to expand...
Given the stuff they preach as if they believe it leaves only two options for most:
1) They are very dumb; OR
2) They are lying.

And it is hard to accept that anyone with a bachelors degree or higher could really believe the truther crap they spout. And there is a limit to how much denial can be supported by delusion.
 
Now the OP's just not fair. This recession has really hit the industry and a lot of architects, particularly the less able, are unemployed. What else is Gage going to do to get some cash, eh?
 
Quiproquo said:
In addition, I would like to point out to you many of these Truthers you so seemingly disregard have taken considerable risk in exposing what they believe is a fraud.
Click to expand...

ORLY? :rolleyes:

Would that be the "considerable risk" of continuing to be considered by Joe Average as not firing on all cylinders? Not playing with a full deck? Not being the sharpest knives in the drawer?

No risk there; I think that's pretty much a guaranteed certainty.

Fact of the matter is that the 'truth' movement is held in such low esteem because they're stuck in their own little Groundhog Day-like temporal loop. Every argument by every 'new' 'truther' has been debunked repeatedly since 2006. Yet for some reason, the 'truther' newbs spew the same debunked lines and act astonished when their tired repetition isn't afforded the time and consideration they feel their newly (to them anyway) discovered information deserves. It would seem that collectively, they're incapable of using (or unwilling to use) the search function.
 
tsig said:
If I had known what you meant by that phrase I wouldn't have asked. I see you are here to play games and obscure meanings rather than communicate.
Click to expand...

And asking a definition to a word in an online forum when you possess, at the tip of your fingers, an encyclopedia with access to a universe of knowledge is what then, astute?

There are websites on the internet called "search engines." They are designed to help you find information about something, anything. It only takes the time you take to type to find an answer to any question you may have. You should try it some day, and learn something.
 
Quiproquo said:
And asking a definition to a word in an online forum when you possess, at the tip of your fingers, an encyclopedia with access to a universe of knowledge is what then, astute?

There are websites on the internet called "search engines." They are designed to help you find information about something, anything. It only takes the time you take to type to find an answer to any question you may have. You should try it some day, and learn something.
Click to expand...

The best way to be certain what a person meant when he used a particular phrase is to ask the person. In normal situations, when we communicate, we want the others to understand precisely what we mean and so we're happy to explain what each term means, if necessary.

Now, we might balk when it comes to everyday terms, such as "house" and "frog", but for more obscure terms, such as "cognitive infiltration", it is only reasonable to explain the term.

Unless, of course, we're playing games and not really aiming at clear communication. But that surely doesn't apply here, right?

So, what did you mean when you said "cognitive infiltration"? Honestly, it sounds like agents invading my thoughts, but perhaps you meant something simpler, like, oh, "lying".
 
R.Mackey said:
Gage's nonsense has been disproven literally hundreds of times.
Click to expand...

Um, where, exactly?

I hope you're not suggesting the amateur "debunker" websites like "911mysths" or "wtc7lies", or "ae911truth.info". Because that would not only be false, but silly. You must have some other reference in mind? Do tell us.
 
Quiproquo,

Given the fluidness of definitions that some members of the 'truth' movement apply to words (femr2 is a particularly notable local example), is is really that unreasonable to ask you for some specificity on your part?
 
phiwum said:
The best way to be certain what a person meant when he used a particular phrase is to ask the person. In normal situations, when we communicate, we want the others to understand precisely what we mean and so we're happy to explain what each term means, if necessary.

Now, we might balk when it comes to everyday terms, such as "house" and "frog", but for more obscure terms, such as "cognitive infiltration", it is only reasonable to explain the term.

Unless, of course, we're playing games and not really aiming at clear communication. But that surely doesn't apply here, right?

So, what did you mean when you said "cognitive infiltration"? Honestly, it sounds like agents invading my thoughts, but perhaps you meant something simpler, like, oh, "lying".
Click to expand...

Ok Phiwum.

Cognitive infiltration is a term used by Cass Sunstein, current administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Obama administration. He uses this term in a paper he wrote entitled Conspiracy Theories (2008).

He means by this that Government agents or allies should infiltrate conspiracy groups, in virtual or real-life, in order to sow "cognitive diversity" and increase the "informational base" so that new members will be less likely to adhere to alternate conspiracy narratives. These alternate conspiracy narratives, according to Sunstein, exist mainly because of a restricted access to information, in large part dominated by the suppliers of these narratives.

As I wrote earlier in this thread, if one assumes the possible existence of an alternate conspiracy narrative to explain the collapse of the three World Trade Center towers, then it is not illogical to believe that this opposition movement to the mainline conspiracy narrative will be opposed to in different ways by the purveyors of the mainline conspiracy narrative.

My contention is that the belief that some Anti-truthers may be part of the conspiracy, either as agents or dupes (this last one being of course the most probable case), is not in itself a form of paranaoïa or delusion, and therefore of pathology, as many Anti-Truthers contend.
 
ergo said:
Um, where, exactly?

I hope you're not suggesting the amateur "debunker" websites like "911mysths" or "wtc7lies", or "ae911truth.info". Because that would not only be false, but silly. You must have some other reference in mind? Do tell us.
Click to expand...

I love how truthers demand high levels of academic scrutiny in response to the inane babbling of their beloved kooks.

A W Smith said:
He wasn't fired, when asked to defend his work he resigned. Took an early retirement.
Click to expand...

So first he avoids scrutiny at his own university, he then follows up by creating an intellectually masturbatory "peer reviewed journal", and tops it off by submitting his latest work to sham journal. There should be a 3 strikes rule.
 
Last edited:
Quiproquo said:
...
He means by this that Government agents or allies should infiltrate conspiracy groups, in virtual or real-life, in order to sow "cognitive diversity" and increase the "informational base" so that new members will be less likely to adhere to alternate conspiracy narratives. These alternate conspiracy narratives, according to Sunstein, exist mainly because of a restricted access to information, in large part dominated by the suppliers of these narratives.

...
My contention is that the belief that some Anti-truthers may be part of the conspiracy, either as agents or dupes (this last one being of course the most probable case), is not in itself a form of paranaoïa or delusion, and therefore of pathology, as many Anti-Truthers contend.
Click to expand...
Paranoid delusions posted exposing you fail to grasp 911. Why do you make up so much nonsense. It would be bad to gain knowledge in 911 nut case conspiracy theory groups, they might start to grasp reality.

Are you the latest dupe to spew nonsense and try to defend idiots who can't figure out 911? How would you infiltrate the dumbest movement in history? 911 truth dolts are like NAZIs and 1984, with a name truth to hide their failed lies, spewing propaganda backed with lies, hearsay and delusions. Only a few fringe paranoid conspiracy theorists join. 911 truth failure is seen with the dolts who back the failed claims, too lazy to present evidence or research 911.

Why would anyone want to improve the knowledge base of 911 truth? They don't use knowledge, it would be rejected by the drones and cult members who can only chant "inside job" like you do with idiotic nonsense. It could be a disaster to gain knowledge and ruin 911 truth's moronic delusions. 911 truth is made up of people who are too lazy to do research, and when they do research they use the Internet and only believe the lies made up by morons in 911 truth.

You sure are paranoid, and a perfect defender of Gage's money making delusional lies presenting travel club. Gage's scam works because people lack knowledge and think Gage's implied idiotic claims are evidence.

Spew some more nonsense about 911. You are like a random thought generator making up proof of 911 conspiracies by making up a warped philosophy based the need to have a paranoid conspiracy. You have delusions about your delusions. Do it again.



How does Gage make a living? Fooling people to donate money because they share his delusions. Does Gage know he is telling lies, or is the as dumb on 911 as those who think he has something? Why does Gage spread moronic lies?
 
Last edited:
Quiproquo said:
As I wrote earlier in this thread, if one assumes the possible existence of an alternate conspiracy narrative to explain the collapse of the three World Trade Center towers, then it is not illogical to believe that this opposition movement to the mainline conspiracy narrative will be opposed to in different ways by the purveyors of the mainline conspiracy narrative.
Click to expand...

There's your problem, right there. Every argument of the truth movement has been refuted based purely on content, therefore there is no evidentiary basis for the assumption you make, and a strong presumption that it is in fact false. Therefore, it is irrational to act on the basis that the assumption is true, whatever the implications if the assumption were true.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
There's your problem, right there. Every argument of the truth movement has been refuted based purely on content, therefore there is no evidentiary basis for the assumption you make, and a strong presumption that it is in fact false. Therefore, it is irrational to act on the basis that the assumption is true, whatever the implications if the assumption were true.

Dave
Click to expand...

What do you mean "based purely on content"?

Nevertheless, Dave, if I understand you correctly, what you are saying is simply not true.

Military-grade energetic material found in the WTC dust is evidence, and further gives credence to the initial proposition that the towers were brought down not by the plane crash alone.

How can you dismiss these findings out of hand, corroborated by an increasing number of reputable scientists, besides through ad hominem attacks against 1. the scientists who made the findings and 2. the scientific paper that published the article?

Your counter-argument is weak.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom