Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader, TLA Dictator
You actually believe you read that?
How to interpret this evidence?
- Thread starter Rikeln
- Start date
You actually believe you read that?
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader, TLA Dictator
Oh, he's pretty much admitted he's a CTer. It's Jammonius minus the three thousand paragraphs, but who knows, he could get there. My previous post is the best example. He still thinks the original quotes support his initial confusion.
There will be no swaying this one. The Woo is strong.
Last edited:
Lol, I did not. I edited it to add the last sentence about a "globalist plot". I never said we were both right. "We" who? Me and my friend or me and Ronson? Or me and the rest of you?
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader, TLA Dictator
Yeah, because this one's going no where. "Because I think so", isn't much of a debate. All you can respond is "Well, I disagree."
As I said elsewhere, it devolves into Yeah/Oh Yeah pretty quickly.
I didn't read it. It was in his video interview on CNN.
What original quotes? I do think that part of the video supports my conclusion without Ronson's clarification. It's still very close to my conclusion. And again you have no room to talk because the opportunity was there for you to point out to me why what Ronson was saying did not equate to saying exactly that Bilderberg is into world-government. You didn't capitalize on it and neither did anyone else in the thread. As I said before you refused to believe the "conspiracy" but could not point to why.
Sledge
Grammaton Cleric
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2009
- Messages
- 7,114
You're getting quite tiresome, you know that? As a general rule, people on this forum prefer to see all the evidence before forming a conclusion. Your attempt to force a conclusion out of people based on a single piece of cherry-picking failed. So, thanks for playing, hope you do better next time, move on.
Sceptic-PK
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2010
- Messages
- 3,831
Not to mention the fact that an interview with a person is far less important/interesting/compelling than an actual example of where the Bilderberg group have used their influence to further the NWO evil scheme. I mean honestly, why focus on something so pointless/irrelevant? Oh that’s right, because they don’t have any evidence.
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader, TLA Dictator
Well, because! That's why!
Actually, .... Well, because if you can limit the discussion to the exact words used (say Larry Silverstein's or Woodrow Wilson's, to use two very well-known examples) and limit the conversation to "Did he or did he not say that?", then you can run off waving your Investigate 911 black t-shirt and declaring a victory.
Every time someone says, "Do you have the full quote from Wilson?".... Why you just answer, "La la la la, caaaaannnn't hear you. Did he say it or not? Huh? Did he?" And as soon as he gets you to say, "Look, we already said that we agreed that the quote was correct, but that it is taken out of context and edited." Result?.....
"Ah ha! So, you admit he said it. Thank you!" Then they rush back to ATS or Prison Planet or CIT or PFFFT and tell everyone that they..... "PWND the JREF. I made them admit that Wilson said that, man!"
The point of the thread was to determine what conclusion one should draw from this evidence. At the very least it should have been something like "Ronson's conclusion about his research on Bilderberg is that they are into world-government" or what it actually was "Ronson has concluded that Bilderberg is into something that the Nationalists/Conspiracists call world-government but the Bilderbergers would call a One-World Community/New World Order"
Last edited:
No one said it was an NWO evil scheme. I'm actually still interested to find out what their NWO entails. But for now I think it's probably pretty close to the Brookings Institution slide-show I presented earlier since their Presidents attend Bilderberg.
And I think Bilderberg founder/members interviews are more compelling than just about anything else.
Last edited:
Is that what you guys were worried about? Lol. No wonder you were so stubborn. I think it's pretty clear now that there was indeed an alternative interpretation to be found and that was why I brought it here. Either you guys were too lazy to actually do it or you were incapable.
Sledge
Grammaton Cleric
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2009
- Messages
- 7,114
Rikeln, your interest here was to force people to a conclusion based on insufficient evidence. When people said that the evidence was insufficient to form any such conclusion, you started whining that people weren't answering your question. Your cunning plan failed. Thanks for playing, you lose, move on.
You were supposed to interpret what Ronson what saying. It seemed pretty straightforward to me that he was saying that the Bilderberg Group was into world-government. I wanted to know if it could be interpreted differently. Obviously it could but it took Ronson himself to point out how. You guys couldn't. I never said you had to come to any one conclusion based on the evidence.
And what do you mean the evidence is insufficient to form a conclusion? Do you mean that you thought Ronson was saying that Bilderberg was into world-government but that his research lacked enough evidence to make his conclusion believable? That was never the question. The question was to determine exactly what Ronson was saying. That's what I said in the opening post and that's what I've repeated an untold number of times since then but you guys can't seem to grasp it.
I just did. I asked you to clarify.
There's no reason that you couldn't say either...
1 Ronson appears to be saying that Bilderberg is into world-government but I don't find his research or available evidence particularly convincing so I don't believe him
2 Ronson actually appears to be saying that Bilderberg is into something that the Nationalists/Conspiracists call world-government but the Bilderbergers refer to as a One-World Community/New World Order, but I still don't find his evidence convincing so I don't believe him
Sledge
Grammaton Cleric
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2009
- Messages
- 7,114
There's a very good reason I couldn't say either of those things: the evidence you presented was insufficient to form such a conclusion. The man has written a book on this subject. No one in their right mind is going to form a conclusion on what he said in that book based on a snippet of text and a Youtube video. So, why are you so desperate to get people to form a conclusion based on insufficient evidence?
Ah, I see. So his interview is too short to take anything away from it then? What kind of information can be conveyed in a 3 minute interview without an accompanying book?
So I take it that Ronson's clarification that he was saying that the Bilderberg Group wants something they refer to as a One-World Community/New World Order can be ignored. Who knows if Ronson was even saying that without the book. Although he did say that that's exactly what he was saying.
If the Bilderberg Group did want to influence their way to a world-government how many books would it take to tell you this? I mean what is the shortest amount of text that it takes to say such a thing?
I mean is this an attack on Ronson's ability to concisely convey meaning within 3 minutes?
Ronson isn't clear enough to have any possible idea of what he is trying to say? He was giving an interview on CNN and trying to tell us what Bilderberg "really is". But nothing he says about them means anything because he also wrote a book?
Last edited: