Moderated The NYPD and Molten Concrete

JohnG said:
Beautiful

And that, my friends, is a Conspiracy Theorist in a nutshell:

1. A general difficulty with idioms, metaphors, similes, analogies, etc.
2. An absolute refusal to admit to being wrong, indeed refusing to admit even to the possibility of being wrong, when confronted with a crtitical analysis of his beliefs. I would've said "his or her beliefs", but lets face it, this sort of macho CT nonsense (all bombs, hi-tech gizmos and secret agents) is almost always spouted by men.
3. A quick change of subject when the CTist realizes, however dimly, that the debate is not going in his favor.

Here's another fun personal anecdote since the last one in the Shanksville thread went over so well. Once, in conversation with another person, I offhandedly mentioned an article I had read about ballet, but I mispronounced it as "bal-ETT". The other person smiled and said "I think you mean bal-lay. It is spelled 'ballet', but it's pronounced bal-lay. The t is silent". Embarrassed, offended and confused, I sputtered "No, no, no. I know what bal-LAY is, but this is another kind of dancing I'm talking about called bal-ETT!". Thankfully the other person just smiled and said "ah", whereupon I quickly changed the subject.

Silly, isn't it? Humiliating, even:o What a silly, stubborn ass I made of myself!

Then again, I was only six years old at the time...

How old are you, yankee?:)
Click to expand...
Oh that is perfect for this thread where the OP notes exactly the same thing. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=252982
 
JohnG said:
Beautiful

And that, my friends, is a Conspiracy Theorist in a nutshell:

1. A general difficulty with idioms, metaphors, similes, analogies, etc.
2. An absolute refusal to admit to being wrong, indeed refusing to admit even to the possibility of being wrong, when confronted with a crtitical analysis of his beliefs. I would've said "his or her beliefs", but lets face it, this sort of macho CT nonsense (all bombs, hi-tech gizmos and secret agents) is almost always spouted by men.
3. A quick change of subject when the CTist realizes, however dimly, that the debate is not going in his favor.

Here's another fun personal anecdote since the last one in the Shanksville thread went over so well. Once, in conversation with another person, I offhandedly mentioned an article I had read about ballet, but I mispronounced it as "bal-ETT". The other person smiled and said "I think you mean bal-lay. It is spelled 'ballet', but it's pronounced bal-lay. The t is silent". Embarrassed, offended and confused, I sputtered "No, no, no. I know what bal-LAY is, but this is another kind of dancing I'm talking about called bal-ETT!". Thankfully the other person just smiled and said "ah", whereupon I quickly changed the subject.

Silly, isn't it? Humiliating, even:o What a silly, stubborn ass I made of myself!

Then again, I was only six years old at the time...

How old are you, yankee?:)
Click to expand...

And this my friends is the epitome of the type of person I've been squaring off against for the last half decade. After shooting down their arguments repeatedly they'll pick at any knit they can find to avoid discussing the topic.
 
Last edited:
yankee451 said:
And this my friends is the epitome of the type of person I've been squaring off against for the last half decade. After shooting down their arguments repeatedly they'll pick at any knit they can find to avoid discussing the topic.
Click to expand...

What's the topic again?

Oh, yeah...9/11 was no planes, no fires, no people, etc...

62 posts per day since joining, and you haven't made a single point yet. Good job!
 
yankee451 said:
And this my friends is the epitome of the type of person I've been squaring off against for the last half decade. After shooting down their arguments repeatedly
Click to expand...


"Repeatedly"? I'd settle for evidence that you've shot down an argument once, in your short but disturbingly prolific time in this forum.

they'll pick at any knit they can find to avoid discussing the topic.
Click to expand...


My entire point about focusing on the "hand in fist" thing was that if you lack the heart, brains and courage to recognize and admit to something as trivial as to what amounts to a simple slip of the tongue, what hope do we have that you'll engage in honest, objective debate about something you yourself admitted to working hard at for the past half decade? How can you possibly be objective about the subject at this point? Scientists and academics sometimes fall into the same sort of folly, but via the peer review process they have hard-nosed colleagues to keep them honest.

Who are you relying on to keep you honest?
 
Last edited:
JohnG said:
"Repeatedly"? I'd settle for evidence that you've shot down an argument once, in your short but disturbingly prolific time in this forum.




My entire point about focusing on the "hand in fist" thing was that if you lack the heart, brains and courage to recognize and admit to something as trivial as to what amounts to a simple slip of the tongue, what hope do we have that you'll engage in honest, objective debate about something you yourself admitted to working hard at for the past half decade? How can you possibly be objective about the subject at this point? Scientists and academics sometimes fall into the same sort of folly, but via the peer review process they have hard-nosed colleagues to keep them honest.

Who are you relying on to keep you honest?
Click to expand...

Why I thought it was obvious John, I'm relying on everyone else to keep me honest as I do my best to keep you honest.

I don't care whether you like my 'hand in fist' quip. You are still avoiding the subject at hand and by constantly attacking me (instead of my argument), you only reinforce the impression you don't have a leg to stand on.
 
yankee451 said:
And this my friends is the epitome of the type of person I've been squaring off against for the last half decade. After shooting down their arguments repeatedly they'll pick at any knit they can find to avoid discussing the topic.
Click to expand...

The only thing you have shot is your own foot. Your personal incredulity does not trump the physics and math you fail to comprehend. You have yet to provide one shred of evidence for your nonsense fantasies. You hand wave away any real evidence that does not fit your preconceived resultant. :rolleyes:
 
Sabretooth said:
What's the topic again?

Oh, yeah...9/11 was no planes, no fires, no people, etc...

62 posts per day since joining, and you haven't made a single point yet. Good job!
Click to expand...


Oh, that's nothing. His average had been over 72 posts per day, but his suspension presumably knocked the average down.

How do you average 72, or even 62 posts per day bickering with strangers on the internet at all hours of the night and day whilst simultaneously working an ambitious and expensive science experiment, holding down a steady job to provide for your family and giving your family the time and attention they deserve?

I'm guessing the answer is, you don't.:(
 
yankee451 said:
Why I thought it was obvious John, I'm relying on everyone else to keep me honest as I do my best to keep you honest.
Click to expand...


But that's the problem. When people here you are supposedly "relying on" do correct you on any point, no matter how large or small, they are met with derision, hand waving and good old-fashioned incomprehension, if you even acknowledge them at all. You aren't here to learn. You aren't here for some sanity check. You came here to preach the gospel of yankee451 and were confused and hurt to have your proclamations greeted with skepticism, difficult questions and yes, the occasional jeer.

I don't care whether you like my 'hand in fist' quip. You are still avoiding the subject at hand and by constantly attacking me (instead of my argument), you only reinforce the impression you don't have a leg to stand on.
Click to expand...


Whether I like your "hand in fist' quip" doesn't enter into it. My point is that it's not an actual phrase used by anyone in this time-space continuum other than you. Even if it was, though, how does it qualify as a "quip"? Was "hand in fist" meant to be witty?:confused:
 
JohnG said:
But that's the problem. When people here you are supposedly "relying on" do correct you on any point, no matter how large or small, they are met with derision, hand waving and good old-fashioned incomprehension, if you even acknowledge them at all. You aren't here to learn. You aren't here for some sanity check. You came here to preach the gospel of yankee451 and were confused and hurt to have your proclamations greeted with skepticism, difficult questions and yes, the occasional jeer.




Whether I like your "hand in fist' quip" doesn't enter into it. My point is that it's not an actual phrase used by anyone in this time-space continuum other than you. Even if it was, though, how does it qualify as a "quip"? Was "hand in fist" meant to be witty?:confused:
Click to expand...
Well he certainly hasn't made a good fist of it!
 
JohnG said:
But that's the problem. When people here you are supposedly "relying on" do correct you on any point, no matter how large or small, they are met with derision, hand waving and good old-fashioned incomprehension, if you even acknowledge them at all. You aren't here to learn. You aren't here for some sanity check. You came here to preach the gospel of yankee451 and were confused and hurt to have your proclamations greeted with skepticism, difficult questions and yes, the occasional jeer.




Whether I like your "hand in fist' quip" doesn't enter into it. My point is that it's not an actual phrase used by anyone in this time-space continuum other than you. Even if it was, though, how does it qualify as a "quip"? Was "hand in fist" meant to be witty?:confused:
Click to expand...


And that as exactly zip to do with the subject at hand, but thanks for sharing your concern.
 
yankee451 said:
And this my friends is the epitome of the type of person I've been squaring off against for the last half decade. After shooting down their arguments repeatedly they'll pick at any knit they can find to avoid discussing the topic.
Click to expand...

If you pick the knit it will become unraveled.
 
Back on topic...

So far the NYPD lied, the FDNY lied, FEMA lied and the fake truth movement agrees with them. Currently the avoided question is whether the USGS maps of REALLY HOT stuff can be considered as trustworthy as the other false claims.
 
yankee451 said:
Back on topic...

So far the NYPD lied, the FDNY lied, FEMA lied and the fake truth movement agrees with them. Currently the avoided question is whether the USGS maps of REALLY HOT stuff can be considered as trustworthy as the other false claims.
Click to expand...

You can't trust the maps the govmt falsified the terrain.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom