• 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.

The Third Roberts-Fetzer Debate

I saw the first one and half of the second one today before a MORI poll guy interupted me.
I had a problem with the guy presenting as he clearly was fox like in his fair and balanced approach, rather anal at the begining of the 2nd episode describing Mark as "debunker extraordinaire" at one point I thought they were about to make out.


Wow, you are as far "out there" as you've been described. I guess the part where I state that I am definitely not neutral suggested "fair and balanced." My purpose in announcing my slant is to remain fair while acknowledging the imbalance. And, no, you don't get it.

At what point did you imagine that Mark and I were going to "make out." Did I appear jealous when Fetzer was groping Mark?


In the first episode he proceeded to make the comments that its possible to make a claim through scientific analysis that bumble bees can't fly so therefore you can make any old rubbish seem legit despite what you already know because obviously bees can fly, then he pushes this aside when the reports confirm the version of events that support the theory he is partisan to.
It would be taking advantage of your disabilities to note that you missed the point.


I will give Mark his due in the part of the second installment that I saw he did win on points but this was more due to the o'reilly like shouting....nay speaking over his opponent rather than letting his opponent make his points.
Yeah, you caught him there. Mark has been reproached for monopolzing the discussion and speaking over Fetzer. You are not nearly as delusional as you are reputed to be.


I shall watch the second and third episodes when i can fit them in.
Most of the points scored against fetzer were mostly pedantic language issues rather than actual proveable evidence (I have noticed this a lot with so called debunkers).
Well, if we had any evidence at all, we would have mentioned it.


Don't get me wrong I'm no fetzer fan but the deck was clearly loaded, the captions at the bottom of the screen should have read "Jim Fetzer former professer" " Mark Roberts Tour Guide" so that the actual qualifications of said parties were not misleading to an audience without pre-conceived ideas.
Before you all gang up on me please go easy as its just turned 12 so now its my birthday.
Happy Birthday.


I have edited and removed an uncivil remark based on the stricter interpretation of the membership agreement currently active in this sub-forum. Do not personalize the discussion with insults or personal attacks, or by being uncivil.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jmercer
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I can't speak for Mark, and I'm not making excuses for my difficulties in damming Fetzer's torrents of rhetoric. Still, when the guy started raving about the hanging of Saddam's "double," I was stopped in my tracks. I mean, what is there to say? If you're dealing with someone who imagines that another human--an absolutely IDENTICAL double for Saddam Hussein-- is willing to go to the gallows without EVER mentioning that he is not the person the whole world thinks he is, well, what is the appropriate procedure? I confess that I felt great pity for Fetzer, who was personally quite affable. That sort of thing tends to dull my killer instinct.


I loved Fetzer's claim that the bomber pilot told his mum about the sooper sekrit meeting... Classic woo. I see your point, Pomeroo, and understand where you are coming from.

It was a good series, very educational. I'm going to check out Hardfire's archives.

Cheers,
TGHO
 
So, why did you have to pay Fetzer to come? He seemed to me that he was more intent on pushing his and his fellow "scholars" books than engaging in real debate. Every few minutes, he would take a break and start talking about a book or a website.

Jack, maybe you should have debated Mark when you were just recently in NY.
 
As the shows host you can tell the audience your opinions but must however remain impartial otherwise the show is clearly not balanced.
I notice you do not address the point of the credentials of the protaganists being clearly a lie.
Why did you not point out that Mark has no qualifications in any area other than showing people where the nearest toilet is?
 
So, why did you have to pay Fetzer to come? He seemed to me that he was more intent on pushing his and his fellow "scholars" books than engaging in real debate. Every few minutes, he would take a break and start talking about a book or a website.

Jack, maybe you should have debated Mark when you were just recently in NY.

On topic please, this is a thread about the hardfire "show" not what someone pretending to be me said.
They say immitation is a compliment, well i thank the person who feels he needs to discredit me using underhand tactics rather than facts.
 
On topic please, this is a thread about the hardfire "show" not what someone pretending to be me said.
They say immitation is a compliment, well i thank the person who feels he needs to discredit me using underhand tactics rather than facts.

Actually, the majority of my post was on topic. As for the other, I have not seen Oliver's information to know if you are telling the truth about that or not.
 
On topic please, this is a thread about the hardfire "show" not what someone pretending to be me said.
They say immitation is a compliment, well i thank the person who feels he needs to discredit me using underhand tactics rather than facts.
Jason...you were never IP banned so just be a man and admit you said those things. No reason to lie about it.
 
As the shows host you can tell the audience your opinions but must however remain impartial otherwise the show is clearly not balanced.
I notice you do not address the point of the credentials of the protaganists being clearly a lie.
Why did you not point out that Mark has no qualifications in any area other than showing people where the nearest toilet is?


Debate the facts not the person. Do you have a disagreement with any evidence Mark Roberts presented? if you do why not state them? thats what rational adults do. fair enough?
 
So could you tell me why when there was a caption on the screen refering to Mark roberts it didn't say "tour guide".
this is clearly dis-information
 
Debate the facts not the person. Do you have a disagreement with any evidence Mark Roberts presented? if you do why not state them? thats what rational adults do. fair enough?

OK fact: mark roberts is not an expert in any field.
Fact: mark roberts is a tour guide
 
So could you tell me why when there was a caption on the screen refering to Mark roberts it didn't say "tour guide".
this is clearly dis-information


what i want to know is. why was there no disclaimer on the video credits of loose change stating that Dylan Avery was employed at a Friendlys Restaurant busing tables.
 
Jason...you were never IP banned so just be a man and admit you said those things. No reason to lie about it.
exactly no reason to lie, i was ip banned.
Do you want to debate or try to discredit those with dissenting voices, my money is on the latter.
 
what i want to know is. why was there no disclaimer on the video credits of loose change stating that Dylan Avery was employed at a Friendlys Restaurant busing tables.
Maybe Jason would be happier if the caption for uncle Fester read 9/11 woo?
 
exactly no reason to lie, i was ip banned.
Do you want to debate or try to discredit those with dissenting voices, my money is on the latter.
So IVXX is a filty liar in your opinion since this info came from him.

ETA - just asking and I am asking politely - see I will say please answer :)
 

Back
Top Bottom