The TruthSeeker1234 $1000.00 Challenge

[R.Mackey]

I still have not heard back from Triterope, maybe he was not serious after all.

So Abby, I suppose you're up next!

Congratulations Abby Scott. Let's debate!

Soooo... are you going to follow through this time?? Really??

Hey, is it just me, or will this nut only debate girls, and backs out when he thinks he's ahem, propositioning a woman but finds out otherwise?

Just Asking Questions.

 

[Abbyas]

Now please tell me exactly the format again?

This is to be a thread as you suggested, correct?

 

[Pardalis]

Hey, is it just me, or will this nut only debate girls, and backs out when he thinks he's ahem, propositioning a woman but finds out otherwise?

Just Asking Questions.

I think he wants a spanking.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Congratulations Abby Scott. Let's debate!

Perhaps it's fitting that you are a comedian...I'm sure our adventure together will be a goldmine of comedy nuggets for you...

You, too!

F'rinstance, maybe you could tell that one again about how proponents of the conventional story are just like Holocaust deniers. Oh, how my sides ache from prolonged laughter every time I think of it!

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

You do realize that all of economic thought beginning with Adam Smith relies on the assertion that human beings act (pretty much) rationally in their own interest, right? The "Austrian School" is no different in the above.

Actually, the Spanish scholastics were doing better economics than Smith, a hundred years before him. Smith was correct with his invisible hand theorem, that market actors can't help but benefit others while seeking their own gain; but Smith blundered badly with his "labor theory of value".

In the 1870's Carl Menger solved the value problem by discovering "marginalist" thinking, originating the Austrian school.

Abby, with microeconomics there is pretty widespread agreement - prices are determined by supply and demand, etc. Not so with macro-phenomenone like inflation, unemployment and the business cycle. This is where the Austrian school is totally different from mainstream econ. Mainstream econ attempts to explain these things "From the top down" by way of higher mathematices. Austrians completely reject the mathematics of economics, viewing it as a fundamentally philosophical discipline. Austrians use a "bottom up " approach, as I mentioned earlier. Austrians believe that by starting with a priori axioms, all of economics, including money, inflation, unemployment, the business cycle, can be derived logically.

I would point out that the formulas of mainstream economics have been an abysmmal failure at predicting anything. I would also point out that Ludwig von Mises and Hayek wrote extensively during 1926-1928 of the coming depression, basing their prediciton on Mises' Theory of Money and Credit, and noticing the huge expansion of credit and artificially low interest rates that prevailed at that time. Austrians also predicited the dot com bust as well.

Sorry to go on, but I have a passion for economics. Somebody asked how it ties into 9/11. It doens't help much with the physics, but central banking goes a long way toward explaining how those in charge can obtain essentially unlimited funding for all sorts of projects (like war) that customers on the market would never buy.

 

[Gravy]

Soooo... are you going to follow through this time?? Really??

Hey, is it just me, or will this nut only debate girls, and backs out when he thinks he's ahem, propositioning a woman but finds out otherwise?

Just Asking Questions.

He certainly fled with no explanation when he found out that Stellafane wasn't Kate. But he obviously hasn't seen Abby in action against the 9/11 deniers.

​

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

I've just heard back from Jeff Wagg, and the news is not good.

We've never considered copyright of forum material before. But I'm not likely to grant your request for a private thread. It gives the conspiracy theory issue more weight than it deserves, and sets a precedent that could lead to much ugliness.

I don't see a problem with you accurately copying content from the forum provided you give proper credit as to where it was derived from.

And I'm the right person to contact.

Jeff

Jeff could be an admin for Wikipedia, with the "no undue weight" clause.

Anyway, that forces us to have the debate offline, which is bad for the peanut gallery, but solves the copyright problem.

Abby, you will begin the debate by writing an essay that you think does a credible job of explaining to the scientifically curious layperson just what in the heck happened with those wacky buildings.

I will answer by pointing out that you have ignored crucial evidence and failed to explain the truly mysterious parts.

We will go back and forth, citing whatever evidence we choose, and arguing how we see fit. T
It does not need to follow formal debate rules.

The total should end up being around 100 pages. We should have 50 pages each.

You may declare victory at the end. So may I. The audience can decide for themselves.

The resulting work will exist as a single title, co-authored 50/50 by you and I. We will work out a simple co-authorship agreement, with the idea that we are going to exploit the copyright for our mutual benefit, just as Popular Mechanics and so many others are exploiting their copyrights.

 

[qarnos]

I've just heard back from Jeff Wagg, and the news is not good.
Jeff could be an admin for Wikipedia, with the "no undue weight" clause.

It's called being sensible.

Anyway, that forces us to have the debate offline, which is bad for the peanut gallery, but solves the copyright problem.

I don't see a problem with you accurately copying content from the forum provided you give proper credit as to where it was derived from.

What, exactly, is the problem?

Abby, you will begin the debate by writing an essay that you think does a credible job of explaining to the scientifically curious layperson just what in the heck happened with those wacky buildings.

Isn't this what the 9/11 commission report does?

I'm not going to bother with the rest of this crap. We know exactly how this debate will go - it will be exactly the same as the crap you pull on here.

Abby will completely blow your argument out of the water and you will continue to repeat the same trash regardless before spontaneously moving on to the next topic without any kind of acknowledgement.

 

[Gravy]

I have TS on ignore, but I see from his quoted reply that he's balking at an online debate. Why not just do what I did with DjLegacy: start a thread and in the first post ask others to refrain from posting there? We'll have our own peanut gallery thread. If someone does post on your debate thread intentionally or accidentally, so what? It doesn't affect the debate at all.

First, Abby, I'd get his payment plan as a signed contract. He's shown no proclivity for honesty.

 

[qarnos]

I have TS on ignore, but I see from his quoted reply that he's balking at an online debate.

He still wants his book deal:

We will go back and forth, citing whatever evidence we choose, and arguing how we see fit. T
It does not need to follow formal debate rules.

The total should end up being around 100 pages. We should have 50 pages each.

You may declare victory at the end. So may I. The audience can decide for themselves.

The resulting work will exist as a single title, co-authored 50/50 by you and I. We will work out a simple co-authorship agreement, with the idea that we are going to exploit the copyright for our mutual benefit, just as Popular Mechanics and so many others are exploiting their copyrights.

Why not just do what I did with DjLegacy: start a thread and in the first post ask others to refrain from posting there?

It's that simple. Hell, even DJ refrained from posting!

We'll have our own peanut gallery thread. If someone does post on your debate thread intentionally or accidentally, so what? It doesn't affect the debate at all.

Exactly. The problem, however, is TS. He is full of crap.

First, Abby, I'd get his payment plan as a signed contract. He's shown no proclivity for honesty.

If he wants a co-authored book, how would this payment affect Abby's entitlement to royalties?

On second thoughts, it isn't really a problem. No one will buy it.

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

On second thoughts, it isn't really a problem. No one will buy it.

Now, don't sell Abby short like that, she's very talented. A debate book where Abby tears me to shreds, proves the official theory, makes jokes and entertains, and generally makes me look like a fool, and send me back down into my hole,

Cmon, you guys would pay for that!

I don't think that's how the book will turn out, but, that has to be what you guys are thinking, right? So what's the problem?

There's no guarantees of anybody liking the book, it's just an idea. But it has a lot going for it, based on my read of the market.

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

If he wants a co-authored book, how would this payment affect Abby's entitlement to royalties?

Abby and I are free to negotiate any sort of deal we both agree to.

 

[qarnos]

Now, don't sell Abby short like that, she's very talented.

It's not Abby I'm worried about.

A debate book where Abby tears me to shreds, proves the official theory, makes jokes and entertains, and generally makes me look like a fool, and send me back down into my hole,

Cmon, you guys would pay for that!

Not when we can get the same thing here for free.

You also seem to have a massive misunderstanding of how science works. The evidence-supported theory can NEVER be proven correct. I could claim the whole thing was orchestrated by the Invisible Pink Unicorn, and you would never be able to prove me wrong.

You also do not need the assistance of other to make you look like a fool.

I don't think that's how the book will turn out, but, that has to be what you guys are thinking, right? So what's the problem?

The problem, TS, is that you are all talk.

Do you have a publisher lined up? Have you even taken the idea to anybody?

Who will be editing the book? You?

You really think people are going to want to buy some internet debate between you and some internet chick (with aplogies to Abby)?

The bottom line, TS, is that Jeff Wagg gave you the O.K. to use any forum material, as long as it is properly attributed. What is the problem? Why did you ignore that question?

Why not write a rebuttal to the 9/11 Comission Report? Let me guess - because that would require reading it?

There's no guarantees of anybody liking the book, it's just an idea. But it has a lot going for it, based on my read of the market.

You're read of the market? What, are you a market analysist too, now?

What is your job? Do you have a job?

 

[Pythra]

Now, don't sell Abby short like that, she's very talented. A debate book where Abby tears me to shreds, proves the official theory, makes jokes and entertains, and generally makes me look like a fool, and send me back down into my hole,

Cmon, you guys would pay for that!

I don't think that's how the book will turn out, but, that has to be what you guys are thinking, right? So what's the problem?

This is about the 100th time I've seen you make this kind of asinine insinuation, TS1234. "I see how it is. The only reason you guys wouldn't want a book is because you know the truth would finally be exposed!"

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that those arguing against conspiracy theories are, like you, far more interested in appearing to be right and possessing super-secret info than actually learning anything. There is no other explanation for your behaviour. Deliberately ignoring evidence, dodging questions, uninterested in any kind of real debate that doesn't involve as much publicity as possible. When you find evidence that appears to support you pet theory, do you leap around with delight and punch the air victoriously? Then you aren't being objective. A responsible researcher would acknowledge that he is likely to have a terrible bias, and would step back.

Of course, this probably doesn't apply to you because while you are many things, a 'researcher' you are not. If you like making up stories, become a writer. If you like making up stories and pretending they're real, become a tabloid journalist. Don't use terrible tragedies like 9/11 as a medium for your little games. It's disgusting.

 

[qarnos]

This is about the 100th time I've seen you make this kind of asinine insinuation, TS1234. "I see how it is. The only reason you guys don't wouldn't a book is because you know the truth would finally be exposed!"

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that those arguing against conspiracy theories are, like you, far more interested in appearing to be right and possessing super-secret info than actually learning anything. There is no other explanation for your behaviour. Deliberately ignoring evidence, dodging questions, uninterested in any kind of real debate that doesn't involve as much publicity as possible. When you find evidence that appears to support you pet theory, do you leap around with delight and punch the air victoriously? Then you aren't being objective. A responsible researcher would acknowledge that he is likely to have a terrible bias, and would step back.

Of course, this probably doesn't apply to you because while you are many things, a 'researcher' you are not. If you like making up stories, become a writer. If you like making up stories and pretending they're real, become a tabloid journalist. Don't use terrible tragedies like 9/11 as a medium for your little games. It's disgusting.

* qarnos stands up and applauds.

Well said.

Just be warned - TS will completely ignore everything you just said.

 

[jon]

If you want to hold the debate in public, online, I don't see why JREF needs to be involved. There's lots of other options - perhaps the easiest would be a '911debate' blog that just ts1234 and Abby can post on, though you could also set-up a wiki or html website for the debate. Hell, I'll even set-up something that you can use myself for twenty bucks (cash in advance)

 

[Gravy]

If you want to hold the debate in public, online, I don't see why JREF needs to be involved. There's lots of other options - perhaps the easiest would be a '911debate' blog that just ts1234 and Abby can post on, though you could also set-up a wiki or html website for the debate. Hell, I'll even set-up something that you can use myself for twenty bucks (cash in advance)

The advantage of doing it here is that lots of intelligent people read this site. No audience needs to be developed. If TruthSeeker1234 wants to show off his knowledge, what's he waiting for? We've been clamoring for him to back his claims all along. Again and again and again, he's refused to do so. No one and nothing stands in his way except his pitiful intellectual cowardice.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Well, good to know TS is just interested in making a buck, rather than having a meaningful discussion on the subject.

 

[jon]

The advantage of doing it here is that lots of intelligent people read this site. No audience needs to be developed. If TruthSeeker1234 wants to show off his knowledge, what's he waiting for? We've been clamoring for him to back his claims all along. Again and again and again, he's refused to do so. No one and nothing stands in his way except his pitiful intellectual cowardice.

sure - didn't mean to dismiss the JREF forums. Given that JREF apparently won't (reasonably enough) give 1234 the type of thread he wants, I was just suggesting that the paid-for closed debate could easily be held in public on another site.

Of course, 1234 can debate his beliefs, (try to) back them up, etc. on this forum right away. I doubt he will, but he could.

 

[DavidJames]

sure - didn't mean to dismiss the JREF forums. Given that JREF apparently won't (reasonably enough) give 1234 the type of thread he wants, I was just suggesting that the paid-for closed debate could easily be held in public on another site.

Of course, 1234 can debate his beliefs, (try to) back them up, etc. on this forum right away. I doubt he will, but he could.

It's clear to me TS has neither interest in debating nor the truth. He has an separate agenda and he's trying to use JREF to help achieve it.

ETA: considering his willingness to lie we should assume the worst possible motive.