True skeptics are 'conspiracy theorists'

mortimer said:
Brian: Look, you've got it all wrong! You don't NEED to follow ME, you don't NEED to follow ANYBODY! You've got to think for yourselves! You're ALL individuals!
The Crowd (in unison): Yes! We're all individuals!
Brian: You're all different!
The Crowd (in unison): Yes, we ARE all different!
Click to expand...

/Raises hand/ I'm not.

Michael
 
Davidjayjordan said:
No Paul you have to get real and have real standards rather than thinking negative skpticism is the way to run your life.
Click to expand...
Oh please give me those real standards, are they anything like real music, or a real pizza, or a real English muffin, please tell me what is real Mr. 432.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
I have a simple question for you, DavidJayJordan.

Let's say I deal you five cards from a shuffled deck. Those five cards happen to be the ace, king, queen, jack, and ten of spades. With me so far? Those are the cards, and here's the question: What is the probability, now, that you were dealt those particular cards?

I don't need an exact answer, by the way. A general statement like "very, very unlikely" or "maybe 50/50" would do. Be as precise as you can or think appropriate.

Once we get to the correct answer for my question, though, then I'd like to revisit this 432 and golden ratio stuff, if you wouldn't mind.
 
Paul, in the back of the class, waves his hands wildly around.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
jsfisher said:
I don't need an exact answer, by the way. A general statement like "very, very unlikely" or "maybe 50/50" would do. Be as precise as you can or think appropriate.
Click to expand...

If he says "maybe 50/50" or anything similar, I'm going to abstain from drinking anything while reading his post or purchase a new monitor.
 
Paulhoff said:
Oh please give me those real standards, are they anything like real music, or a real pizza, or a real English muffin, please tell me what is real Mr. 432.

Paul

:) :) :)
Click to expand...

To start with Paul, you might consider changing your PIC from Einstein to something more applicable to your level of disconnectiveness.

Einstein connected up the spirit and physical world and would have blasted the insane people that think 9/11 collapse was done without bombs.

true skeptics don;t believe evrything the government tells them just because they are too lazy and too dependant and fearful of that government
 
Davidjayjordan said:
Einstein connected up the spirit and physical world and would have blasted the insane people that think 9/11 collapse was done without bombs.
Click to expand...
Wow! I'm so honored to have someone here who can speak for Albert Einstein! So he would have believed in the bomb theory of collapse? Amazing!
true skeptics don;t believe evrything the government tells them just because they are too lazy and too dependant and fearful of that government
Click to expand...
Indeed, true skeptics look at the evidence presented to them, regardless of the source. True skepticism holds no bias. Having looked at the evidence presented in the NIST report and looked at the evidence presented by Wood, Jones, Fetzer and Avery, I conclude that the evidence in favor of self-initiated collapse is stronger and more conclusive than other competing theories.
 
jsfisher said:
I have a simple question for you, DavidJayJordan.

Let's say I deal you five cards from a shuffled deck. Those five cards happen to be the ace, king, queen, jack, and ten of spades. With me so far? Those are the cards, and here's the question: What is the probability, now, that you were dealt those particular cards?

I don't need an exact answer, by the way. A general statement like "very, very unlikely" or "maybe 50/50" would do. Be as precise as you can or think appropriate.

Once we get to the correct answer for my question, though, then I'd like to revisit this 432 and golden ratio stuff, if you wouldn't mind.
Click to expand...

Lets see, I am no expert at statistics but off the top of my head, it would probably be around 5/52 to the fifth power.

As for 432, there's two venues now for that thread, a quiet respectful one

http://forums.delphiforums.com/Mysteries1/messages

or on the other one on the Science Board, but it gets so filled up with foolish comments it is hard to weed them out.

Your choice, as we go further into specific distances and wavelengths..
 
Davidjayjordan said:
true skeptics don;t believe evrything the government tells them just because they are too lazy and too dependant and fearful of that government
Click to expand...

True skeptics don't disbelieve everything the government tells them just because they are too lazy and too independent and contemptuous of that government.
 
The Almond said:
Wow! I'm so honored to have someone here who can speak for Albert Einstein! So he would have believed in the bomb theory of collapse? Amazing!

Indeed, true skeptics look at the evidence presented to them, regardless of the source. True skepticism holds no bias. Having looked at the evidence presented in the NIST report and looked at the evidence presented by Wood, Jones, Fetzer and Avery, I conclude that the evidence in favor of self-initiated collapse is stronger and more conclusive than other competing theories.
Click to expand...

And the government loves you and has no upper levels meetings that you can NOT attend, and their industrial complex has not made money off your taxes, and your sons and daughters are not fodder for their wars for oil, and they wouldn't possibly hurt any Americans, if that would give them an excuse to attack three Muslim countries for their oil routes and oil resurces.

No Almond, you should find out what an almond shape really is and get into that rather than being so hoodwinked so easily. Ahh the almond, ahh the symbolism and the reality. Much better than believeing in a con.
 
babazaroni said:
True skeptics don't disbelieve everything the government tells them just because they are too lazy and too independent and contemptuous of that government.
Click to expand...


Contemptuous is alright if it righteous indignation when innocent countries are being attacked and thousands if not millions of people will die for the sake of their con, for the decieivers they only care if they get the wealth they so greedily want.

Real people get upset whether they are attacked or whether others get attacked. They have concern for others. Life is not a word game for them but serious when it comes to life and death and conspiracies that hide truths.
 
Davidjayjordan said:
To start with Paul, you might consider changing your PIC from Einstein to something more applicable to your level of disconnectiveness.

Einstein connected up the spirit and physical world and would have blasted the insane people that think 9/11 collapse was done without bombs.

true skeptics don;t believe evrything the government tells them just because they are too lazy and too dependant and fearful of that government
Click to expand...
I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954)

I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein)​
 
Davidjayjordan said:
And the government loves you and has no upper levels meetings that you can NOT attend, and their industrial complex has not made money off your taxes, and your sons and daughters are not fodder for their wars for oil, and they wouldn't possibly hurt any Americans, if that would give them an excuse to attack three Muslim countries for their oil routes and oil resurces.
Click to expand...

You really think that the current war in Iraq provides us with bargain-basement priced oil? Do you know anything about economics?

After all, why can't the people supposedly making huge profits off this blood oil simply steal the tax money without getting into a war that has dropped the current president's approval rating through the floor?

I asked a similar question in connection with the claim that 9/11 was done for insurance fraud, and I never really got a good explanation.
 
Davidjayjordan said:
Contemptuous is alright if it righteous indignation when innocent countries are being attacked and thousands if not millions of people will die for the sake of their con, for the decieivers they only care if they get the wealth they so greedily want.
Click to expand...

OK, now I see where you are coming from. The administration took advantage of 9/11, therefore they planned it.

Got it.
 
Actually Johnny 5, I went from an A in stats to a C in my university stats course, because I gave a PRESENTATION where I showed where you could maniplulate the parameters to show whatever results you wanted. I knew it pretty well back then and yet that was NOT what the prof wanted to hear or see. As he worshipped stats and thought they were the end all be all. Just an indicator, as I like precision even though it takes a while to get co-realations exact exact, and see them as laws.
 
Davidjayjordan said:
And the government loves you and has no upper levels meetings that you can NOT attend, and their industrial complex has not made money off your taxes, and your sons and daughters are not fodder for their wars for oil, and they wouldn't possibly hurt any Americans, if that would give them an excuse to attack three Muslim countries for their oil routes and oil resurces.
Click to expand...
Wow, a personal attack combined with an off-the-shelf rant about the government! That's the farthest thing from a coherent rebuttal I've ever seen!
No Almond, you should find out what an almond shape really is and get into that rather than being so hoodwinked so easily.
Click to expand...
I honestly cannot understand the meaning of this sentence.
Ahh the almond, ahh the symbolism and the reality. Much better than believeing in a con.
Click to expand...
I don't believe anything. I have looked at and evaluated the evidence. I also have not resorted to personal attacks, and seem to be the only one between the two of us who is interested in framing a cogent reply.
 
jsfisher said:
I have a simple question for you, DavidJayJordan.

Let's say I deal you five cards from a shuffled deck. Those five cards happen to be the ace, king, queen, jack, and ten of spades. With me so far? Those are the cards, and here's the question: What is the probability, now, that you were dealt those particular cards?
Click to expand...

The probability that you were dealt those cards is 100%.
 
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