|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 11/10/2006 : 00:00:45 [Permalink]
|
lairman123 said:
quote:
Prove anything I have said about the NIST report is a lie.
You claimed that NIST didn't account for "gravity" in their simulations and models.
Weight, obviously being a function of gravity, features clearly in every simulation of the collapsing buildings.
Anyone with a basic understanding of physics knows this. As you have taken it upon yourself to criticize the NIST report; this surely imples you have a basic knowledge of physics, at a minimum. Because no one is so stupid that they would tackle something like the NIST report, with intent to disprove it, unless they are well versed in physics.
The reasonable conclusion, if we grant you that basic assumption of knowledge, is that you deliberately lied about the NIST report.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
 |
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2006 : 00:59:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
Oh cripes. So, you going to argue that referencing Freud, Jung or Damasio is relevant to any of your threads? Tell me then, how does discussing Freud, Jung or Damasio advance your case that the NIST report is bogus?
The only reason for discussing those people is to support your psycho-bable reason for why we don't accept your premise, which we are all sick of. And yet Dave did say:
quote:
If you want to start a discussion about how we're all subject to our emotions and how that biases us to think certain things about certain other things, you go right ahead and do so, over in the General Skepticism folder. You can chirp away about Damasio or any other psychological babble you want to over there, and I won't hand out any more warnings for it. Here's a link so it'll be easy for you to start.
Gee whiz, he even provided a link to make it easy for you, which pretty much makes this statement a lie:
quote:
…your rules for the sandbox don't lit me reference the sources that would support my claim...
This isn't the first time you have accused the SFN staff of not being even handed. We will only take so much crap from you.
So here it is, official warning number three. There will be no more warnings…
Kil
Gee kil, I guess it just never occurred to me you would just see what you wanted to see.
My reason for citing davey's sandbox rules was that davey accused me of not providing evidence for a claim I made regarding the impossiblity of him not caring whether nist is true or false.
So I was responding to dave's direct request for evidence. But if I provided dave with the evidence he asked for I would be in violation of his rule. It seemed reasonable to think that a direct request for evidence should be answered in the same thread that it was asked. Are you suggesting that I should have started a new thread just to answer dave's request? Because someone told me to keep replies in the same thread until it is locked--and i think that person was you (or maybe one or more of the moderators).
|
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2006 : 01:10:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
lairman123 said:
quote:
Prove anything I have said about the NIST report is a lie.
You claimed that NIST didn't account for "gravity" in their simulations and models.
Weight, obviously being a function of gravity, features clearly in every simulation of the collapsing buildings.
Anyone with a basic understanding of physics knows this. As you have taken it upon yourself to criticize the NIST report; this surely imples you have a basic knowledge of physics, at a minimum. Because no one is so stupid that they would tackle something like the NIST report, with intent to disprove it, unless they are well versed in physics.
The reasonable conclusion, if we grant you that basic assumption of knowledge, is that you deliberately lied about the NIST report.
I see a lot of claims with no evidence to support any of them. How can that constitute a proof? |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 11/10/2006 : 02:31:31 [Permalink]
|
All of this bullshit, tens of thousands of words of it, could have been avoided if ergo had answered these few simple questions as best he could:
What conspiracy?
Who might the conspirators be?
How might the conspiracy have been carried out?
Optional: What grade of steel can withstand 2,000F without losing structural integrity?
Or perhaps not. Perhaps it would only lead to more bullshit.
LAWYER, n. One skilled in circumvention of the law. -- Ambrose Bierce
Ergo, if you are not a corporate lawyer, you've missed your calling.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
| Edited by - filthy on 11/10/2006 02:34:24 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2006 : 03:02:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
ergo123:
Gee kil, I guess it just never occurred to me you would just see what you wanted to see.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you did accuse Dave of being unfair? In so many words?
quote:
ergo123:
My reason for citing davey's sandbox rules was that davey accused me of not providing evidence for a claim I made regarding the impossiblity of him not caring whether nist is true or false.
I guess you shouldn't have gone there again, then, don't ya think? It's not as though we missed your evidence the first or second or even the third time you invoked the gods of psychology and a book that you read to make that or some other point about our emotional investment in being correct. (Of course, the same is true about you.) I'm tying to think of a nice word for boring…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2006 : 03:53:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
quote:
ergo123:
Gee kil, I guess it just never occurred to me you would just see what you wanted to see.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you did accuse Dave of being unfair? In so many words?
quote:
ergo123:
My reason for citing davey's sandbox rules was that davey accused me of not providing evidence for a claim I made regarding the impossiblity of him not caring whether nist is true or false.
I guess you shouldn't have gone there again, then, don't ya think? It's not as though we missed your evidence the first or second or even the third time you invoked the gods of psychology and a book that you read to make that or some other point about our emotional investment in being correct. (Of course, the same is true about you.) I'm tying to think of a nice word for boring…
I can come up with a phrase: Ennui writ large.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
| Edited by - filthy on 11/10/2006 03:54:19 |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2006 : 05:14:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
quote:
ergo123:
Gee kil, I guess it just never occurred to me you would just see what you wanted to see.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you did accuse Dave of being unfair? In so many words?
No, kil. I accused dave of being a moron for considering my adherence to his rule as an example of me presenting baseless claims like he does.
Fair and unfair are myths to which I do not subscribe.
quote:
quote:
ergo123:
My reason for citing davey's sandbox rules was that davey accused me of not providing evidence for a claim I made regarding the impossiblity of him not caring whether nist is true or false.
I guess you shouldn't have gone there again, then, don't ya think? It's not as though we missed your evidence the first or second or even the third time you invoked the gods of psychology and a book that you read to make that or some other point about our emotional investment in being correct.
And this time it was a different issue--not his emotional investment in being correct-- but rather one's inability to remain neutral. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
| Edited by - ergo123 on 11/10/2006 05:16:28 |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2006 : 05:47:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Fair and unfair are myths to which I do not subscribe.
As are reasonable and unreasonable.
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
And this time it was a different issue--not his emotional investment in being correct-- but rather one's inability to remain neutral.
Simply an extension of the primary problem. Why would you expect nuetrality from someone who has read the same report as you, has seen the same data, and has reached a different conclusion. You are the one who has failed to make a convincing case. A reasonable person ... |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2006 : 07:40:21 [Permalink]
|
liarman123 said:
quote:
I see a lot of claims with no evidence to support any of them. How can that constitute a proof?
What you have said is openly available on this site for anyone to see.
Are you now denying that you claimed NIST didn't account for gravity in their simulations?
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2006 : 07:51:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Are you suggesting that I should have started a new thread just to answer dave's request? Because someone told me to keep replies in the same thread until it is locked--and i think that person was you (or maybe one or more of the moderators).
It was filthy, and he was talking about your creation of multiple threads on the same topic. Surely since one's ability to remain neutral would be a concern no matter what the subject of discussion, it would be deserving of a new thread. I gave you that option, and you rejected it because, you said, you'd prefer to see me "melt down" in that linked thread. It's no surprise that you're creating lots of rationalizations to avoid having to actually discuss your alleged evidence of my (or anyone else's) mental state and motivations. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2006 : 08:52:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
ergo123: Are you suggesting that I should have started a new thread just to answer dave's request? Because someone told me to keep replies in the same thread until it is locked--and i think that person was you (or maybe one or more of the moderators).
If youre talking about this, then what I was insisting on is that you stay on topic.
I said:
quote:
ergo, if your intention in this thread is to finally present the theory that you favor, with whatever evidence you have to support that theory, I will let the thread stand.
Or, if this thread was started for you to present a focused and as compelling a case as you can against the official theory, bringing with you your own sources, I will let it stand.
Do not open another thread on this subject until the existing threads are maxed out. If you do, it will be locked and you will have earned your second official warning…
So yeah, that kind of digression should have been brought up in a new thread. You are free to open threads that are not about the NIST or CD theory. It might even be an interesting subject. But it has no place in this thread…
And one more thing; so far you have argued or suggested a hidden motive (even a subconscious motive) with every decision that the staff has made, including the innocuous closing of your first thread. And that is tiresome to say the least. It would be very refreshing if you could own any of your mistakes…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2006 : 10:58:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
liarman123 said:
quote:
I see a lot of claims with no evidence to support any of them. How can that constitute a proof?
What you have said is openly available on this site for anyone to see.
Are you now denying that you claimed NIST didn't account for gravity in their simulations?
If you want to discuss things you believe I have said that are openly available on this site for anyone to see, or claims or questions that I am denying that I claimed NIST didn't account for gravity in their simulations, please start a new topic or risk an "official warning' from SFN staff--this is not a threat, but a friendly reminder of actions known to be taken when members post off-topic.
This reminder will not be repeated regarding the above topics so as not to be confused with an off-topic discussion about not having off-topic discussions.
|
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2006 : 11:02:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
quote:
ergo123:
Gee kil, I guess it just never occurred to me you would just see what you wanted to see.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you did accuse Dave of being unfair? In so many words?
quote:
ergo123:
My reason for citing davey's sandbox rules was that davey accused me of not providing evidence for a claim I made regarding the impossiblity of him not caring whether nist is true or false.
I guess you shouldn't have gone there again, then, don't ya think? It's not as though we missed your evidence the first or second or even the third time you invoked the gods of psychology and a book that you read to make that or some other point about our emotional investment in being correct. (Of course, the same is true about you.) I'm tying to think of a nice word for boring…
I can come up with a phrase: Ennui writ large.
If you want to discuss more phrases for boring, please start a new topic or risk an "official warning' from SFN staff--this is not a threat, but a friendly reminder of actions known to be taken when members post off-topic.
This reminder will not be repeated regarding the above bolded topic so as not to be confused with an off-topic discussion about not having off-topic discussions.
|
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2006 : 11:04:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
All of this bullshit, tens of thousands of words of it, could have been avoided if ergo had answered these few simple questions as best he could:
What conspiracy?
Who might the conspirators be?
How might the conspiracy have been carried out?
Optional: What grade of steel can withstand 2,000F without losing structural integrity?
Or perhaps not. Perhaps it would only lead to more bullshit.
LAWYER, n. One skilled in circumvention of the law. -- Ambrose Bierce
Ergo, if you are not a corporate lawyer, you've missed your calling.
If you want to discuss All of this bullshit, tens of thousands of words of it, that could have been avoided if ergo had answered these few simple questions as best he could , please start a new topic or risk an "official warning' from SFN staff--this is not a threat, but a friendly reminder of actions known to be taken when members post off-topic.
This reminder will not be repeated regarding the above bolded topic so as not to be confused with an off-topic discussion about not having off-topic discussions.
|
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2006 : 11:06:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
quote:
ergo123:
Gee kil, I guess it just never occurred to me you would just see what you wanted to see.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you did accuse Dave of being unfair? In so many words?
quote:
ergo123:
My reason for citing davey's sandbox rules was that davey accused me of not providing evidence for a claim I made regarding the impossiblity of him not caring whether nist is true or false.
I guess you shouldn't have gone there again, then, don't ya think? It's not as though we missed your evidence the first or second or even the third time you invoked the gods of psychology and a book that you read to make that or some other point about our emotional investment in being correct. (Of course, the same is true about you.) I'm tying to think of a nice word for boring…
If you want to discuss whether I acussed davey of being unfair , please start a new topic or risk an "official warning' from SFN staff--this is not a threat, but a friendly reminder of actions known to be taken when members post off-topic.
This reminder will not be repeated regarding the above bolded topic so as not to be confused with an off-topic discussion about not having off-topic discussions.
|
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
What did cause the Towers to collapse?
