Skeptic Project

@Edward:

Wow that guy really is an idiot.

>>>>
"They took over the plane and then crashed it? What bunch of heros saves the day, only to kill everyone?"
>>>>

haha... wow.

"The Truth Movement proper."

You gave two different "schools" of thought in the Truth Movement. In one of them you refer to "the 911 Truth Movement proper", why say proper?

We know you mean rational, since you put Nick in that category and that is what you said you thought he was. Yet, I just proved he wasn't rational and apparently delusional.

Lets forget all this semantics and just agree that you will not bring him up again as an example of some kind of rational truther. Evidently he is not, even though he is willing to accept there are many false and silly claims in the Truth Movement, he still pushes many of them himself and is too intellectually dishonest to admit what he used to say or remove his websites and disown them, or stop promoting places like 911Truth.org.

You've ignored my post and my various specific points about Nick many times now, I guess you just don't really want to talk about him anymore. Well that's fine with me, just stop bringing him up.

Damned if I do, damned if I don't. If I reply, you complain that I'm defending him. If I don't reply, you complain that I'm ignoring you.

Not at all!

If you reply I want to actually reply to the specific critical questions rather than dodge them and since you have been ignoring them, I can only presume you don't want to deal with it.

You're not likely to change my opinion of him, if that was your aim. I've seen a lot more of his stuff, over a much longer period of time than you have, so I think I have more of a feel for how he thinks than you do.

You're the one that pointed us to two of his stupid websites, you were the one that pointed us to his 2004 article that says he believes LIHOP but then at least until early 2007 still promoting people like Michael Ruppert, Jim Hoffman, Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan and so on. You were the one that showed us that thread where he says speaks very critically of demolition theory, but then also still says paranoid things about the government. In that thread he also said he had been trying to get people to think critically about Loose Change since 2005, yet in that early 2007 post he recommends all the same people that make all the same arguments that Loose Change does. Then in 2009 he claims that KSM may just be an actor and implies he thinks there's been several over the years.

You were the one that said he was rational and writes rational things, yet why is it so damn hard to find any examples of it?

You gave him as an example of sincere, rational, intelligent articulate person. Where's the evidence of that? Now you may well believe that but don't expect anyone to just have faith he is who you say he is in the face of all that.

Ed wrote:

You were the one that said he was rational and writes rational things, yet why is it so damn hard to find any examples of it?

No matter what I show you, you're just going to leap on its weakest points -- or, at the very least, you will leap on the mere fact that he believes in an inside job in the first place, which we already know -- as reason to say he's just crazy. Either that, or you will seize upon any and all errors you can find and jump to the conclusion that they are "lies." Your attitude is like that of a prosecuting attorney, always on the lookout solely for things you can use against him.

Edit: All of this is pointless, because we're not debating the validity of his viewpoints, in the first place. I don't agree with him that 9/11 was an inside job, after all.

(Nicholas himself is agnostic on WTC demolition, but regards Jim Hoffman's websites as making what he considers to be the strongest arguments for the WTC demolition idea.)

Yet you act like he was agnostic about demolition back in 2004 as well which is why you keep referencing that thing he wrote about being LIHOP, yet he clearly wasn't as I've already proved several times now.

And once agian you ignore all my critical points. What is wrong with you?

Ed wrote:

And once agian you ignore all my critical points. What is wrong with you?

I did not bring him up for the purpose of putting him on trial, nor for the purpose of debating about his beliefs, which I don't even agree with at this point.

The search for a sincere, rational, intelligent, respectable Truther continues...without success!

Ed wrote:

Clearly its not evidence of that at all, since for over 4 years he still promoted demolitions and other claims you say this 2004 article shows he can't really believe.

Your perception on this point may be based on a simple misunderstanding, as discussed here.

But you see this is why Diane has refused to give us any example of what Nick has written for 911 Truth that she considers "rational", yet she acts like there's lots of examples.

I consider MOST of his writings that I have seen to be rational. If you really need a list of some of his better writings that I've seen, I'll provide it in the other thread.

shut the fuck up you fukcking wankers.......... Im really pissed off with all you yanks that you dont give two shits that your own gov killed a shit load of your own people!! That is how i feel about it....... take the piss as you feel you need to..... i know the truth... you cant disobay the laws of phisics.... wtc7 in its own footprint in 7 seconds!!!! Or am i wrong@!#$%>????

Alcohol and the internet are not a good mix eh Casey?

@casey,

I've warned you twice to be constructive or shut the fuck up -- or at least say something remotely coherent. I don't want to have to warn you again, otherwise you'll have to stick to ATS for your incoherent rantings.

Muertos wrote:

Diane, here's a reasoned, intelligent, articulate Truther for you! Maybe you should ask Casey to join your movement.

Are you truly incapable of seeing the vast differences between someone like Casey and the people whose writings I've linked to?

anticultist wrote:

Diane, are you truly unable to differentiate the line between sarcasm and honesty ?

Muertos's post was obviously sarcastic. Clearly, Muertos didn't mean to claim that Casey is "reasoned, intelligent, articulate."

But what was the point of Muertos's sarcasm? Perhaps I misunderstood, but it seemed to me that the point was to underscore Muertos's previous refusals to make any distinctions amongst Truthers, preferring instead to lump all Truthers into one undifferentiated, dehumanized box.

Scientific study:
http://www.philosophytalk.org/pastShows/ScienceHumor.html</p>

Being funny isn't easy. Figuring out what makes things funny is even harder. Still, a number of psychologists (e.g., Freud) and philosophers (e.g., Bergson) have tried. Now computer scientists are trying to learn enough about humor to construct programs that can write good jokes; maybe an artificial stand-up comedian is on the way. Ken and John discuss the art, philosophy and science of humor with Tony Veale, an Irish computer scientist who knows a good joke when his program produces one.

Perhaps Diane is one of these computer programs?
Maybe her designer is making her learn from our style?