The amazing denial of what "conspiracy kooks" really means....
in [Motorcycles]
|
From: BrianNZ on 14 Feb 2007 15:33 Henry wrote: > BrianNZ wrote: > >>> ***{There's that "somehow" again, indicating that you have refused to >>> fill in any details at all, however simple an exercise it might be. > >> I'd like to thank you for your in depth answers. > > Which "in depth" wild speculation did you like best - the glass > table analogy, the "gale force" winds that turned the towers into > huge steel liquefying forges, the claim that the central cores melted > in the world's first invisible raging inferno, or that all of Manhattan > was in damger of falling like dominoes? <vbg> > It's fun to watch magic fire sheep bob their heads to =anything= > that supports the "offical" conspiracy theory, no matter how absurd > or physically impossible. > I think MJ said it all with the following........ ***{In the following, there are many claims of yours for which I have supplied in-depth dissections, to which you have responded by simply repeating your original assertions, or else by citing links to material that ignores my reasoning. I'm tired of repeating myself, so those responses will be simply snipped without comment. --MJ}***
From: P.Roehling on 15 Feb 2007 02:53 "Mitchell Jones" <mjones(a)21cenlogic.com> wrote > ***{All right. But what are you trying to accomplish? I'm simply giving you the courtesy of a warning that you'd give anyone who you see about to step into an unsuspected manhole. We on Reeky (rec.motorcycles) have repeatedly seen perfectly nice people such as yourself get sucked into long discussions with Hen3ry before they realise that he's not dealing from a full deck. And while you're certainly capable of making that discovery yourself -and in fact, watching you deal with Henry has been a delight, a warning simply seemed in order. > Suggesting that he > has obsessive-compulsive personality disorder must be intended to serve > some goal. What is it? If you really believe that is what is going on, > you must also be aware that posting it here isn't going to change him. > And it isn't going to shut him up, either. So the only possible point > would be to make him feel bad. OK, maybe you want to make him feel bad. > And maybe you think he deserves to feel bad, since he won't shut up. :-) It doesn't bother me that I'm hurting Hen3ry's feelings by warning people about him. In fact, doing so almost invariably triggers a frothing weasel response that neatly defines who and what he is and provides ample warning to the most obtuse individual. (And no, I'm not suggesting that you're obtuse. Unsuspecting, maybe, but hardly obtuse.) > But isn't it obvious that his response is going to be to post something > intended to make *you* feel bad? In other words, isn't it obvious that > your comment is either going to start or perpetuate a flame war? And > isn't it obvious that the effect of a flame war is to contribute to an > atmosphere of unpleasantness that will cause lots of people to avoid > usenet? As Bugs Bunny would say -with take towards camera- "He don't know me very well, do he!" Reeky's unofficial motto is -and always has been- "live to flame, flame to live", and it seems to be more a form of entertainment than a thing to be abhored. >Why would you want to do that? Why can't we all just get in the > habit of killfiling someone, when we reach the point where we are > tempted to post something with no other purpose than to make him feel > bad? Why contribute to the cloud of unpleasantness that is already > hanging over these discussion groups? Discussion is a good thing, if > people are civil to one another. Why not try to contribute to a tone of > civility, rather than to a tone of incivility? --MJ}*** Uh, *HE started it, mom*! > ***{He keeps doing that, I suppose, because he believes that the topic > is important enough--he apparently thinks we are being enslaved--to > justify its off-topic aspects. And, oddly, I agree with him on that: I > think we are being enslaved. It's one of the things that nations commonly do to their citizens. The original idea of the Constitution was to prevent it from happening for as long as might be possible, but it looks to me as if our time has run out. The weakness of any democracy is that once a leader can convince a majority of the voters that their safety lies in despotism, they will promptly vote for it. Then they will refuse to admit that it was a mistake. >The patriot act has killed the Constitution > and Bill of Rights, which were the only things standing between us and > slavery all along. In other words, I think there are times when it is OK > to go off topic. Those times arise when an issue is of such importance > that it simply must be brought to everyone's attention. But no such > justification applies to your speculations about Henry's psyche. All > they do is contribute to an atmosphere of unpleasantness that we all > ought to be trying to avoid. --MJ}*** Pooh. Pooh on several counts. Hen3ry's rants only serve to distract people from reality and convince them that Bush can't be all *that* bad when compared with Hen3ry. (I speculated several years ago that Hen3ry might well be Karl Rove's masterpiece: at least, if he *didn't* already exist, it would be necessary for the far right to invent him.) Next, I majored in Psychology and then spent a couple of years working in a mental hospital before deciding that it was too depressing a field in which to spend the rest of my life; so diagnosing Hen3ry's problem is something more than mere "speculation". And lastly, I don't accept that you get to define what "we all ought to be trying to avoid", or that I ought to be aping your actions. I can be a pretty crusty old curmudgon when it suits me, and I've slowly come to accept the fact that I don't suffer fools gladly and that I have no desire to rebuild myself from the ground up to suit someone elses' ideals. (I once had a girlfriend who thought that it was her job to rebuild me to her own specifications. Once was enough.) >> In any case, if you don't want us horning in on the thread, you can >> easily >> remove rec.motorcycles from the newsgroups you're addressing. > > ***{But I don't mind at all. You guys have as much right to talk about > this as the rest of us, and for all I know some of you know more about > physics that most of the people who post to sci.physics. (Expertise is > about being right and knowing why you are right, rather than about > "credentials.") My objection is not to a motorcyclist who makes a > substantive comment, or even to motorcyclists in general. My gripe is > directed against ad hominem comments that contribute to an atmosphere of > unpleasantness, regardless of where they come from. --MJ}*** (Shrug) Sorry about that. But when you post to Reeky it's "when in Rome", and we tend to go for the throat. >> Most of us >> would appreciate it, because we've seen this game played over and over >> for >> several years now, and we know how it ends. > > ***{With a flame war between Henry and his opponent, I suppose. :-) > Well, that won't happen this time, because I have become bored with the > stuff about the World Trade Center being brought down with explosives, > and don't intend to respond to it any more. --MJ}*** Well, we'll all miss seeing you calmly destroy Hen3ry's twisted theories with irrefutable logic, but unfortunately it won't slow him down for a moment.
From: Yeebok on 15 Feb 2007 07:22 P.Roehling wrote: > "Mitchell Jones" <mjones(a)21cenlogic.com> wrote > > Well, we'll all miss seeing you calmly destroy Hen3ry's twisted theories > with irrefutable logic, but unfortunately it won't slow him down for a > moment. > > Settle, petal ! Let's see. I've been here a couple of weeks and only seen this person post today. All of it's about the same topic, several replies in a row, only on one thing, all very specific. Given that evidence and more than a few seconds thought, give the guy a break - so he's taking up maybe a Mb on your HD. You'll probably find people taking up more room with less thought out posts - whether the logic involved makes sense to you or not. I'm not having a go, merely stating : one observation, it is easy to see what is going on - there is no need to insult or otherwise deride someone because they may be very interested in a particular subject that doesn't interest you, nor able to convince you of what they believe. Don't get me wrong I am sure there's reason to wonder about the evidence presented - but it's the same with the average tabloid magazine, they're not about to change their tune.
From: P.Roehling on 15 Feb 2007 14:00 "Yeebok" <yeebok(a)gmail.com> wrote > Settle, petal ! Thank you. If ever I decide that I need a net-nanny to make my decisions for me, you'll be first in line.
From: Henry on 15 Feb 2007 19:01
BrianNZ wrote: > Rather than waffle on trying to troll old posts, just keep to your > points with Mitchell Jones. It's making for interesting reading and > there's a few points he's brought to your attention that you > haven't responded to. Too bad I missed them. Can you repost them so I can take a look and reply? This is the fourth time you were asked, by the way. Apparently, those interesting points are as hard to find as a photo of the gale force wind driven core melting raging infernos in the towers. <g> Doesn't it seem weird to write a post asking someone to respond to a few interesting points, but when they ask you which points, you just wonder off? Most folks would consider that to be rather bizarre behavior. Here's an example of a point MJ made that I think is highly speculative and most likely impossible. He claimed that spilled fuel from the jets burned inside the cores of the towers just as hot as an oil fired forge, even melting the massive core box columns. Those box columns measured about 4 feet by 3 feet each and had 5 inch thick walls. The forge not only burns fuel that has been vaporized and the air fuel mixture optimized, but oxygen is forced in under pressure. A reasonably intelligent, logical person would ask how that could have been duplicated inside the towers by spilled kerosene that may have run down the sides of some of the steel columns. The answer of course, is that it can't possibly be duplicated for reasons so obvious that I won't insult your intelligence by explaining them. That claim is typical of the wild speculation, implausible, and and even impossible scenarios we see from followers of the "official" conspiracy theory. They must know it's all bullshit, or they wouldn't take off running when they're asked very clear, reasonable, and logical questions. <g> -- http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.911truth.org Here's what happens to steel framed buildings exposed to raging infernos for hours on end. http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html On 9-11-01, WTC7, a 47 story steel framed building, which had only small, random fires, dropped in perfect symmetry at near free fall speed as in a perfectly executed controlled demolition. http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html http://wtc7.net/articles/FEMA/WTC_ch5.htm |