gio wrote:Thanks, I'll get in touch with you when I have a whole bunch of time to waste worrying about shit I don't need to worry about... like fake documentaries made by some stupid kid from LA.

You know, gio, I'm having a hard to time getting this statement from today squared up with this post you made back on December 7, 2006:

gio wrote:For example, clocker bob's ramblings and paranoids spamblings on this board have finally, after X months, gotten me to do a little research about this 9.11 hoax bullshit, and find out the facts about how "loose change" is a bunch of bullshit, etc., etc. So (and I say this without irony), thanks to clocker bob... I am now more well-informed. It's just that I don't agree with you, and likely won't on most paranoid-ramblings conspiracy issues.

Besides the fact that it's written so poorly that I can't tell if you are calling Loose Change a 'hoax' yourself or if you are calling the allegations that LC is a hoax bullshit, I'm wondering why you wrote this:

I'll get in touch with you when I have a whole bunch of time to waste worrying about shit I don't need to worry about.

on 3/15/07, which makes the claim that you are too busy to look into 9/11 conspiracy theories, when only three months ago, you made the claim that you had done some research on 9/11 conspiracy theories? Did you forget that you had done that research? Did you forget what you read? ( Maybe so, since you forgot who Dylan Avery is or where he's from ) Well, you did disappear from the previous thread immediately after I asked you to show your research, so I'm suspicious you read much of anything about Loose Change....

oh, no... now I get it- you had forgotten you had made that previous post about 9/11 conspiracy theories when you made your post today! You see, today, you had to bash investigations into 9/11 even though you claim to have attempted some research yourself, because today is Bash Clocker Bob Day, so it's totally cool to have your facts all screwed up and to change your attitude like the wind, because today is Bash Clocker Bob Day.

Now I get it. When you're not a conspiracy theorist, you're allowed to make shit up whenever it's convenient.

gio on 12/7/06 in relation to 9/11 conspiracy theories wrote:I am now more well-informed.

But we'll just have to trust him on that. Backers of the official story only need to give their word that they've taken a hard look at the evidence. Conspiracy theorists? We have to bring evidence. Why do I think that both sides should to have to show their evidence? Probably a question I'll never get answered...

do some research on this, buddy.

look, i don't buy your consipiracy theories. i think they are a waste of time. end of story.

but with complete sincerity, Bob, I have nothing against you.

I think it's unfair that this thread should be defined as "Bash Clocker Bob" (notice that *you* imposed that definition on it, not someone else... i think you tend to do this with your theories as well...) because that's not what it is. It's not about you. It's about conspiracy theories and whether they are crap.

gio wrote:meanness edited.

whatever.

Yes, let's all continue to live in Double Standard World, where gio, in his first post to this thread:

gio, in regards to conspiracy theories wrote:"poor man's cognitive mapping?"

Bullshit. At least cognitive mapping is systematically documented, has a grounding in logic and empirical study, and can be tied into future discoveries as another "converging line of evidence."

Conspiracy theories have none of these qualities. They are often a rambling vomit of facts skewed by bias and ingorance towards reasonable evidence.

should be permitted to spew vitriol at conspiracy theorists and nobody should ever invite him to prove that any particular theory is a 'rambling vomit of facts'. No, there's acceptable meanness ( meanness against conspiracy theorists ) and then there's unacceptable meanness ( exposing somebody as flying along on opinions tied together with rubber bands and chewing gum ).

Unacceptable meanness shall not be tolerated. The majority has decreed that conspiracy theories are crap, so therefore, nobody in the majority is ever obligated to back up their opinions. We can all go back to saying things like this:

Gio: "9/11 conspiracy theories are all hoaxes".

Clocker Bob: "Prove it. Either defend the official story or debunk the conspiracy theories".

Gio: "Nope. Don't have to. You're mean."

The End.

you have skewed the facts on almost every quote you have used here. You have imposed definitions and fabricated absolute statements that I did not make.

i could get into a citation war with you to prove a meaningless point, but I can't be fucked to do it. I have brain research and emails to a really cute girl that I'm putting off for this nonsense.

And you've provoked me, so I keep biting back, and it's a waste of time, just like many (note quite clearly that i didn't fucking say ALL) conspiracy theories are so often nothing but fluff aimed at provoking a response.

I can't believe i'm worked up right now over this bullshit. fuck this.

gio wrote:do some research on this, buddy.

look, i don't buy your consipiracy theories. i think they are a waste of time. end of story.

You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to tell me 'do some research', because that implies that you have done research yourself, and if you imply that, I want to see it, otherwise, I'm going to continue to think that you have a paper-thin knowledge of 9/11, and that you are very fearful of exposing that shallow knowledge base in a real nuts and bolts discussion of 9/11. Until you show your research, you have no credibility with me on this subject.

You have two options:

Refuse to discuss 9/11 because you are of the opinion that such a discussion is pointless, not because you have researched it, but because of your general animosity towards any and all conspiracy theories, based not on research that you can show, but on general received opinion from others.

OR

Continue to lie about what you have researched on 9/11.

I can never prove that you are lying about your 9/11 studies until you get down here in the mud with me, but I'm thinking it now and will always think it until I hear more than ad hominems and general contempt for the conspiracy genre out of you.

Doude.

My 9/11 "studies" were a google search of "Loose Change."

It took twenty minutes.

I read a reasonably well-written report that said Loose Change was made by some kid who wanted to make a fiction film about how 9/11 was a hoax, and made a documentary about it instead.

That's all I needed to know. Decry the depth of my research all you want! I don't give a shit!

I won't deny that there's "shit we don't know" about 9/11, or whatever. Good, go ahead and pursue that if you like. But I've written off Loose Change for the aforementioned reason, and I'm not interested in 9/11 conspiracies, or any other for that matter, mainly for this reason: I get worked up about them, find myself saying mean shit to people I don't know (which I then try to edit, then because i don't want to act like a dick; i think you misinterpreted that post of mine, btw), and waste a lot of time in pointless arguments.

hence, my opinion: waste of time. for me. my internet message board opinion, in all of its authoritative glory.

Herein lies the evidence you need: note the time of my first post in this thread, subtract it from the time of this post: every second in between which I have spent on this topic has been a waste of time.

gio wrote:you have skewed the facts on almost every quote you have used here. You have imposed definitions and fabricated absolute statements that I did not make.

You're lying here. You issued a blanket condemnation of conspiracy theories. I offered you a chance to pick one, any one, 9/11 perhaps, since you did claim that you had researched it, and argue it on its merits. And you won't do it. And your reasons why you won't are:

Too busy.

You're mean.

Then you return to square one, and issue more blanket condemnations of conspiracy theories as a genre.

This gets us nowhere. I'm offering you a chance to go somewhere, but you won't take it, because what i'm offering will take some work out of you. Blanket condemnations of conspiracy theories backed by nothing but posturing and indignation aren't worth the paper they're printed on. Stop trying to pass your weak hate for conspiracy theories off on me. If you can't muster up an attack on ONE conspiracy theory, then stick to a subject you're prepared to discuss, like earned run average or something.

it's a waste of time, just like many (note quite clearly that i didn't fucking say ALL) conspiracy theories are so often nothing but fluff aimed at provoking a response.

PICK ONE, GIO! Blah blah blah from you here. Pick one major long-standing conspiracy theory that you call fluff, and if I don't agree that it's fluff ( I might, I don't support every fucking one ), then I will debate you on that particular theory.

It's a simple call for you to make. If you have an opinion that most CT's are fluff, then you should be able to debate the merits of one goddamn theory to illustrate your point. PICK ONE!

I can't believe i'm worked up right now over this bullshit. fuck this.

Yeah, wouldn't this forum be great if everybody could just float unsupported opinions and never get them challenged- is that what you want?? Bet everyone would start to feel really smart after a diet of no criticism for anything they ever fucking said... jesus, I shake my head at the thin skins around here.

gio wrote:
I won't deny that there's "shit we don't know" about 9/11, or whatever.

Thank you. We're done. You have agreed that the official history of 9/11 is inadequate. Now, if you have some sense of honesty, you will go back to the first post you made in this thread, where you wrote this:

gio wrote:Conspiracy theories have none of these qualities. They are often a rambling vomit of facts skewed by bias and ingorance towards reasonable evidence.

and reword it to state this:

"I personally don't like to spend much time on conspiracy theories, so I can't say for sure which ones are CRAP and which ones aren't. I am unwilling to debate the merits of any particular conspiracy theory, so I would be drastically overstepping the bounds of my limited research by making an unsubstantiated, broadbrush and pejorative claim like "Conspiracy theories are often a rambling vomit of facts skewed by bias and ingorance towards reasonable evidence"; frankly, I haven't done nearly enough research on conspiracy theories to sort the good from the bad. I do think that there is information yet to be learned about 9/11 in particular, so I commend all those who continue to research those events, and will withhold judgement on their research until I've actually looked at it."

Signed,

Gio

That would be an honest post to this thread, based on what you have revealed about yourself. Instead, you made a dishonest post fueled by stereotypical prejudices and not your own firsthand investigations.

Your call.