Page 21 of 26
Clocker Bob is Wrong about 9-11
Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2007 1:00 am
by Skronk_Archive
Flaneur wrote:No, you and the intelligent design fundamentalists are using the same arguments, and the darwinists and the structural engineers are using the same arguments.
And you and Ann Coulter kind of debate things the same way, too.
Paint me a pretty picture, how exactly do I and the ID'ers differ from the Darwinists and ST's in argument tactics?
And lovingly kiss my ass for the Coulter remark.
Clocker Bob is Wrong about 9-11
Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2007 1:01 am
by Flaneur_Archive
Skronk wrote:Paint me a pretty picture, how exactly do I and the ID'ers differ from the Darwinists and ST's in argument tactics?
Did you read Unblinking Eye's last post?
Clocker Bob is Wrong about 9-11
Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2007 1:08 am
by Skronk_Archive
Flaneur wrote:Skronk wrote:Paint me a pretty picture, how exactly do I and the ID'ers differ from the Darwinists and ST's in argument tactics?
Did you read Unblinking Eye's last post?
Well, I'm pretty sure I read it, because I fucking
responded to it. What I asked you was to point out the differences between their presentations in argument.
Clocker Bob is Wrong about 9-11
Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2007 1:10 am
by Flaneur_Archive
Skronk wrote:Flaneur wrote:Skronk wrote:Paint me a pretty picture, how exactly do I and the ID'ers differ from the Darwinists and ST's in argument tactics?
Did you read Unblinking Eye's last post?
Well, I'm pretty sure I read it, because I fucking
responded to it. What I asked you was to point out the differences between their presentations in argument.
Well, what do you think the differences are between the structural engineers' presentations and yours?
Clocker Bob is Wrong about 9-11
Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2007 2:07 am
by Flaneur_Archive
Bob, name-calling aside, what's the matter with the peer-review process that most scientists (both pro-darwin and possibly pro-official-9/11) undertake when conducting their research?
Clocker Bob is Wrong about 9-11
Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2007 2:21 am
by Flaneur_Archive
I really mean, in fields like engineering and science, the
peer review process, as I assume Unblinking Eye did in his last post.
Clocker Bob is Wrong about 9-11
Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2007 3:06 am
by simmo_Archive
Bob/Rick - ever thought about writing a book about your ideas? This is a serious and non-ironic question. You obviously spend mountains of your time researching 9/11; maybe it would be more productive and practical to work on a well-argued book than spend all your time on an internet message forum, building up this scattered collection of posts. It's pretty much impossible to keep a track of all the ideas you're putting out there when they're in this format.
Clocker Bob is Wrong about 9-11
Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2007 9:56 am
by Unblinking Eye_Archive
Rick Reuben wrote: ue wrote:Does it not even occur to you why the conspiracy crowd refuses to submit their findings to credible scientific journals for peer review?
That's a common lie/ error, often made by dopes like you.
All the papers published here are available for peer review,
and many have been peer reviewed:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
Ok, Cock Knocker Bob. Now we are getting somewhere. I mean, the Journal of 911 studies. Sounds so official. Hey, look who the editor is! It's none other than Steven Jones.
Who peer reviewed these articles Tom? Don't be afraid to name names. What were their qualifications? Feel free to include their degrees and areas of specialty.
Flaneur wrote:I really mean, in fields like engineering and science, the
peer review process, as I assume Unblinking Eye did in his last post.
Clocker Bob is Wrong about 9-11
Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2007 10:01 am
by galanter_Archive
Perhaps Bob, I mean Rick, thinks "peer" means "someone who agrees with me."
Clocker Bob is Wrong about 9-11
Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2007 12:22 pm
by big_dave_Archive
Rick Reuben wrote:simmo wrote: It's pretty much impossible to keep a track of all the ideas you're putting out there when they're in this format.
I've said this ninety times. If you need someone to hold your hand and walk you through the theories, then you should return to your cave of manuactured consent right now. Take some goddamn initiative. If you
care enough, you will research 9/11 like every other subject that has ever been researched- by getting books and by using the web-- and by 'using the web', I don't mean 'climb into the backseat of a car driven by clocker bob'.
I am an
advocate for alternative history. I don't lie to you and tell you I give you both sides, unlike lying pompous shitheads like Galanter, who claims that he is objective, but is truthfully selling his side just as hard as I am selling mine.
See my posts as the equivalent of a fire alarm. I am telling you that something ( many things ) are WRONG with the story that your oligarchs fed you. If you don't see smoke, then go back to minding your own business. Don't ask me to go backwards 5000 steps and take your hand and walk you through where I have already been. I'm on the frontier. I don't want to return to La La Land and pick up dawdlers who, five years on, haven't begun to question 9/11
on their own.
More self-aggrandizing bullshit. Aside from Galanter, who goes out of his middling little way to provoke exactly the reaction that he gets from you, the people you hate most are those who
question 9-11 and reject the "official myth" (in reality, the Republican Party myth, which has hardly officialised itself), but do not come to the same batshit sci-fi conclusion that you do.