THE DERAILING ROOM

A place to relax and socialize - to muse, think aloud and suggest
Post Reply
Flabbergasted
Moderator
Posts: 903
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:19 am

Re: THE DERAILING ROOM

Unread post by Flabbergasted » Fri Jun 26, 2015 3:45 pm

Ataraxia wrote:I know I only have a dozen posts on this forum, and I understand entirely it's not my place to say it, but if the intelligent design/evolution discussion in the dinosaur thread continues, is it possible to splinter it off into it's own thread?
I agree this discussion should be in a different thread. If it is left threadless, it still wouldn´t be a great loss for the forum.
DrTim wrote:The distinction between animals that do such things and those that don't is initially tribal, cultural. One group of the same species for any number of reasons separates sufficiently from another to develop its own method of feeding. As a result of their behaviour, their internal balance of processes changes, and thereby a new evolutionary path is found. Enzymes detect the internal change and adapt their own behaviour accordingly, their handling of DNA and RNA changes, transcription is affected. This eventually leads to some glands specialising in being just poison glands.
Unbiology 101. A disaster of logic, but that´s what I have come to expect from you. Better stick to Peruvian desert hoaxes.

DrTim
Banned
Posts: 27
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2015 3:59 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by DrTim » Fri Jun 26, 2015 5:30 pm

hoi.polloi wrote:
DrTim wrote:A lot of interesting info and viewpoints in this thread, as well as a healthy dose of distraction, disinfo and misdirection.

Let's just be perfectly logical here: an object known as ISS orbits the Earth. You can see it yourself. I have seen it with the naked eye, others have seen it through telescopes, some have photographed it. What this object is may be open to debate, but that it is there is undeniable.

Even if the ISS is a balloon, or some other such 'fake' structure, its bulk and weight would be greater than that of a satellite. Satellites can be tiny. You can fix a solar panel and three thrusters on a digital camera and call it a satellite. So I would say that the existence of ISS conclusively proves satellites are not impossible.

Why then, would some be so concerned to claim otherwise? As we see with the Flat Earth phenomenon, I would say a likely reason is to detract people away from detailed study of satellites and the secrets such studies may reveal. The satellite domain up in the sky is ripe for all kinds of spookery, psyops, and 'invisible wars' that the perps would rather you and I know nothing about. That's the real challenge to unravel.
You are contributing to distraction and disinformation portions yourself by saying "existence of ISS conclusively proves satellites are not impossible" without first summarizing the dubiousness of the so-called photography, the question of why the ISS isn't always observed where it's supposed to be, and your definition of "satellite" — which must not be what NASA claims.

You didn't even add new information. You just started speculating off in some UFO dimension. WHAT?!

This qualifies as strong derailing for completely missing the point, not being logical about what you've read and what's more trying to throw the entire track into la-la land. I hope that was an accident on your part. If not, you are likely to be banned soon for this kind of behavior. Your petty name-calling of Simon was not a good move, either. You are really not demonstrating you have the chops to contribute here. Why are you really here, DrTim?
Hoipolloi, normally I would let this kind of response pass as timewasting provocation, but I have just enough regard for you to grace your missive with a reply. I would appreciate an answer point by point.

1. Your reference of "dubiousness of the so-called photography, the question of why the ISS isn't always observed where it's supposed to be" does not in itself disprove the existence of ISS. If you want to disprove the ISS exists, that the photos are "dubious" ( whatever that means, perhaps you mean "fake"), then why don't you get a cheap telescope and shoot the thing yourself? Why spend your time critiquing other's work and doing none of your own? As for where ISS is supposed to be, get up to date orbital information in your planetarium software like Stellarium, and it will be where it's supposed to be. It was when I saw it.

2. Where in my post did you get "You just started speculating off in some UFO dimension". I mentioned no UFO or anything like UFOs.

3. You seem to critique my overall point about small size of satellites in comparison with ISS with "your definition of "satellite" — which must not be what NASA claims". Can't you handle a little simile, figurative speech? I presented the example of a digital camera to make a point, why do you need an authoritative definition? The point was simple and quite obvious - ISS is many times larger than a satellite. Come on, is there really much to argue about here?

4. You accuse me of "trying to throw the entire track into la-la land". No, I was making the point that if ISS exists, which it does, it proves satellites can exist. Where's the "la-la land" in this? I am making nothing but the most obvious of points and you use it to attack me?

Then, to make your motives clear, you threaten to ban me, and tell me my "name-calling of Simon" was not a good move. You finish off by asking me why I'm really here. I'm really here to speak my mind. Why are you, high and mighty Hoipolloi, really here? You come across very suspect with an unwarranted attack such as this one.

DrTim
Banned
Posts: 27
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2015 3:59 pm

Re: THE DERAILING ROOM

Unread post by DrTim » Fri Jun 26, 2015 5:43 pm

Flabbergasted wrote:
DrTim wrote:The distinction between animals that do such things and those that don't is initially tribal, cultural. One group of the same species for any number of reasons separates sufficiently from another to develop its own method of feeding. As a result of their behaviour, their internal balance of processes changes, and thereby a new evolutionary path is found. Enzymes detect the internal change and adapt their own behaviour accordingly, their handling of DNA and RNA changes, transcription is affected. This eventually leads to some glands specialising in being just poison glands.
Unbiology 101. A disaster of logic, but that´s what I have come to expect from you. Better stick to Peruvian desert hoaxes.
If you can't retort in a way that addresses the points being made, how do you think a response such as yours makes you look? Not very good, I'm afraid.

hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: THE DERAILING ROOM

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Fri Jun 26, 2015 6:41 pm

DrTim wrote:
hoi.polloi wrote:
DrTim wrote:A lot of interesting info and viewpoints in this thread, as well as a healthy dose of distraction, disinfo and misdirection.

Let's just be perfectly logical here: an object known as ISS orbits the Earth. You can see it yourself. I have seen it with the naked eye, others have seen it through telescopes, some have photographed it. What this object is may be open to debate, but that it is there is undeniable.

Even if the ISS is a balloon, or some other such 'fake' structure, its bulk and weight would be greater than that of a satellite. Satellites can be tiny. You can fix a solar panel and three thrusters on a digital camera and call it a satellite. So I would say that the existence of ISS conclusively proves satellites are not impossible.

Why then, would some be so concerned to claim otherwise? As we see with the Flat Earth phenomenon, I would say a likely reason is to detract people away from detailed study of satellites and the secrets such studies may reveal. The satellite domain up in the sky is ripe for all kinds of spookery, psyops, and 'invisible wars' that the perps would rather you and I know nothing about. That's the real challenge to unravel.
You are contributing to distraction and disinformation portions yourself by saying "existence of ISS conclusively proves satellites are not impossible" without first summarizing the dubiousness of the so-called photography, the question of why the ISS isn't always observed where it's supposed to be, and your definition of "satellite" — which must not be what NASA claims.

You didn't even add new information. You just started speculating off in some UFO dimension. WHAT?!

This qualifies as strong derailing for completely missing the point, not being logical about what you've read and what's more trying to throw the entire track into la-la land. I hope that was an accident on your part. If not, you are likely to be banned soon for this kind of behavior. Your petty name-calling of Simon was not a good move, either. You are really not demonstrating you have the chops to contribute here. Why are you really here, DrTim?
Hoipolloi, normally I would let this kind of response pass as timewasting provocation, but I have just enough regard for you to grace your missive with a reply. I would appreciate an answer point by point.

1. Your reference of "dubiousness of the so-called photography, the question of why the ISS isn't always observed where it's supposed to be" does not in itself disprove the existence of ISS. If you want to disprove the ISS exists, that the photos are "dubious" ( whatever that means, perhaps you mean "fake"), then why don't you get a cheap telescope and shoot the thing yourself? Why spend your time critiquing other's work and doing none of your own? As for where ISS is supposed to be, get up to date orbital information in your planetarium software like Stellarium, and it will be where it's supposed to be. It was when I saw it.
How old are you, DrTim? You are still going to say you don't understand? "The ISS" is a totally unproven NASA-ESA program, and it is a fabrication using cheap video tricks. We are using phenomenological terms to describe it. You are defending the existence of a light where "The ISS" is supposed to be, and occasionally, maybe, according to some, perhaps not there. Multiple observations now of a light in the sky do not legitimize "The ISS" as an international space station whatsoever.
2. Where in my post did you get "You just started speculating off in some UFO dimension". I mentioned no UFO or anything like UFOs.
You mentioned 'invisible wars', which is a term used by UFO enthusiasts about lights in the sky. If you are not implying we study the sky for an invisible war, I can chalk it up to your claiming to be unfamiliar with the term. That's fine.
3. You seem to critique my overall point about small size of satellites in comparison with ISS with "your definition of "satellite" — which must not be what NASA claims". Can't you handle a little simile, figurative speech?
Can't you handle a little correction?
I presented the example of a digital camera to make a point, why do you need an authoritative definition?
You are the author of your own words, are you not? What we need is you to own up to how you are using your own language. If you don't consider yourself an authority on your own words, might I ask where you get your script?
The point was simple and quite obvious - ISS is many times larger than a satellite.
This statement makes no sense until you provide your definitions for:

1. What you claim "The ISS" is (since you are apparently so fond of conjuring "it" as a thing and saying "It's real, it's real!")

and

2. What a "satellite" is

And even then, how do you mean to compare them? With arcs? What is your baseline for a satellite?
Come on, is there really much to argue about here?
You are starting an argument. I just made a request that you are refusing to comply with. Which is fine. You don't need to be on this forum. You haven't provided much use to anyone, as far as I can read from your writings. If you want to argue against the needs of the forum you will lose. You will be banned. That's just a fact. It's not a threat. There is nothing personal in it whatsoever.
4. You accuse me of "trying to throw the entire track into la-la land". No, I was making the point that if ISS exists, which it does,
Again. What the fuck do you mean by "The ISS" and why do you keep insisting it exists without providing any sort of explanation or definition — authoritative or not?
it proves satellites can exist.
"Satellites exist" means what, exactly, in your mind? Why would you use language in this way? Just to be provocative?
I am making nothing but the most obvious of points and you use it to attack me?
I see. So you deign to respond to the "high and mighty" moderator as if they were "attacking" you. I am just trying to get you to understand the needs of the forum.
I'm really here to speak my mind.
We'll see, won't we? Now you have a chance to do so and get better at it.
You come across very suspect with an unwarranted attack such as this one.
You suspect me of doing what, exactly? Lay it out, pal.

anonjedi2
Member
Posts: 817
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 5:50 am

Re: THE DERAILING ROOM

Unread post by anonjedi2 » Fri Jun 26, 2015 7:28 pm

DrTim,
Let's just be perfectly logical here: an object known as ISS orbits the Earth. You can see it yourself. I have seen it with the naked eye, others have seen it through telescopes, some have photographed it. What this object is may be open to debate, but that it is there is undeniable.
Your logic is flawed here. I think we can all agree that there is an object in the sky, but to state as fact that this object is orbiting the Earth is disingenuous and along the lines of the distraction and disinformation you mentioned. You simply cannot prove that this object (whatever it is), is in fact “in orbit” around the Earth, or that even the concept of an orbit exists. I have to wonder if this is just an honest mistake on your part, or perhaps creative use of the English language, deployed in a manner that just casually glosses over the fundamentals of the concept of an orbit in order to prove your point. If it’s the latter, it won’t work. So please do clarify what you mean here and why you state as fact that this object “orbits” the Earth.
Even if the ISS is a balloon, or some other such 'fake' structure, its bulk and weight would be greater than that of a satellite. Satellites can be tiny. You can fix a solar panel and three thrusters on a digital camera and call it a satellite. So I would say that the existence of ISS conclusively proves satellites are not impossible.
Again, a very creative way to frame the discussion, but it seems a bit manipulative to me. To claim that a balloon’s bulk and weight would be greater than that of a satellite assumes that a satellite is a real thing and not just a fictional concept. Of course you have no evidence to back that up. Sure, you can fix a solar panel and three thrusters on a digital camera and call it a satellite. I can call my dog a satellite if I want to but that doesn’t take the concept of a satellite outside the realm of fiction and into reality. The existence of the ISS doesn’t conclusively prove that satellites are not impossible, again you have a very strange way of using the English language to make your point. If the ISS is simply a hi-tech airplane, then you’ve proven nothing other than airplanes exist. I suppose satellites are not impossible in theory, but unicorns and dragons are probably possible in theory as well. To assume a satellite is a real thing or even a possibility, one would need to make several leaps about the size and shape of the Earth, gravity, orbits and many other concepts that simply cannot be proven by you or anyone else. So, essentially you’re talking about magical ideas. You may as well be talking about sorcerers and druids.
Your reference of "dubiousness of the so-called photography, the question of why the ISS isn't always observed where it's supposed to be" does not in itself disprove the existence of ISS. If you want to disprove the ISS exists...
I have a hard time believing you’ve spent any time at all on this forum, as this is a bastardization of logic and common sense. Nobody needs to disprove the existence of the ISS as it’s presented. The existence of the ISS needs to be proven without a shadow of the doubt as it is a highly improbable and far-fetched concept. Based on your absurd logic, I would like you to please disprove the existence of leprechauns, the tooth fairy and the minotaur.
ISS is many times larger than a satellite. Come on, is there really much to argue about here?
Really? Again, you are assuming this object that NASA calls the ISS is exactly what they say it is and is exactly as large as they say it is. You are also assuming that satellites are what they say they are and as small as they claim. Are you sure you don’t work for NASA? Have you ever thought for a half second that this object that you see in the sky which you assume is the ISS as presented by NASA could just be a much smaller aircraft, flying at a much lower altitude? Have you even read any of the related threads on this forum? I really don’t think you belong here.
Last edited by anonjedi2 on Sat Jun 27, 2015 5:04 am, edited 1 time in total.

DrTim
Banned
Posts: 27
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2015 3:59 pm

Re: THE DERAILING ROOM

Unread post by DrTim » Fri Jun 26, 2015 8:29 pm

anonjedi2 wrote:I really don’t think you belong here.
I would appreciate it if Hoipolloi or one of the other mods would terminate my account, so I'm not tempted to post again. Thank you!

pov603
Member
Posts: 848
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 8:02 pm

Re: THE DERAILING ROOM

Unread post by pov603 » Sat Jun 27, 2015 7:11 am

DrTim wrote:
anonjedi2 wrote:I really don’t think you belong here.
I would appreciate it if Hoipolloi or one of the other mods would terminate my account, so I'm not tempted to post again. Thank you!
@DrTim, I think it is somewhat unfair of you to put the onus on someone else to 'cure' your desire to post and disingenuous of you to 'blame' CF for this desire.

Either:
- don't read articles in the first place, or
- learn to 'resist' your temptation, which would seemingly be a worthy attribute to learn in your case, or
- answer the rebuttals given by others, such as anonjedi2 [so long as given in good faith] and in so doing, possibly persuade others to your way of thinking or prepare to be persuaded.

To quote from 'wikidpedia' [with emphasis added]...
Temptation is a fundamental desire to engage in short-term urges for enjoyment, that threatens long-term goals.[1] In the context of some religions, temptation is the inclination to sin. Temptation also describes the coaxing or inducing a person into committing such an act, by manipulation or otherwise of curiosity, desire or fear of loss.

In the context of self-control and ego depletion, temptation is described as an immediate, pleasurable urge and/or impulse that disrupts an individuals ability to wait for the long-term goals that individual hopes to attain.[2]

More informally, temptation may be used to mean "the state of being attracted and enticed" without anything to do with moral, ethical, or ideological valuation; for example, one may say that a piece of food looks "tempting" even though eating it would result in no negative consequences.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temptation

I don't necessarily mean that you ascribe the use of you being 'tempted' to the same explanations given in 'wikid'.

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6952
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: THE DERAILING ROOM

Unread post by simonshack » Sat Jun 27, 2015 6:20 pm

DrTim wrote: I would appreciate it if Hoipolloi or one of the other mods would terminate my account, so I'm not tempted to post again. Thank you!
I will kindly oblige, "DrTim".

Good riddance, I must say - and sincere apologies to all forum members & readers who'd rather have jettisoned DrTim at a far earlier stage. That DrTim would now down his pants, bend down and beg to be booted should come as no surprise: having dropped a few farts and turds around the forum (and spewed 'sinister doubts and suspicions' concerning both of its founders), the clown must be proudly considering his 'mission' accomplished.

Selene
Banned
Posts: 193
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2015 7:59 pm

Re: Einstein and other gods of science

Unread post by Selene » Tue Jul 14, 2015 2:25 am

ICFreely,

as much as I enjoyed your rants against the Global Warmongering propagandists, as much you lose me when you start jumping around from in my opinion reasonable to completely irrational branches like in your last post.

You seem to bear a hatred or intrinsic suspicion against "science" and uses words like "scientism" (a self-contradicting insult; when the scientific method, the philosophy behind empirical and reproducible experiments and consequent physical laws gets "ism'ed", "institutionalised", politised, corrupted, religionised, etc. by definition it loses its scientific status. From within, from philosophical base) to generalise a population of many millions of people.

It's sad to see both your and hoi.pollois "attacks" on evolution theory/geology.

If you attack a standardised, "official", "main stream" story, make sure at least that you shape your opponent right.

The way I'm reading what is thought of as evolution theory, geology, determination of the age of the Earth, the origin of fossil fuels (Ataraxia's post), etc. and then this straw man "attacked" (with what? not with science, 'cause dirty!, not with arguments, 'cause reasoning is scientific and dirty, not with any substance, no real material), it reads like if you'd build a September Clues video on 9/11 and describe the "official story" you oppose like this:
13 Jordanian, Turkish and Inuit terrorists tried to fly submarines into the White House, the Chrysler Building and a missed attempt on Bohemian Grove on September 13, 2003. NORAD was flying around but ended up in the wrong location cause their GPS was already set to winter time.... etc. etc.
I call for nonhocapito to back me up in saying that this is nor should be to the standards of serious research on this forum. Not only does it make a complete fool out of yourself, which you obviously are not as you contributed so many good things, it also drives Cluesforum in the direction of the Guilty By Association trap that Simon identified in his brand new Flat Earth topic. Ironically I fear he is doing this GBA trick in the same topic, but that's for there to discuss.

Where the value in this topic in my eyes lays, is to reveal the ridiculously religious side of "modern science"; the unreachable, near-religious jibberish of "The Big Bang", "String Theory" and other Theoretical "Physics", Einsteinian 'relativity', etc..

As soon as it falls beyond the realm of "we can empirically come to the same results and thus perform decent scientific peer review*" and into the bucket of "you have to believe us, we are the authorities, the Gods of Science, no, experiments are unnecessary, we've ununderstandable to normal human beings, cracked tha whol' thang thru", yes, then there's space to fill in a true clueseeking manner.

But with arguments, point by point, addressing not only all points of the "official theory", but also explaining why other theories do not stand scrutiny.

I hope and trust Simon to build an example case of how attacking an official Earth-scientific standpoint with reason and providing enough weight to lift his own (adapted from Inspired Indians, Brahe Basterds or Lonely Longmontanus or self-invented) hypothesis above all others.

Any rants without proper well-evidenced and worked out argumentation against broadly accepted theories (and not only "because it's mainstream", those are childish MSM-guilty by association attacks) should be avoided.

If your explanation for the observations of biological diversity and similarity is "Intelligent Design", then there's no rational discussion possible. It becomes a Babylonian language problem. Irrational, religious and metaphysical world views are not necessarily right or wrong; they simply cannot be an answer to a scientific problem.

If you reject the scientific method, the core values of scientific philosophy, the rules of experiments, the proper use of statistics, etc. as a whole, then the question becomes: on which basis you reason in looking at all the fakery around?

I think science (and the real one, not the politised or corrupt one) is our toolkit to show that these space, media and other fakeries are around and why the "official" stories do not stand the scientific test.

Another good point about this topic would be the dive into Nikola Tesla and Simons heretic hero Tycho "Michael Jackson avant la lettre" Brahe and other "forgotten gods of science".

I wouldn't dare to call upon people, cause they would be attacked on the basis of "evolutionism" or other strange Newspeak.

I just rely on decent methods of observation and irrational explanations may well be respected, but not as alternative to scientific (so; controllable) ones.

Evolution, mainly driven by epigenetical processes triggered by environmental changes is what I perceive in a lot of first hand study as the most reasonable explanation for the geological and present day diversity and similiraties of life on this amazing planet of ours.

If you attack that theory well-argumented, well-explained and without fallacies and guilty-by-association-we're-5-years-old-and-play-in-the-sand-pit-reasoning, I am all ears.

Hoi.pollois "attack on geology" by calling "archeological sites" is far below his standards and what he has accomplished on this forum and on 9/11. We may differ in personalities and levels of trust of other people (I consider "do not trust anyone but yourself" an impossible, cold, harsh and foolish way or living), I respect him for his work and intelligence.

Again, when you attack, do it right, otherwise you unnecessarily make a fool out of yourself;

Archeology is the study of ancient human cultures/societies (by definition not the natural world, although these studies are used in archeology)
Paleontology is the study of fossils in general
Paleo-antropology is the study of human ancestors (hominids; fossils, tracks, etc.)

I am not free of foolish things at all like no one is. But I try to avoid inflicting foolishness upon myself, which I think is a proper way to go.

Selene

* I'm talking real peer review, serious scrutiny, honest criticism and demands for data when necessary.

Strictly not the politised, corrupted and biased "review" that is too prevalent in scientific journals (examples all over; BigPharma, AGW, "NAScience", "planes can fly into buildings"-non-science etc.), unfortunately.

ICfreely
Member
Posts: 1078
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:41 pm

Re: Einstein and other gods of science

Unread post by ICfreely » Tue Jul 14, 2015 4:09 am

All apologies Selene! I'm so sorry for my irrational 'attacks' against 'science.' All praise be to Copernicus & Democritus - the pillars of 'scientific' thought!

hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: Einstein and other gods of science

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Fri Jul 17, 2015 4:21 am

First of all, ICfreely, I want to say I respect your explication of the "Protocols" document, even though it still feels quite loose. And I want to say Selene's annoyance is kind of understandable.

Though I am not defending official personalities, I would also come to the defense of certain scientific ideals, such as the rational reasoning we all attempt (regardless of our result).

I must say, even if it's not really important, that I don't fully agree with either of your writing styles, for just a couple reasons: they are a bit too much about you, but it's not rewarding to the reader to find any personal logic within. ICfreely, I thank you again for your posts. They are appreciated. But please do take the slight constructive criticism (as lightly as you would) that perhaps occasionally you can offer some grounding and less total satire. Maybe I am wrong. Anyway, I am going to move the last few posts to the derailing room.

How you — Selene — managed to slide in two non sequitur "disagreements" with me without actually addressing those points in the available threads renews my feeling that you are not focused on arguing fairly or logically.

You say:
Hoi.pollois "attack on geology" by calling "archeological sites" is far below his standards and what he has accomplished on this forum and on 9/11.
This sentence doesn't actually make sense.
We may differ in personalities and levels of trust of other people (I consider "do not trust anyone but yourself" an impossible, cold, harsh and foolish way or living), I respect him for his work and intelligence.
You may say that, but nobody on the Internet has demonstrated anything close to a mastery of discovering who is or is not a real person using the simulation devices we have available to us. Therefore, it's a straw man to accuse anyone of using their Internet protocols as their philosophy on life.

I do appreciate your defense of "logic" or "reasoning". However, this discussion has gotten so obtuse, it really only can exist here in the Derailing Room or the CHATBOX.

Do you want to tell me what attacks you think I am making on what topics? I really do not get what I am being accused of here.

Tarek701
Member
Posts: 38
Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2013 2:28 pm

Re: Malaysia Flight MH17

Unread post by Tarek701 » Fri Jul 17, 2015 7:45 am

A new video appeared in media. The MH17 crash aftermath.

Video:

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K70igRdKVhA

Source:
http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-up ... 7444676268

ICfreely
Member
Posts: 1078
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:41 pm

Re: THE DERAILING ROOM

Unread post by ICfreely » Fri Jul 17, 2015 8:53 am

Fair enough hoi. Points taken.

hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: Malaysia Flight MH17

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Fri Jul 17, 2015 1:40 pm

Tarek701, have you no original thoughts to add to your post? Or are we just posting videos from the media now? Please, can you add some critique when you post? Explanation? Anything? Otherwise, what's the point?

When topics turn into nothing but people updating each other on the latest YouTube videos, we have clearly lost the will to do actual research on a topic, and you may as well be on Facebook.

Selene
Banned
Posts: 193
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2015 7:59 pm

Re: Einstein and other gods of science

Unread post by Selene » Fri Jul 17, 2015 2:49 pm

hoi.polloi wrote: How you — Selene — managed to slide in two non sequitur "disagreements" with me without actually addressing those points in the available threads renews my feeling that you are not focused on arguing fairly or logically.

You say:
Hoi.pollois "attack on geology" by calling "archeological sites" is far below his standards and what he has accomplished on this forum and on 9/11.
This sentence doesn't actually make sense.
Imagine the following:
The topic is not dinos but dentistry. I post a piece of text where I state that dentistry is false, corrupt, all dentists are conspirators of a big hoax. In my rant against dentists I suddenly bring urology into the story.
Imagine you are a dental surgeon. Not really a dentist, but in a related field of expertise and you know dentists and have knowledge about dentistry.

I would be glad if you'd correct my stupid mistake of bringing into the story urology which is also medical but has nothing to do with the dental part of our bodies.

The dentist and dentistry is paleontology and urology is archeology.

Bringing "archeological sites" into a discussion about paleontology really is a basic completely laymans mistake.

I consider your intelligence higher, so it was not an "accusation" or "non-sequitur", but a word of warning to try to help you not making a fool out of yourself and a compliment in one.

It keeps amazing me how you take everything so negatively, how you start a defensive mode.
We may differ in personalities and levels of trust of other people (I consider "do not trust anyone but yourself" an impossible, cold, harsh and foolish way or living), I respect him for his work and intelligence.
You may say that, but nobody on the Internet has demonstrated anything close to a mastery of discovering who is or is not a real person using the simulation devices we have available to us. Therefore, it's a straw man to accuse anyone of using their Internet protocols as their philosophy on life.

I do appreciate your defense of "logic" or "reasoning". However, this discussion has gotten so obtuse, it really only can exist here in the Derailing Room or the CHATBOX.

Do you want to tell me what attacks you think I am making on what topics? I really do not get what I am being accused of here.
When I say "attack" in most cases I mean intelligently criticise "the official story". You may see the world in a different way, I stick to the reality that for 95% of the people the MSM version of things is the truth. We may not like that, but it would be foolish to deny reality. So, yes, in order to convince those people, we need "September Clueses", we need content, weight, coverage of all aspects of the hoax/fakery to counterweight the propagandised version of "reality". And as I mentioned; for many topics that is there. On the dinos it's not. It doesn't have the same status in an investigation, that's my only remark.

How you write about me or any other person for that matter astonishes me even more. You write about people on the internet like they are some entity or bots or shill community or I don't know what kind of They Live scene.

The reality is that the vast majority of people in the world is not corrupt, conspiring, lying all the time, immoral, faking, etc. etc. They are just normal human beings. On the internet that may be slightly distorted or tweaked, and indeed your entities are there, but how you keep putting me in that same category (but no worries; you do not discriminate, you do that to everyone), I really cannot comprehend.

That's what I mean with a completely opposite personality. People outside of these NASA/MSM/political corrupt world are both the majority and as I recognise all around the world; moral.

Creating schisms amongst these normal people I think is exactly what the powers in play want us to do.

I may differ in opinion with ICFreely, his style when attacking the right ones (AGW) is refreshing. I have no problem with him/her whatsoever, only the same point about the urology and the Inuit 9/11 terrorists; don't make a fool out of yourself by completely twisting and turning "the mainstream view" (there's no "official story" in geology) into a silly strawman.

All this is on top of the remaining questions I asked in the Dino Hoax topic. If you suppose Dinos are a Hoax (and (which) other fossils too?), then it should be a piece of cake to answer them.

Just like when you or Simon or another person gets interviewed on (internet) radio or so on other topics; you would not make the mistake to twist the official story (point 1) and you would be able to confidently answer critical questions on for most people in the world still incomprehensible views as "CGI fakery", "non-existing jumpers", "4 meter tall men" and freely (IC or not :P ) explain the vicsims, etc. You are strong in the discussion as your arguments count and stand.

In all honesty and objective view on the Dino Hoax, do you regard that of the same quality, strength and thus status in the battle for truth in the world?

A Dino Hoax is to me just as strategic, non-existing and sneaking into the real truth seeking community as Flat Earth. And both too silly to maintain as the invalidity of them are proven so easily.

Selene

Post Reply