THE "CHATBOX"

[CitronBleu]

The point is that surrendering your ability to reason to a perceived intellectual authority figure in any capacity is the antithesis of what this forum is about. It's not to say that one cannot learn from another person with slightly-to-much more experience, but to refrain from discussing and analyzing any point(s) of contention in the meantime is anything but beneficial to reaching an understanding of, well, just about anything.

Dear I, Gestalta,

Who mentioned anything about "surrendering your ability to reason to a perceived intellectual figure"?

Are you calling the learning process a one-sided dialectic? Can you or can you not learn from another person with more knowledge? Could you please clarify your point because I am confused on where you stand.

Secondly, who said anything about "refrain[ing] from discussing and analyzing any points of contention"? Could you please explain to me what you mean in this sentence and what you believe I am suggesting?

Thank you!

[ElSushi]

Ugh. Fuck credentialism.

Oh yeah, I totally second that statement.

[CitronBleu]

Ugh. Fuck credentialism.

Oh yeah, I totally second that statement.

Then you must be extremely thick.

[fbenario]

Secondly, who said anything about "refrain[ing] from discussing and analyzing any points of contention"?

Sure sounds like you yourself did, in your post earlier today.

CitronBleu wrote:
Ought we not to leave, therefore, the physics of rocketry to the physicists?

[CitronBleu]

Secondly, who said anything about "refrain[ing] from discussing and analyzing any points of contention"?

Sure sounds like you yourself did, in your post earlier today.

CitronBleu wrote:
Ought we not to leave, therefore, the physics of rocketry to the physicists?

Hello,

Please explain how my statement relates to the quoted comment.

Thank you.

Note: I am beginning to think we have some dumb people on this forum.

[CitronBleu]

What is this?

[CitronBleu]

This?

[CitronBleu]

This?

[CitronBleu]

What is an android developer?

Is that one of those fat slobs who sit in their computer chair stuffing themselves with potato chips all day?

I'm curious.

[datspot]

Hi,

I could not find any info here in Clues on the Las Vegas Pizza Joint Shooting - which - for sme reason only seems to feature images of Walmart. Is there any thought or thread in Clues Forum on this incident?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns- ... 8973.story

[simonshack]

What a night.

Do you ever feel, dear Simon, as perhaps did the 4th century BC Greek scholar Philitas who is reputed to have died of insomnia brought about by his incessant, almost obsessive quest to discover the solution to the paradox of the Liar?

Dear Citronbleu,

Luckily enough sleeping comes easy to me. I'm a pretty enthusiastic sleeper, actually - as I dream the most gripping, adventurous and "cinematic" dreams. That's right, when I'm wide asleep, my resting brain cells can still come up with a decent Hollywood script or two.

Most common recurring 'action dream': wrestling / fighting barehanded with some enormous wild animal (lion / gorilla / rhino / you name it) - only to suddenly realize that it (the animal) has no ill intentions whatsoever - and only wants to play. We end up embracing and taking a nap.

Me? Worry?

[Lazlo]

Creep Factor in Pro Sports?

I noticed a lot of alternative radio hosts who still cop to being sports fanatics. Are people, in light of the recent co-opting of pro team brands vis a vis Sandy Hook and Boston, re-thinking their interest in sports and team loyalties?

[icarusinbound]

Citroen, I personally feel that you are substantially correct in your assertions.

But: that's not good enough.

We must identify substantive evidence that synthetic imagery is deliberately being used as an undeclared substitute for reality, in key news and documentary footage.

For me, a major part of the progress towards this could be by analysing that which is already accepted as being false: the output of Hollywood. By this, I mean a extended version of the "no planes" paradigm, but with actors as the targets for skeptical enquiry.

Take for example the recent movie 'Gravity', starring Bullock and Clooney. Much was made of the huge percentage of CGI that was used in the production of this movie. The obligatory "making of the movie" fly-on-the-wall footage, showing green-screen interaction between what appears to be the actors on strings and neutral backgrounds. We are reassured that the breathing minstrel on the stage is still central to the cinematic process, even if they are reduced to a partial head-shot framed by a non-existent helmet.

Why should this tiny fragment of facial content actualy be real in itself? Is it a wirebox grab-sample animation? Prove the lack of this human presence, by careful analysis and reasoning, and I think a major plank of the ground upon which reactive deniers are standing falls away.

So...easy to say, difficult to do. But not impossible. And we are aided by the masses of material. Tom Hanks in Forrest Gump, all that proud early-days CGI manipulation, wrapped around...precisely what? Or is it whom?

[simonshack]

Dear Icarusinbound,

I have merged your recently-opened thread addressing CitronBleu here into the "CHATBOX". Hope you don't mind.

(By the way, i have now re-activated CitronBleu's forum account)

[TrutherInTX]

CitronBleu, I am glad you are back. Your analysis in the Boston Bombing thread I think is a breakthrough. You and Sunshine05 present compelling evidence with the video clips and explanation of what you are seeing. I wish I had a better eye to find these things but I definitely appreciate what you both find and share.