911 Spotting RED HERRING Posters!

As time goes on, reading your poor grammar & seeing your childish tactics, I now believe you are not even old enough to be on this board. I hope that a moderator reviews your registration again. At the very least make sure a child doesn’t have access to your account.

PLEASE, just spend a few minutes proof reading your posts. This will become so important in middle school. You will also likely learn, but argue with your teacher’s & repeatedly deny, that you have even used the term red herring incorrectly.

My apologies if English is your 2nd language.

BTW- Seriously, the dog is cute.

Originally posted by TheBobert


No I dont believe John Lear, or his false flag.

Richard Gage I dont know, the phone call was Ridiculous.
I look as if some people wouldnt let them talk about 911 with out ridiculing them

Originally posted by Jake the Dog Man
As time goes on, reading your poor grammar & seeing your childish tactics, I now believe you are not even old enough to be on this board. I hope that a moderator reviews your registration again. At the very least make sure a child doesn’t have access to your account.

You know its very immature person that has to resort to insults. It also means that thay did not have evidnece to post so they have to resort to insults.

LOL Ultima I think Jake is referring to Cash.

[edit on 10-8-2008 by TheBobert]

I used to go into the 9/11 topics when I first started on ATS. It is because of this attitude, (by BOTH sides) that I no longer contribute to the discussion.

This thread itself is a prime example of what I am talking about. If you feel that someone is trying to twist the topic or is going off topic, then ignore them. If however they are here and put a dissenting argument against your position. You should respect that. These are not red herring posters, this is discussion.

Not everyone will agree with your side of the issue. Threads wouldn't be that good to read through if they were.

I once had the pleasure of debating Controlled Demolition theory with a member here in the debates forum. It was a great debate. I learned quite a lot of interesting information that my opponent brought forth against the theory of a controlled demolition.

There are red herring posters on the board, don't get me wrong, there are those that will try and sink and crash a thread as fast as they can by trying to goad you into an argument with them. If they have no relevant information to post about the topic at hand, use the post alert feature located at the bottom of each post. You can tell the staff about the problem and if appropriate they will take action.

To try and call people out on the board in my opinion is tacky and tasteless. I think that if you present your case to the best of your ability and disregard those posters that obviously are just trying to derail the thread, AND debate in a civilized manner those posters that have a dissenting viewpoint, a lot of hard feelings can be avoided.

reply to post by Jake the Dog Man


Another RED HERRING!

I get my point across loud and clear!

This is so sad, that the only fault you find with me is exposeing the 911 truth and my grammer. LOL

RED HERRING (something that distracts attention from the real issue.)
www.merriam-webster.com:80...
Maybe you might learn something!

Originally posted by TheBobert
LOL Ultima I think Jake is referring to Cash.

Yes but wanted to make a point.

reply to post by whatukno


I have call no one out in this thread.

This is what I am talking about, you have misunderstood my post.

I am the one who is under attack for talking about what a RED HERRING is about.

reply to post by cashlink


So far let's count how many people you have accused of being a red hearing poster in this thread... I count two.

ThrotYogart & gavron

So again I say it's in bad taste to be calling out people for being a red hearing poster for disagreeing with your views.

Edit: Correction, Three people in this thread you called a red herring poster... Jake the Dog Man

[edit on 8/10/2008 by whatukno]

Originally posted by whatukno
So again I say it's in bad taste to be calling out people for being a red hearing poster for disagreeing with your views.

So what about the beleivers calling out people who do not agree with them?

Oh thats right i forgot the beleivers are one sided.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


It's in bad taste, it's bad form to do. There are going to be people on both sides of an issue. They have opinions. They have a different viewpoint. It's a good thing for a discussion board to have people on opposing sides of an argument. It would be a rather boring board if everyone agreed with everyone else.

It's called debate, bring your issues, bring your evidence, and bring it the right way, in an adult and civilized way. That makes for good reading and hopefully the truth will come out one way or another.

Originally posted by whatukno
It's in bad taste, it's bad form to do. There are going to be people on both sides of an issue.

But how can we have a debate with people who refuse to admit to evidence as posted or insult people just for not agreeing with them?

funny Ultima because I have supported the bringing of the CIT evidence to a court.
This should make you very happy yet you refuse to bring the evidence to a court.
It appears that the goal of the truth movement is simply to debate online as opposed to getting evidence of mass murder to a court.
seems rather disingenuous to me.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


You can't, the best advice would be to ignore those that are obviously just trolling or arguing for the sake of argument. There are going to be those that will come along however and refute your argument with evidence of their own. These are people that you should debate with.

But to publicly broadcast them as Disinfo agents, Red Herring Posters, etc thats just rude and uncalled for. Ignore the ones that are obviously trying to derail the discussion, or if it gets bad enough, alert the staff about the issue. Just don't get drawn into the argument with someone that is in the thread to argue.

I guess you'd better add me to your hallowed list. I've committed the [apparently] unpardonable sin of disagreeing -- politely, with conflicting evidence.

You set up a situation where to disagree is in itself construed as "anti-truther". Why do we need the labels? I consider myself neither truther or debunker. I just want to find out what happened.

Yes, I believe that the OS was incomplete. Can I prove it? Not yet. No, I don't believe that holograms fooled the ground observers. Can I prove it? Not ever.

I intended no insults to anyone. In another post I pointed out that if somebody takes asking for proof or hearing why their opinion is wrong as an insult, that is up to them. I have not seen anyone give evidence to show my opinions as being wrong, because the preponderance of evidence supports my views. When I form an opinion that disregards the preponderance of evidence, and someone points it out with supporting evidence, I’ll let you know. I doubt I’ll be insulted though.

As for the grammar issue, you don’t find that distracting? When so many words are spelled wrong, used wrong & poor punctuation… you don’t find yourself spending more time figuring it out then listening? Some of the grammar on your posts is so poor it is harder then usual to figure out what you mean. Do you not understand how that makes your posts look? I’ll give you that one, I’m an old timer who learned to spell & use words correctly. Another victim of growing up without technology... I guess.

Text
Pease

BTW- I don't have a problem with views, just the point that you keep saying you have proven something, yet you have never shown a shread of proof. If you really have some, put this mess to an end and post it here. Your "evidence" will likely not survive even these boards, definately not the light of real life. Post em if ya got em.

(dedtted to point out I didn't proof read this reponse, so maybe I'll fit in more...)

[edit on 10-8-2008 by Jake the Dog Man]

reply to post by cashlink


Just my observation, and I don't want anyone to focus on my opinion, because that would derail this thread:

I've yet to see anyone "attack" you. What I see is people that respond in kind. In other words, if you assail the person, rather than their evidence, or worse yet, assail the evidence with the brand of "false" or "disinfo" you can be certain to get the same treatment.

I once told a friend of mine -- and this is just a demonstration of point, not necessarily pointed at you -- "if you set out to irritate someone, you relinquish the right to object if you're successful."

Why can't we debate the points? Why do we have to add modifiers to them -- "truth", "proof", "fact"? If those conditions are satisfied, they will show themselves to be so. We all have a few grains of evidence. Let us put them together, find out what happened.

Will you be my respected friend in pursuit of the truth?

Originally posted by TheBobert
funny Ultima because I have supported the bringing of the CIT evidence to a court.

And how many times must i explain that there are lots of cases filed by family members and others that are going to take years to get through?

If you believe the official story so much you must have evdience to support it so why don't you file a case to support the official story?

Originally posted by Jake the Dog Man
I have not seen anyone give evidence to show my opinions as being wrong, because the preponderance of evidence supports my views.

You keep talking about this preponderance of evidence but i do not see you posting it, why is that?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by TheBobert
funny Ultima because I have supported the bringing of the CIT evidence to a court.

And how many times must i explain that there are lots of cases filed by family members and others that are going to take years to get through?

If you believe the official story so much you must have evdience to support it so why don't you file a case to support the official story?

Just to clarify I don't believe much of what you claim.
You cry about skeptics not wanting to look at your supposed evidence.
This seems to be more important to you then getting it to a court!
This makes no sense to a rational sane person.
Here you have rock solid evidence of mass murder yet you do nothing with it except cry about how skeptics wont look at it!
Who gives a #e what we skeptics think!
GET THAT EVIDENCE TO A COURT.
You Ultima you claim to have all of these "family cases" yet you spend HOURS UPON HOURS at ATS.
I would think that your family members would support you getting this evidence of MASS MURDER before a court.