Did no one really get what Jones was trying to do?

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by talisman

 

Semantics. You dropped one word. Since when does a LETTER have a format simular to a interview? How's that? Will you now answer my question?

No, its called not putting words in a person's mouth and have common courtesy and "QUOTE" the person you are talking to. That is what is usually done.

I think it pretty clear that You Said I called it "AN OPEN LETTER"

So far, you have not been able to produce your claim.

So....

#1. So your claim that I called it an "open letter" Is False. You are now backpeddling and are arguing that I "IMPLIED" It and was not "EXPLICIT."

IF that is the case, then next time I would advise you to QUOTE specifically the person and try and read the "context."

(however you asked me how I can "CALL IT AN OPEN LETTER." Clearly you said I "called it such."

#2. It is a fictitious letter ([adjective] formed or conceived by the imagination; "a fabricated excuse for his absence"; "a fancied wrong"; "a fictional character"; "used fictitious names"; "a made-up story")

That is basically what it was. However, it does contain "factual" information. His "facts"


So call it whatever you like, but don't go around putting words in my mouth and backpeddling.

[edit on 14-9-2009 by talisman]

reply to post by talisman


I am not back pedalling sir. You are attempting to hide from an honest question you have done everything but answer. I ask you again:

Since when does a LETTER have a format simular to a interview?

Though I imagine based on past experience I will get another tirade about what you percieve to be my deficiencies. Which is of course very telling seeing how much effort is going towards not answering a very simple question.

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by talisman

 

I am not back pedalling sir. You are attempting to hide from an honest question you have done everything but answer. I ask you again:

Since when does a LETTER have a format simular to a interview?

Though I imagine based on past experience I will get another tirade about what you percieve to be my deficiencies. Which is of course very telling seeing how much effort is going towards not answering a very simple question.

You do realize that according Alex and Charlie the intended "target" is Obama?

You do realize that I can send you a letter that contains an interview? There is *NO* real interview in Charlie's story.

I can write whatever I want in a letter, just so long as it is obvious who it is addressed to.


CHARLIE SHEEN SEE'S IT AS OPEN LETTER AS HE STATES:
www.prisonplanet.com...
This is an open letter to the President requesting a new investigation.


Now I don't personally call it that, since to me was a mixed pot of fiction/deception in that it had no disclaimer, but I still see it as a *Fictious letter to the President.* since I am not certain it really was sent, but it seems there is a claim there.


ITs not often that a letter of this nature is written to a person and you don't know if it was never sent to Obama but judging by Charlie Sheen's words, it seems so.


So again, CAll it what you will since most people don't have a fast and hard rule for such to be called this or that, but don't Put Words In my Mouth.

If you are going to make a comment directed toward me, then Quote what I am saying.

Deal with What I said, Not what You say I said.

That is a fair request.



[edit on 14-9-2009 by talisman]

reply to post by talisman


You're calling it a letter in agreement with the BS excuse offered. I'm not putting words in your mouth. *Damn how long will you continue on that deflection?*
And of course I rightfully wonder how many "letters" that are purported *note this is AFTER the fictious nature of the "interview" now called "letter" is found out* to be a request for further dialogue would come in a interview format. Especially considering this opened letter supplies what I can only guess what's expect to be the one to whom the "letter" is addressed to's answers.

Originally posted by talisman
reply to post by Lillydale

 

Its hard to say either way, but there is a credibility problem to be sure. I personally do believe that the letter went on purpose without a disclaimer and that just doesn't sit well with me.

Then we seem to be perfectly in agreement. I used to listen to him all the time. All he made me do was eventually get suspicious of the fact that I wanted to buy gold all the time and I did not know why. Either way, the dude is doing a radio show and selling crap. Just like Orson Wells.

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by talisman

 

You're calling it a letter in agreement with the BS excuse offered. I'm not putting words in your mouth. *Damn how long will you continue on that deflection?*
And of course I rightfully wonder how many "letters" that are purported *note this is AFTER the fictious nature of the "interview" now called "letter" is found out* to be a request for further dialogue would come in a interview format. Especially considering this opened letter supplies what I can only guess what's expect to be the one to whom the "letter" is addressed to's answers.

If you can produce and back up your claim that I called it an "OPEN LETTER" then produce it.

IF you can't then I am done arguing with you because I don't like to talk to people who put words in other people's mouths.

You specifically said....

That I called it an Open Letter. That is a very specific claim. My claim to "letter" was broad and beyond just something specific.


So unless you can back up your original claim on what I said then I have no further need to talk to you about something that is very obvious.

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by talisman
reply to post by Lillydale

 

Its hard to say either way, but there is a credibility problem to be sure. I personally do believe that the letter went on purpose without a disclaimer and that just doesn't sit well with me.

Then we seem to be perfectly in agreement. I used to listen to him all the time. All he made me do was eventually get suspicious of the fact that I wanted to buy gold all the time and I did not know why. Either way, the dude is doing a radio show and selling crap. Just like Orson Wells.

Well I know there is always the business side of things, but what started to really make me wonder was when he started painting his face like the JOKER and acting like a nut.

There were a few other "rants" that seemed a little staged. Now it is possible he is doing it because that is the nature of Radio, but something didn't sit well with me.

This was something that really made me give up on Alex Jones. He lost his credibility completely and I see him as being on the side of disinformation.

I really think that he sabotaged the letter by Sheen.

Originally posted by talisman
There were a few other "rants" that seemed a little staged. Now it is possible he is doing it because that is the nature of Radio, but something didn't sit well with me.

Now that you reminded me about him staging rants. He just comes across as fake when he does it now because instead of just getting angry and having it show itself over the airwaves, he now narrates it for us so we know just exactly how frustrated and angry he really is. He sounds like an improv class dropout.

reply to post by talisman


How long are you going to wantonly avoid the conversation for this little BS tangent? It wasn't a "letter" it was a BS FALSE interview that was attempted to be passed off as the real thing and labeled a "letter" when he was called on it. Which is what you continously attempting to avoid even remotely looking at. I am damn, look at your methodology thus far. You are far more interested in continued rants about that.

[edit on 15-9-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by talisman

 

How long are you going to wantonly avoid the conversation for this little BS tangent? It wasn't a "letter" it was a BS FALSE interview that was attempted to be passed off as the real thing and labeled a "letter" when he was called on it. Which is what you continously attempting to avoid even remotely looking at. I am damn, look at your methodology thus far. You are far more interested in continued rants about that.

Wow... that's your theory? That's ... wow... completely ridiculous. Especially since nothing even adds up to that being the case except a disclaimer allegedly being missing for 90 minutes. How do you explain the subsequent articles they rapidly posted after explaining the letter to the President? Do you know how long it takes to carefully write an article, let alone half a dozen? The answer is: a hell lot longer than 90 minutes.

As I can atest being a writer myself, writing is a difficult, time-consuming task. Those subsequent articles explaining the letter and Sheen's challenge to the President were prepared well before hand. There was no intent to deceive. I suspect you don't actually believe what you're claiming but just prolonging a pointless argument for the sake of contrarian nature.

[edit on 15-9-2009 by Kojiro]

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by talisman

 

How long are you going to wantonly avoid the conversation for this little BS tangent? It wasn't a "letter" it was a BS FALSE interview that was attempted to be passed off as the real thing and labeled a "letter" when he was called on it. Which is what you continously attempting to avoid even remotely looking at. I am damn, look at your methodology thus far. You are far more interested in continued rants about that.

[edit on 15-9-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

Avoid what? ADmit that I never called it what you said I called it.

reply to post by Kojiro


Believe what you wish. It's your mistake to make. But it does bespeak more of what you have already made abundanly clear. Can you provide links to these other so called articles?

[edit on 15-9-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by Kojiro

 

Believe what you wish. It's your mistake to make. But it does bespeak more of what you have already made abundanly clear. Can you provide links to these other so called articles?

[edit on 15-9-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

They're on his site, dude. Look for yourself.

Originally posted by Kojiro
Do you know how long it takes to carefully write an article, let alone half a dozen? The answer is: a hell lot longer than 90 minutes.

As I can atest being a writer myself, writing is a difficult, time-consuming task.

Then you are not a very creative writer if it takes you so long. These are not deep heart wrenching novels or intense thrillers you are talking about. They are internet articles that contain little to no facts. I can write on articl every 3 minutes at that average length and just as well written. That is 30 articles I could write myself. Why does it take you so long to write an article?

It is off topic so please U2U me. I would really like to know the answer to that. It scares me about our educational system as well as our nations publishing houses. Do you know how many people Alex had writing internet articles that day?

There was no intent to deceive.

This is just your opinion is it not? Were you there and involved in the process in any way or is this just what you think?

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by Kojiro
Do you know how long it takes to carefully write an article, let alone half a dozen? The answer is: a hell lot longer than 90 minutes.

As I can atest being a writer myself, writing is a difficult, time-consuming task.

Then you are not a very creative writer if it takes you so long. These are not deep heart wrenching novels or intense thrillers you are talking about. They are internet articles that contain little to no facts. I can write on articl every 3 minutes at that average length and just as well written. That is 30 articles I could write myself. Why does it take you so long to write an article?

It is off topic so please U2U me. I would really like to know the answer to that. It scares me about our educational system as well as our nations publishing houses. Do you know how many people Alex had writing internet articles that day?

HAHAHAAHAHAHA! Anyone can TYPE something in a short period. But that's not WRITING. There's more to writing than making letters appear. Proof-reading's needed, draft after draft of the refining product needs to be made. You need to make sure both your grammer and context make sense. The final product must be free of errors and inconsistencies before it sees publish.

It's very clear you know nothing of writing.

There was no intent to deceive.

This is just your opinion is it not? Were you there and involved in the process in any way or is this just what you think?

Its just a fact of blatant obviousness. That disclaimer, if it was really missing, went on the final article rather quickly. If there really had been intent to deceive, it never would have received a disclaimer, at all.

Or are you going to claim a kid who spills a glass of water with his clumsy fingers did it deliberately despite his statement of "oopsie" afterwards?

reply to post by Kojiro


Hm a hour and a half is rather quickly?

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by Kojiro

 

Hm a hour and a half is rather quickly?

90 minutes is trivial when compared to the length of a full day or longer.

reply to post by Kojiro


In the case of a disclaimer that should have been at the head of an article from the beginning it's an eternity. But I imagine you buy the whole "technical issues" BS excuse. Articles do not post to the internet in real time and his excuse is an obvious lie to anyone who knows web programming.

[edit on 15-9-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by Kojiro

 

In the case of a disclaimer that should have been at the head of an article from the beginning it's an eternity. But I imagine you buy the whole "technical issues" BS excuse.

How is it BS? Have you never been to a busy Web page and half of what's suppose to appear only shows up? Have you never seen traffic disrupt information flow in a site before? Everything down to the layout can be messed up.

The way Alex explained it to the best of his ability, it sounds like each article is loaded into a template by a remote device. If a site is experiencing heavy traffic, an interruption of information can happen. I've seen Alex's site crash numerous times because of traffic. It's a very highly probable explanation.

Originally posted by Kojiro

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by Kojiro
Do you know how long it takes to carefully write an article, let alone half a dozen? The answer is: a hell lot longer than 90 minutes.

As I can atest being a writer myself, writing is a difficult, time-consuming task.

Then you are not a very creative writer if it takes you so long. These are not deep heart wrenching novels or intense thrillers you are talking about. They are internet articles that contain little to no facts. I can write on articl every 3 minutes at that average length and just as well written. That is 30 articles I could write myself. Why does it take you so long to write an article?

It is off topic so please U2U me. I would really like to know the answer to that. It scares me about our educational system as well as our nations publishing houses. Do you know how many people Alex had writing internet articles that day?

HAHAHAAHAHAHA! Anyone can TYPE something in a short period. But that's not WRITING. There's more to writing than making letters appear.

Yeah, before you get all excited about yourself there, do me a favor. Quote one of those articles here. Show us these well thought out, well researched, proof read, internet articles. You can say whatever you like about my knowledge of writing. I am not here to discuss what it takes to actually "write."

So you write as well as you read? I already pointed out that I was not talking about things that are actually writing. Yeah, I included a disclaimer just so I would not have to have this argument and yet...here we are.

They are internet articles for "prison planet." They are NOT well researched, they are not proof read, they do not have to go to the publisher. In fact, if you know anything about the internet, blogs, and Alex Jones operation, all it takes to give you one half way decent article is on of his employees sitting at a computer typing away.

I know writing is far more than just putting letters on paper. Be careful who is knowledge of writing you besmirching when a) you do not know me and b) you cannot read. Go back and reread what I wrote and come back when your answer actually fits it.

Until then, I would be more than thrilled to get the chance to look over these amazing articles that took soooooooo long to write.

Its just a fact of blatant obviousness. That disclaimer, if it was really missing, went on the final article rather quickly

LoL. Busted! You are not a writer. The only writing you have done has been for your own pleasure. I know this for a fact and I will tell you how in a minute.....

What is the deal with this, "if it was really missing?" We all know it was missing. Unfortunately that is a fact. Your argument is based apparently on an alternative universe where thing may or may not have happened some particular way. Sorry, here they did happen the way they did and we know how - the disclaimer was missing for 90 minutes.

To your second point, what do you mean "Final Article?" Are you trying to say that for an hour and a half they actually published rough drafts? What do you even mean by that?

Ok, while you are mulling those over...let me help with the first puzzle.

Its just a fact of blatant obviousness.

is NOT a sentence. It is grammatical garbage and since it is at the beginning of the paragraph, your pronoun does not even have a proper relative so you cannot even use creative license here. I am really sorry but you can say anything you like about my ability to write but you would never get a line like that past an editor.

[edit on 15-9-2009 by Lillydale]