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

reply to post by Lillydale


I've actually been talking about the article. I don't know where you got the idea that I was talking about you.

That was a statemental to all. Since you obviously forgot in lou of going off into "I am so persecuted land." I HAVE BEEN AGREEING WITH YOU! Check the history. Alex Jones is nothing more than another cult of personalty that who has been caught lying. But people being as they are in that they need something to cling to, his followers are rationalising, justifying and out right lying to themselves that he is anything but. Because they need him to be something he is anything but. And like any cult of personalty he exploits them while growing fat on the proceeds. It's all classic sociology/psycology really.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Reply to post by Kojiro

Puhlease.. You've been ad homing the most.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


Umm... no.

Reply to post by Kojiro

Check the history and look at it from another point of view. How is that "let me type slowly for you" bit of silliness anything but? And that's not the only example. Just because you think it's justified doesn't make it not ad hom. I hate to inform you.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by Kojiro

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by Kojiro
reply to post by Lillydale

 

Eight? What friggin' page are you looking at? There's thirty-friggin'-two.

Theeeeeeeeeeeeeeee one you gave me a link to with Charlie smiling at me on it that is off of prison planet.

That would be the correct one. And there's 32 links on it, not counting the couple in the article text. Tell me how you managed to count less than a third in there? Can you even count at all? I'm beginning to doubt so.

LOL, so that was the page. I See. I was not aware that I was supposed to fish all over each page of crap from infowars to look for links. Yes, I counted the 8 in the article because.....get this.....

WHEN I GOT TO THE END OF THE ARTICLE I STOPPED READING THAT PAGE. I read what was supposed to be so relevant but saw little, got to the end and stopped. That is just how I do things so if you want me to scavenge the rest of the page, I guess you need to clear that up.

LIKE I SAID BEFORE, MAKE IT 100, IT DOES NOT MAKE ALEX CREDIBLE

Did we not already have this conversations?

You counted 32 links as 5 or 8. I think you've missed quite a bit.

Yeah, you sure got me there.

Now, Alex must clearly be telling the truth about anything and everything he ever says. You have successfully proven he was not a fraud.

Look, you said you were a writer and then proceeded to use the worst grammar I have ever seen so close to the sentence it DESTROYS. This is about writing, right? How much could be done in 90 minutes, was the original point you were trying to make? I asked you to post just one of these extremely long, well researched articles so that we could all see what you mean. The reason that I asked you to post one here was because I did not see anything that could take more than a handful of minutes a piece.

Ok, Now that I have looked at all your little links because you could not do the simple task set before you. I still do not see anything that proves a team of people could not get it done in 90 minutes. Cry about what I did or did not count all you like, you still have not shown me what would be such an impossible task. Are you going to?

Clearly you're not really paying attention to anything that's been said. Here it is, put really simply. I bet a 5 year old could understand this.

32 links = Time is spent to collect them = Preparation = Time was spent on the article.

Wait a minute. I just laughed so hard that I started to choke. So let me get this straight. You are not even trying to use the links as things that were done within that time frame, just putting them together on one web page? How much time do you really think that took? Are you trying to say that Alex realized he was called on his hoax and then suddenly began researching 9/11 and finding a group of good links to string together? You are not helping your case but ok.

It's really that simple, and it's the whole point I've been making during the last dozen posts or so. Those links weren't just grabbed at random and thrown in. If you still don't understand, then please... seek diagnosis immediately for whatever attention disorder you have.

Yeah, genius, if you have been paying attention you would know that you are simply doing the same crap Jthomas does about 9/11. You have shifted and shifted and shifted until the original point you were trying to make is rather convoluted.

One 300 word article + 32 links = 15 minutes for an average 6th grader.

It is really that simple.

Also, I shall explain again that 90 minutes is a very short time compared to a day.

It is a really short time compared to a year.

It is super duper absosmurfly short time compared to a millennium.

Carrying this logic as far as we can, it is a long time compared to a second, and a really really long time compared to a millisecond, and on and on. How do you think that makes any difference?????
90 minutes is still 90 minutes and a foot is still a foot. Are you still going?

If there had been no disclaimer for a full day or longer, then maybe you would have real reason to suspect something fishy. But it was only 90 minutes. That's one hour and 30 minutes. There are 24 hours in a day. There are 60 minutes in an hour. That means that there are 1,440 minutes in a day. Furthermore, Alex explained that the Web site's bandwidth was clogged with traffic, making the correction of the disclaimer difficult.

Great, you can multiply relatively low numbers. I suppose you are an engineer as well as famed author or repute? 90 minutes still turns out to be 90 minutes though; even after all that. Alex is in control of the bandwidth. If he sent out a false article without a disclaimer then all he had to do was block his server and shut it all down. He could have made the fix and gone back up.

....or he could have done the responsible things and

a)Not spent the night before promoting it as breaking news
b)put the disclaimer at the top where it needs to be

Alex's big announcement wasn't the letter either. It was Charlie. He's made this clear, and it's very evidently clear by this other article (www.infowars.com...) which preceded the letter "20 Minutes with the President" and even specifically names it.

Sheen’s request takes the form of a letter to the President in the context of a fictional meeting between the two entitled “20 Minutes With The President,” published exclusively on radio talk show host Alex Jones’ Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com websites.

Face it. You have no credible evidence that Alex was trying to punk us.

Maybe, maybe not. I have proof that he is a willfull liar though. I have evidence he was trying to be deceptive here. On the internet, there is no "proceeding." Articles are not fed in order, one at a time here because no one reads webpages in "order." Either it included a disclaimer or not. If he made it so clear in some other link that his was false, then what are you even arguing about the 90 minutes for? It really cannot have both defenses here. Either it was cleared up and no need to wait for disclaimer or there is ample proof that he was bound and gagged for 90 min.

[edit on 17-9-2009 by Lillydale]

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


I knew you had agreed with me here. I do not care. When it looks like you are giving me a hard time for responding to someone for attacking me instead of the article, I will speak up.

What kojiro does not realize is that he thinks this is even, or that I started it or whatever. Actually, this began because I did not feel that Alex had shown enough work to prove that he must have had it all prepared well before 90 minutes prior. I was attacking the veracity of the article. He wanted to insert himself personally and claim that as a "writer" he could attest to that I was wrong. From there it simply devolved. I stand by my original point that started this crap all off and claim I have seen nothing that could not be done in 90 minutes.

Sorry, just because we agree does not I will not strike back when I think some other poster is telling me how to behave.

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

 

Umm... no.

Ummmm yes. The first toss you count as a mark against me is actually me calling Alex out for coming up with a band-aid in 90 minutes. Count the insults and maybe I have a few more but at least some of them have been on topic. You lost the topic a while ago.

Just post right here exactly what is so long, so researched, so intricately wrapped that could never be done by him or a team. That is all. If it is nothing more than a hyperlink, then that takes 30 seconds. If it is a link to a page of links, I will give you an entire half hour. We still have an hour to go if it is just you and it is not.

Remember any of this?

Twenty Minutes with the President

Reported by Charlie Sheen
Infowars
Tuesday, September 8, 2009



I recently had the pleasure of sitting down with our 44th President of the United States of America, Barack Hussein Obama, while he was out promoting his health care reform initiative. I requested 30 minutes given the scope and detail of my inquiry; they said I could have 20. Twenty minutes, 1200 seconds, not a lot of time to question the President about one of the most important events in our nation’s history. The following is a transcript of our remarkable discussion.

Source

Here is how it originally appeared, before it was edited and given a disclaimer. You can check the entire cached version of how it originally 'aired.' Please, come defend it some more.


[edit on 17-9-2009 by Lillydale]

Reply to post by Lillydale

Like I said it was a broad statemental to all. If you want to run amok of the old adage "Never argue with a fool. He'll just drag you down and beat you with experience." that is undeniably your right. I was merely pointing out silly the whole thing is and now how damaging to your/our case it is. But yea it is your right to play in the mud with the kiddies.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


I just cannot help myself sometimes I guess. I was trying to steer it all back to Alex over and over but I like to toss him his two cents back as well. I really think that if Alex had nothing to make up for, there would not be these nuts in here trying so hard to distract and insult. I just really enjoy watching them dance all over the place while the actual topics sits there looking every bit as silly. Alex is a liar and a fraud and I think that his most fervent defenders are brainwashed and ignorant of the world around them. I do not think it took too much away from the main point. I felt like it just helps to point out how far they go to defend him and still they come up with nothing.

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

 

Check the history and look at it from another point of view. How is that "let me type slowly for you" bit of silliness anything but? And that's not the only example. Just because you think it's justified doesn't make it not ad hom. I hate to inform you.

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

Imagine if someone asks you the same question over and over despite answering it each time. How would you start seeing that person?

Originally posted by Lillydale
LOL, so that was the page. I See. I was not aware that I was supposed to fish all over each page of crap from infowars to look for links. Yes, I counted the 8 in the article because.....get this.....

WHEN I GOT TO THE END OF THE ARTICLE I STOPPED READING THAT PAGE.

So you admit that you don't even look at what I tell you to look at.

Yeah, you sure got me there.

Now, Alex must clearly be telling the truth about anything and everything he ever says. You have successfully proven he was not a fraud.

Look, you said you were a writer and then proceeded to use the worst grammar I have ever seen so close to the sentence it DESTROYS. This is about writing, right? How much could be done in 90 minutes--

Ugh... let me humor you in a moment.

Yeah, genius, if you have been paying attention you would know that you are simply doing the same crap Jthomas does about 9/11. You have shifted and shifted and shifted until the original point you were trying to make is rather convoluted.

One 300 word article + 32 links = 15 minutes for an average 6th grader.

It is really that simple.

All right... here it is. The links aren't just random 9/11 links pulled from a hat. They're relevant to the article concerning Charlie Sheen and his involvement with the 9/11 Truth movement. But okay, let's humor you. Let's imagine that this was all a conspiracy set up by Alex Jones and Charlie Sheen to destroy 9/11 Truthers.

First they put together a hoax interview and post it up right? We'll even pretend the article that came out before it was posted which names the interview as fiction doesn't exist. We'll keep the 90 minute time frame though. People somehow discover it didn't really happen by whatever means, like reading the mainstream news or whatever. It takes just a few minutes to search Google. People grow enraged.

So for some reason, um... which goes beyond my understanding, Alex and Chuck backpeddle and come up with a cover story to make it into a challenge to Obama about 9/11. Why do they do this? This doesn't make sense. If they were trying to destroty and discredit 9/11 Truthers, wouldn't they just point at us and laugh instead of attempting to further the cause afterward?

But we'll continue on with the theory that's already beginning to buckle underneath its weight of incredulity.

Okay, they have to come up with a cover story, make sure everyone gets it right, and write and post articles for this cover story all in 90 minutes. I don't know about you, but when I'm talking with a bunch of people and kicking back and forth ideas, time seems to pedal it into hyperspeed. That means they have to decide what they want to say quickly, as the clock is ticking. So they come up with the letter excuse and the technical excuse and make sure everyone agrees. So they need to type up their articles, proof them; make sure spelling and grammar are acceptable, and also that everything is consistent with their story. If inconsistencies are found, then... well, they have to rewrite those to make sure the the story fits.

Considering their story has remained very consistent so far, this implies heavy proofing, and I think they've run out of time.

Plus... I have to kill all of this theory with Occam's Razor. It's too complex and the motives change too rapidly to even make sense.

It is a really short time compared to a year.

It is super duper absosmurfly short time compared to a millennium.

Carrying this logic as far as we can, it is a long time compared to a second, and a really really long time compared to a millisecond, and on and on. How do you think that makes any difference?????
90 minutes is still 90 minutes and a foot is still a foot. Are you still going?

Great, you can multiply relatively low numbers. I suppose you are an engineer as well as famed author or repute? 90 minutes still turns out to be 90 minutes though; even after all that. Alex is in control of the bandwidth. If he sent out a false article without a disclaimer then all he had to do was block his server and shut it all down. He could have made the fix and gone back up.

You missed the point I was making. Your complaint is that the article was without a disclaimer for 90 minutes. I was showing you that even 90 minutes is insignificant compared to the length of a day. That's it.

b)put the disclaimer at the top where it needs to be

Even Alex has agreed to this. I think we all agree on this now.

Maybe, maybe not. I have proof that he is a willfull liar though. I have evidence he was trying to be deceptive here. On the internet, there is no "proceeding." Articles are not fed in order, one at a time here because no one reads webpages in "order." Either it included a disclaimer or not. If he made it so clear in some other link that his was false, then what are you even arguing about the 90 minutes for? It really cannot have both defenses here. Either it was cleared up and no need to wait for disclaimer or there is ample proof that he was bound and gagged for 90 min.

I was arguing it because your side seems to think they cooked up some cover story in that 90 minute time frame. See my humoring of your positions above.

[edit on 17-9-2009 by Kojiro]

Originally posted by Kojiro
So you admit that you don't even look at what I tell you to look at.

You offered up a link and said here. I read the article on that link. I am not here to play linkfrog. There is also the fact that I am not here to do what you tell me too. Who cares, I have been there now and I stand by my point. Anyone could have pulled all of that off in 90 minutes. Get over it. Get over me.

Ugh... let me humor you in a moment.


All right... here it is. The links aren't just random 9/11 links pulled from a hat. They're relevant to the article concerning Charlie Sheen and his involvement with the 9/11 Truth movement. But okay, let's humor you. Let's imagine that this was all a conspiracy set up by Alex Jones and Charlie Sheen to destroy 9/11 Truthers.

For one thing, I keep my links organized in folders. Usually categories are decided by subject matter and relative relevance. You can twist this any way you want to. Just because you write very slowly and do not think that Alex Jones would have these links handy does not make it so. There is also the fact that I have called him a liar and you are not defending that. You are defending how long it takes to post articles with relevant links??????
Second of all, that must be your theory because I sure as hell never said that.

First they put together a hoax interview and post it up right? We'll even pretend the article that came out before it was posted which names the interview as fiction doesn't exist. We'll keep the 90 minute time frame though. People somehow discover it didn't really happen by whatever means, like reading the mainstream news or whatever. It takes just a few minutes to search Google. People grow enraged.

See above. You are reaching. Pay attention to what I have said. He is a liar who tried to gin up excitement with a BS announcement. Then he pulls this stunt just to see how many Appalachians buy it. He was just being deceptive, if only to gain more traffic. I never claimed all of this craziness so you are humoring yourself.

I accused him of purposely being deceptive. That is all.

So for some reason, um... which goes beyond my understanding, Alex and Chuck backpeddle and come up with a cover story to make it into a challenge to Obama about 9/11. Why do they do this? This doesn't make sense. If they were trying to destroty and discredit 9/11 Truthers, wouldn't they just point at us and laugh instead of attempting to further the cause afterward?

Again, I never said any such thing. Do you win all of your arguments by pretending that the other person is saying things that they clearly are not and then attacking that new false premise?

But we'll continue on with the theory that's already beginning to buckle underneath its weight of incredulity.

No, we will not. You just made this crap up so you go argue about it with yourself in the corner. I you reading what you are responding to at all?

Plus... I have to kill all of this theory with Occam's Razor. It's too complex and the motives change too rapidly to even make sense.

Uh huh? When did I say anything about that either? Did you mean to reply to someone else?

You missed the point I was making. Your complaint is that the article was without a disclaimer for 90 minutes. I was showing you that even 90 minutes is insignificant compared to the length of a day. That's it.

Just because you said it is? How many people can access a website in 90 minutes? I will give you a hint, it starts with every single person in the world. 90 minutes seems pretty significant when sooooo many people can engage in the same activity simultaneously and almost instantly.

You can say it is a short period of time all you want but that does not change how much damage 90 minutes on the web can do.

Even Alex has agreed to this. I think we all agree on this now.

Riiiiiight. He has been a professional writer and talk show host and truth bringer for how long now? He just now realized these kinds of disclaimers belong at the top? If you think he is that stupid, why would you listen to anything he said?

I was arguing it because your side seems to think they cooked up some cover story in that 90 minute time frame. See my humoring of your positions above.

[edit on 17-9-2009 by Kojiro]

My side? I have a side? I am willing to bet that very few people want to call me as team captain. I piss off people like you, lefties, righties, intelligent people, people that agree with me, etc. I have no side and your humoring was completely pointless because it was humoring some wild crap that I never said.

Pat yourself on the back for almost winning an argument that you made up and then had with yourself; almost.

Originally posted by Lillydale
For one thing, I keep my links organized in folders. Usually categories are decided by subject matter and relative relevance. You can twist this any way you want to. Just because you write very slowly and do not think that Alex Jones would have these links handy does not make it so. There is also the fact that I have called him a liar and you are not defending that. You are defending how long it takes to post articles with relevant links??????
Second of all, that must be your theory because I sure as hell never said that.

Hm... actually you're a third right. It was Watcher's as seen in this post.

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]

Nevertheless, I called him on it. Then you challenged me in defense of his position by saying you could type whatever bogusness in 90 minutes. So very clearly you had a reason for that. If it wasn't in defense of Watcher's theory, what reason did you have?

Are you just simply trolling?

See above. You are reaching. Pay attention to what I have said. He is a liar who tried to gin up excitement with a BS announcement. Then he pulls this stunt just to see how many Appalachians buy it.

I think I've pointed out time and time again, even providing a pre-existing article as evidence that Alex erred concerning the disclaimer. I've even established with that same pre-existing article that Charlie was the announcement, not the letter. Willful deception looks unlikely.

Just because you said it is? How many people can access a website in 90 minutes? I will give you a hint, it starts with every single person in the world. 90 minutes seems pretty significant when sooooo many people can engage in the same activity simultaneously and almost instantly.

You can say it is a short period of time all you want but that does not change how much damage 90 minutes on the web can do.

Quite true. A lot of damage can be done in 90 minutes. But I'm not arguing against that. I'm arguing against the will to deceive. Relatively speaking as we consider the length of a day as I outlined, the disclaimer went up rather quickly. And they said "oops" afterwards. You'd have more reason to suspect malcontent if the letter went without a disclaimer a lot longer, like a day or week or whatever.

At least... that's when I would start getting suspicous.

Riiiiiight. He has been a professional writer and talk show host and truth bringer for how long now? He just now realized these kinds of disclaimers belong at the top? If you think he is that stupid, why would you listen to anything he said?

"Let he who is free of sin cast the first stone." Even Jesus, whether he's real or fictional, realized that nobody's perfect. A man will goof a million times in his lifetime. I've goofed. You've goofed. We've all goofed.

Originally posted by Kojiro


Hm... actually you're a third right. It was Watcher's as seen in this post.

Being 100% correct makes me a third right now? Are you going to talk about Alex, or just me some more?

Nevertheless, I called him on it. Then you challenged me in defense of his position by saying you could type whatever bogusness in 90 minutes. So very clearly you had a reason for that. If it wasn't in defense of Watcher's theory, what reason did you have?

I was actually defending my theory. I think you are highly confused now.

Are you just simply trolling?

I guess I must be since I have tried and tried to actually tackle the topic of the thread with you over and over and you are just obsessed with me. From the way your posts went above and the incessant attacks on me, I really cannot fathom that you have anything to say that would really matter at this point.

Go buy some gold.

Go find those CPS cages with the dead kids in them.

Believe everything Alex says, even if he is saying for another 20 years.

[edit on 17-9-2009 by Lillydale]

Originally posted by Lillydale
I was actually defending my theory. I think you are highly confused now.

Oh, I'm quite confused, but not for the reasons you're implying.

reply to post by Kojiro

Imagine if someone asks you the same question over and over despite answering it each time. How would you start seeing that person?

Considering you started out with insults... You can imagine the rest.

Originally posted by Kojiro

Originally posted by Lillydale

Riiiiiight. He has been a professional writer and talk show host and truth bringer for how long now? He just now realized these kinds of disclaimers belong at the top? If you think he is that stupid, why would you listen to anything he said?

"Let he who is free of sin cast the first stone." Even Jesus, whether he's real or fictional, realized that nobody's perfect. A man will goof a million times in his lifetime. I've goofed. You've goofed. We've all goofed.

I am not sure how things go where you work but if I were to damage the credibility of my company, I would be fired.

[edit on 18-9-2009 by K J Gunderson]

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

 

Imagine if someone asks you the same question over and over despite answering it each time. How would you start seeing that person?

Considering you started out with insults... You can imagine the rest.

What insults?

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
That was a statemental to all. Since you obviously forgot in lou of going off into "I am so persecuted land." I HAVE BEEN AGREEING WITH YOU! Check the history. Alex Jones is nothing more than another cult of personalty that who has been caught lying. But people being as they are in that they need something to cling to, his followers are rationalising, justifying and out right lying to themselves that he is anything but. Because they need him to be something he is anything but. And like any cult of personalty he exploits them while growing fat on the proceeds. It's all classic sociology/psycology really.

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

Watcher,

Alex is entertaining. He is hardly a cult of personality. Even his fans make fun of him. I think if anyone you are making him out to be bigger than he is.

Let me ask you this: could the Allies have gotten as far as they did as quick as they did without the Soviet Union? Sometimes politics make strange bedfellows.