The Anti-Truther Bible: The Ten Commandments..

Originally posted by maxella1
So you think that 'truthers' would demand that your post be removed? I find it very unlikely. You are just paranoid.

You're just being dishonest. You know damn well that if I claimed for example "All truthers believe there were no victims" that a huge fuss would be kicked up. I have had complaints for even using the terms 'truth movement' and 'truthers' as apparently they imply a groupthink which does not exist. To say then that nobody would take offence to such slander is ludicrous. I don't think you even believe it yourself.

And you are wrong about that too. Sorry,

edit on 30-5-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)

I checked the first few pages. Care to point it out?

I don't understand how can one get offended on a forum anyway. You guys are just crazy. I just see you as cartoon characters, all living in their own universe, their own beliefs, and convictions. Nobody can be dead right as to what is the truth, but the executors. You may think you do. But there are 7 billion of us. And almost as many "truths" (not literally). What we may have in common is that we all have questions. Truthers and os-ers alike.

reply to post by exponent

You're just being dishonest. You know damn well that if I claimed for example "All truthers believe there were no victims" that a huge fuss would be kicked up. I have had complaints for even using the terms 'truth movement' and 'truthers' as apparently they imply a groupthink which does not exist. To say then that nobody would take offence to such slander is ludicrous. I don't think you even believe it yourself.

Why are you accusing me of lying again? What happened to

I try and stay away from personal attacks as much as possible.

on page 6 ?

reply to post by exponent

I checked the first few pages. Care to point it out?

No

Originally posted by MarioOnTheFly
I don't understand how can one get offended on a forum anyway. You guys are just crazy. I just see you as cartoon characters, all living in their own universe, their own beliefs, and convictions. Nobody can be dead right as to what is the truth, but the executors. You may think you do. But there are 7 billion of us. And almost as many "truths" (not literally). What we may have in common is that we all have questions. Truthers and os-ers alike.

So I take it, you don't want this thread to be removed, right?

reply to post by maxella1

I'm wondering why did the mods removed ( posting for the third time) from the title of the thread? I don't get it. We are not allowed to remove our own posts but they can change anything they want in anybodys thread. I know it's their site and their rules and all. But Maybe somebody can explain?

Just a reminder this isn't your forum to spout as you please. Your threads always begin with some minimal vague bit of info. You have nothing to say about it (safe move) and then ask, "What do you think?" When somebody replies your pat responses are , "How do you know?" Or, " Are you sure?"

When somebody makes a good point that you can't refute you dismiss them out of hand with, "Go play somewhere else". All the time your views are vague themselves as you cage your retorts in carefully disguised insults.

Every post replied to. Every opposing opinion trounced. In the end I suppose you consider yourself King of ATS as you stand alone atop a mountain of disrespect and innuendo. Despite what you think, members and Mods see thru this and barely tolerate it, to be sure. Your rep is growing...

Now respond and prove me right.

Someone who is this concerned over people who have a differing opinion than their own needs to understand that there will ALWAYS be people with differing opinions to your own. It's a closed mind that goes after the debunkers rather than rising to the challenge of debate.

Of course, if you have a differing opinion than that stated by this statement, I'd be happy to debate the issue, in the spirit of the statement itself.

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by maxella1

 

I'm wondering why did the mods removed ( posting for the third time) from the title of the thread? I don't get it. We are not allowed to remove our own posts but they can change anything they want in anybodys thread. I know it's their site and their rules and all. But Maybe somebody can explain?

Just a reminder this isn't your forum to spout as you please. Your threads always begin with some minimal vague bit of info. You have nothing to say about it (safe move) and then ask, "What do you think?" When somebody replies your pat responses are , "How do you know?" Or, " Are you sure?"

When somebody makes a good point that you can't refute you dismiss them out of hand with, "Go play somewhere else". All the time your views are vague themselves as you cage your retorts in carefully disguised insults.

Every post replied to. Every opposing opinion trounced. In the end I suppose you consider yourself King of ATS as you stand alone atop a mountain of disrespect and innuendo. Despite what you think, members and Mods see thru this and barely tolerate it, to be sure. Your rep is growing...

Now respond and prove me right.

edit on 30-5-2012 by intrptr because: spelling...

I am aware that this isn't my forum. I just asked why remove a part of the title. I don't really care, just a question.

I also don't care what your feelings about me are, so don't worry about offending me, because you can't.

I would like for you to explain what is being the 'king of ATS', but you don't have to if you don't want to.

You pretty much described their attitudes to a tee. These may not apply to every single one of them. But the vast majority of people who call themselves "debunkers" fit snugly into the descriptions on this list.

Originally posted by babybunnies
Someone who is this concerned over people who have a differing opinion than their own needs to understand that there will ALWAYS be people with differing opinions to your own. It's a closed mind that goes after the debunkers rather than rising to the challenge of debate.

Of course, if you have a differing opinion than that stated by this statement, I'd be happy to debate the issue, in the spirit of the statement itself.

I don't expect you to read everything I ever wrote on ATS, but if you would you would find out that I completely agree with you regarding difference of opinion. Since me very first post here I say that nobody has to agree with me on anything at all. What I do is post thinks that are interesting to me personally and when people start responding I ask them how they came to their opinions.

Sometimes I get pissed off but that never lasts long with. Nothing anybody on this forum can be said that would offend me and make me demand that those personal opinions of others be deleted because I disagree with them.

Originally posted by kidtwist


We have read NISTs report, and we think it's a total joke. It has deliberately left out a lot of crucial information and cannot be taken seriously if there are so many elements to 9/11 that were not investigated.

NISTs report belongs in the bin, it's fraudulent and inaccurate.

If the quotes that OS'ers wrote look bad, then why did you lot make them in the first place? This thread highlights some of the stuff you lot have written, and I dont understand why you sdont like your own words? surely you stand by what you have previously written, otherwise you would have edited your own posts and removed your own comments exponent?

Oh really? So what has been left out? What is fraudulent? What parts are inaccurate? I'd love to hear this.

For starters, have you even read the NIST reports? Did you understand any of what was said? Or did you just look at the title and guess at the rest?

reply to post by maxella1

I would like for you to explain what is being the 'king of ATS', but you don't have to if you don't want to.

I should have said in the end you are King atop the wreckage of your thread. Your threads are less about 911 than they are about who's right? Wait. Is this a 911 thread or more just a back and forth bicker between persons? Like this post here, your reply, my next. Its all off topic.

This thread is a pretty good showcase of the current condition of the truth movement, so I don't think it should be removed. What I observe here is a direct attack on people who disagree with a certain believe. The methods used involve fallacies and falsehoods. I see very strong similarities with religious believes, where people who reject creation or god itself are ridiculed in a similar manner. (of course not by everyone, but its common on forums).

Anyway, carry on, just observing from the sideline .

Why are people getting so butt-hurt?
I actually giggled at this

Now to be on topic. I match your "ten commandments" list with another.

Characteristics of a pseudoskeptic:

1. The tendency to deny, rather than doubt.
2. Double standards in the application of criticism.
3. The making of judgments without full inquiry.
4. Tendency to discredit, rather than investigate.
5. Use of ridicule or ad hominem attacks in lieu of arguments.
6. Pejorative labeling of proponents as 'promoters', 'pseudoscientists' or practitioners of 'pathological science.
7. Presenting insufficient evidence or proof.
8. Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof.
9. Making unsubstantiated counter-claims.
10. Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence.
11. Suggesting that unconvincing evidence is grounds for dismissing it.
12. Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims.
13. Asserting that claims which have not been proven false must be true, and vice versa (Argument from ignorance).
14. They speak down to their audience using 'arguments from authority'.
15. They put forward their assumptions as if they were universal truths.
16. No references to reputable journal material.
17. If the pseudo-skeptic has a monetary interest (such as maintaining a funding stream or a salary) his criticisms often become vituperative.
911debunkers.blogspot.com...

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by maxella1

 

I would like for you to explain what is being the 'king of ATS', but you don't have to if you don't want to.

I should have said in the end you are King atop the wreckage of your thread. Your threads are less about 911 than they are about who's right? Wait. Is this a 911 thread or more just a back and forth bicker between persons? Like this post here, your reply, my next. Its all off topic.

Of cause this thread is about 9/11. It exposed the '9/11 debunkers' for what they are (in my opinion). According to 'debunkers' free speech is bad and shouldn't be allowed on ATS. I demonstrate the 'debunker' hypocrisy a few pages back.

They use many different types of insults and imply that' truthers' are crazy, stupid, uneducated, rude,and paranoid conspiracy theorists. But when they get criticism of heir behavior on this forum they get offended and demand that it be removed.

If you can show me examples of 'truthers' demanding removal of thread they don't like, I will appreciate it. As always you don't have to if you don't want to shown me examples. It's cool with me.

Originally posted by intrptr
Now to be on topic. I match your "ten commandments" list with another.

Characteristics of a pseudoskeptic:

1. The tendency to deny, rather than doubt.
2. Double standards in the application of criticism.
3. The making of judgments without full inquiry.
4. Tendency to discredit, rather than investigate.
5. Use of ridicule or ad hominem attacks in lieu of arguments.
6. Pejorative labeling of proponents as 'promoters', 'pseudoscientists' or practitioners of 'pathological science.
7. Presenting insufficient evidence or proof.
8. Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof.
9. Making unsubstantiated counter-claims.
10. Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence.
11. Suggesting that unconvincing evidence is grounds for dismissing it.
12. Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims.
13. Asserting that claims which have not been proven false must be true, and vice versa (Argument from ignorance).
14. They speak down to their audience using 'arguments from authority'.
15. They put forward their assumptions as if they were universal truths.
16. No references to reputable journal material.
17. If the pseudo-skeptic has a monetary interest (such as maintaining a funding stream or a salary) his criticisms often become vituperative.
911debunkers.blogspot.com...

Good, I think you should start a thread with this list. And we will see if the hypocrisy goes both ways.

reply to post by maxella1


That list says basically what you do? Lemme get this straight. You debunk the "truth of 911"? Or the debunkers of the truth of what happened that day?

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by maxella1

 

That list says basically what you do? Lemme get this straight. You debunk the "truth of 911"? Or the debunkers of the truth of what happened that day?

I debunk nothing. I still think that you should start it's own thread as an experiment. I think it would be interesting.

reply to post by maxella1

I thought this was that thread? There you go again. Never answer a direct question. Just pass out homework assignments... or tell me to "go start a thread". I'm not jumping to your tune, remember? Answer the question...