Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
Everyone that starts losing an argument starts trying to defend themselves by quoting logical fallacies.

Dude, I've been owning you consistently since you first cut in. Sadly, you're irrational fallacious thought patterns prevent you from having a clue. I hate to play rough, but you're brought it upon yourself, sicne you first words.

Virtually everything you've said to me had been riddled with fallacies. Get any moderator in here and they'll say the same.

snort

It's hell when you run up against someone that calls you on your technical statements, isn't it? I don't blame you for switching over to your new tack, though. Why don't you post some more mis-statements that demonstrate your lack of technical comprehension?

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
it's because nearly every 2025 citer that I've seen always does the weather control and the "holographic projector" parts.

1. Most 2025 citers mention the holographic whatever.
2. IIB cited 2025.
3. Therefore, IIB is/will cite the holographic whatever.
Can you tell which logical fallacy you did here?


I made a statement not referring to you directly

Ok, so then it was a Red Herring, and then later you carried it through into Straw Man. But in fact it was still the Fallacy that I wa saskign you to name, and you still haven’t, and you probably wont…

although I made it clear that it did not.

Then why did you even mention it… Red Herring.

which was not directed at you. Everything isn't about you, you know.

I don’t know what planet you’ve been on, but this debate has been between you and I.

The stem of the statement is "often taken out of context" which you in fact did. You admitted this in your last post.

If that was the case then why didn’t you?

You’re only digging yourself deeper and deeper here.

Seriously, it's not like your previous posts are going to go away where people can't read them. When I challenged you about the power source, you posted those as examples of nuclear power generation technology.

So then you’re saying that devices can’t be powered with nuclear technologies?

Oh I have a concept of them, I just wasn't aware this was a formal debat.

Virtually everything you’ve stated proves otherwise.


[edit on 23-4-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
Wow, for someone worried about logical fallacies, your record is sterling on ad hominem arguments. In fact, quite a bit of your last post was nothing but.

Ok, quote them... PLEASE!

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
It's hell when you run up against someone that calls you on your technical statements, isn't it? Why don't you post some more mis-statements that demonstrate your lack of technical comprehension?

Why would I have to know the exact specifics of the physical side of the technology to demonstrate that they have intent and appear to be working towards this objective? In light of my "overall argument", this is as big as any "ad hominem" attack I ever performed. And, the difference is my "attacks" are warranted (meaning they dont quite qualify as attacks, or they weren't actually attacks, but you percieved them as such), while your attacks and inflamatory talk started from the get.

I don't blame you for switching over to your new tack, though.

Did you ever think that maybe i got sick of playing games with your pompous and fallacious rhetoric, that has sidestepped everything possible at every point possible?

You may not think that you're a spook, but you're performing the same function as one, and you have been since the very begining.

BTW, you and your Northrup buddies should find great interest in my video that you keep avoiding but keep arguing with me as if I'm just another joe with the same old view and same old arguents. Tell the northrup guys thanks for the clips, i couldn't have finished it so well without them. Also, wish them luck in raking in the dough from the establishments technoligically driven imperial wars (it's not like they need luck for that, but hey).

[edit on 23-4-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

I'm really enjoying watching you melt down here.

Please, keep going.

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
I'm really enjoying watching you melt down here.
Please, keep going.

Dont pat yourself on the back. I usually always hastily post and then make several typo + content edits just afterwards. it's a bad habit. You can see "edited by IIB" in almost everything I post. You just so happen to be observing it. I've been laughing the entire time, and any real critical thinker would do the same (at you).

But snce you believe that I've been subverted, and are applauding it, thanks for demonstrating spooklike intentions, as any good spooks entire purpose is to trash constructive discourse and progress.

[edit on 23-4-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Ok, quote them... PLEASE! (...) this is as big as any "ad hominem" attack I ever performed.

I wondered if you were going to leave it like that when you just KNEW I was going to point it out, but then you added this:

And, the difference is my "attacks" are warranted (meaning they dont quite qualify as attacks, or they weren't actually attacks, but you percieved them as such), while your attacks and inflamatory talk started from the get.

I just didn't have the heart to poke you with it. You didn't need to explain.

edit: now I'm doing it too - bleh

[edit on 23-4-2007 by Tom Bedlam]

I imagine that if I were trying to make a technical argument and obviously was a bit lacking in my understanding and got called on it, it would be enticing to draw heat away by constantly whining about logical fallacies.

So I understand. Please, keep going. I especially like it when I don't reply for a while and you keep spinning up.

If I get a chance, I'll watch your 'video'. That ought to provide more entertainment, since at this point you're just scratching for any point you can make, no matter how ... pointless.

I'll be tied up for a few days, though, which is a pity.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisssNow, after setting up and knocking down your holograph straw man, you're basically declaring victory, and literally tucking tail 9for days even) despite the fact that i didn't press you on your fallacious stance until i had long neutralized you and sure enough that's when the fallacies really went into overdrive.

Wow, I really hate to pop your bubble of narcissism and delusion here, but some of us have jobs that take them away from the house at times. I suspect that if you're still living in your parents' basement that sort of thing doesn't usually happen, but it is unfortunately true for some of us.

I'm off to the airport and won't be back until Friday quite late, at which time I'll have a backlog of family time to catch up on. And since I'm relatively certain you've never been on an engineering business trip, I'll forestall your next comment by saying yes, I'll have access on the road, but I'll be tied up pretty much constantly (I'm also coming up on the end of the semester - nothing like Masters level physics finals) and you will be the last thing I'll spend time on.

So if it makes you feel good to think I'm "tucking tail and running", enjoy it for the few days you have, because then I'm going to chop your "video" to shreds. You might want to hold off on the edits; I'm sure I'll give you a few more. No point doing it piecemeal.

edit: Odd, how you derive information from nowhere re "don't have a clue about AI in general". No doubt you can find where that was stated and point it out? No?

True, it's not my field, I've only had a couple of college courses on it. Which would be two more than you've had.

[edit on 24-4-2007 by Tom Bedlam]

Originally posted by resistor

Originally posted by notgov
ever since 911 the weather has increasingly got worse the gover ment wanted more cloud cover fo military purposes now the cant get it under control so global warming is there out keeps everyones attention off the gov..........

Classis psyop tactic. I wonder how many people this will subtly influence to think that anyone who believes the government can manipulate the weather is an illiterate nonsensical boob?

I would just like to point out that this post has been changed from how I originally wrote it. Classic was changed to Classis. Ha ha.

IIB:

Was spooling through the back thread, and I would have sworn at one point you said something on the order of "I wish I had the money to order those other papers" or something like that, though I don't see it now just flipping through.

List 'em, we have a subscription to most scholarly journals. I can take a look and see if I can't snag any full-text articles you're looking for. There's a few publications we can't get but not many.

Oh, and I can't possibly have made an ignorantium fallacy as regards your video, I never commented on it at all, other than to say I hadn't seen it. Since I did not address its contents in any way, your accusation fails.

I'd like to apologize for the tone I set with you and others on other threads, I need to get around to all of them too. Lady Bedlam says I have become overly tense between projects at work and impending school finals, though she said it much more pointedly, so I'm going around doing a sort of ninth step. While I still don't agree with you in many cases, I could have been far more diplomatic about it.

At least this damned presentation/dog-n-pony show is over. Was in town there with you the first two days oddly enough, but I figured you'd have a cardiac if I showed up. Some of the guys from one customer site wanted to play a prank on you but I stopped it. Their senses of humor are crude at times.

You have a lot of interesting stuff going on right there in town with you, BTW. Some of it is supercomputer related but not AI per se.

I need to make time to look at your video. I have some stuff you might be interested in but you might already have it in there.

Coming up on finals next week, time will be scarce until it's over.

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
"I wish I had the money to order those other papers" or something like that, though I don't see it now just flipping through.

I was talking about those RAND reports.

List 'em, we have a subscription to most scholarly journals. I can take a look and see if I can't snag any full-text articles you're looking for. There's a few publications we can't get but not many.

Oh, and I can't possibly have made an ignorantium fallacy as regards your video,

Well the whole point of me posting here was to offer new insight into the weather modification concept / intentions / etc, and the AI view that is charted in my video was the center stage in my first post. My frusteration in here with you continuing to argue it out was you were only focusing on the weakest point / example of my first post (2025), while you were completely sidestepping the central theme I was offering. You continued until this very point to dismiss me and my entire view without ever even seeing what my view was, and focused on the only part that you werent ignorant about. You argued with and treated me like just another chum who just so happened to see the 2025 doc and then jumped to the conclussion that they already have it, and your comments were dripping with that sentiment in more than one post. If that's not aruing from ignorance then I don't know what is.

I'd like to apologize for the tone I set with you and others on other threads, I need to get around to all of them too.

Now we're finally reaching a level of respect

but I figured you'd have a cardiac if I showed up. Some of the guys from one customer site wanted to play a prank on you but I stopped it.

So are you suggesting that you and your friends know who I am and how to find me?

I need to make time to look at your video.

It's only 20 mins long. I tried going for all official quotes / projects. I was hasty with the 2025 part which is all the way at the very end. So until that point it's all 'for real', were the 2025 citations are 'speculation'. I'm thinking about what I might do with that ending now that I've seen the disclaimer in the 2025 doc.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

I was talking about those RAND reports.

Post a list of the titles or what not, publication dates, some sort of thing I can search on for each one you want. A phrase from it would do if it's unique enough. I'll do a lookup and see if I can pry a full-text out.

Well the whole point of me posting here was to offer new insight into the weather modification concept / intentions / etc, and the AI view that is charted in my video was the center stage in my first post. My frusteration in here with you continuing to argue it out was you were only focusing on the weakest point / example of my first post (2025), while you were completely sidestepping the central theme I was offering.

I was sticking to the topic. I didn't see any point on wandering away onto some AI thing. I was wondering why you were trying to commandeer the thread and sidetrack it onto your pet project, actually. The resistance you perceived was me trying not to go off topic.

You continued until this very point to dismiss me and my entire view without ever even seeing what my view was, and focused on the only part that you werent ignorant about.

But isn't that proper debate procedure? The overall thread was, after all, about government weather control, not AI. And had I started commenting on your video, I would have been arguing from ignorance, having never seen it. I could discuss some AI topics since I am at least somewhat familiar with some aspects of it, and did some hardware design work for Brown University and others long ago in some "fourth generation" neural nets, but I'm primarily a hardware guy not an AI coder. And having never seen your video, I wouldn't have been able to comment on it with any authority.

You argued with and treated me like just another chum who just so happened to see the 2025 doc and then jumped to the conclussion that they already have it, and your comments were dripping with that sentiment in more than one post. If that's not aruing from ignorance then I don't know what is.

No, an ignorantium would have happened if I'd commented on your video without seeing it. I could have commented on some aspect you address without doing this, for example, I don't have to see your video to know how some back-prop mechanisms work in neural nets, because I already know. But I don't know your viewpoint. Had I commented on that it would have been one.

So are you suggesting that you and your friends know who I am and how to find me?

I did a non-priority "finger" on you, so I got the first thing that looked like 75% or better probability of matching you. You live in Tampa, no? To do a priority ID takes an explanation of why I need it, but it is 99% accurate. The no priority "who's this?" is occasionally wrong but then that's why it's zero priority.

At any rate, we were shooting the s--t and I was telling them I had given some thought to meeting you but was afraid it would misconstrued as a Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back closing scene. So of course they wanted to ramp it to the hilt and show up with maybe 10 guys in uniforms to "give you the thrill you've been looking for" which was not going to happen. I used to do that s--t too when I was that age and active duty, it can get out of hand.

It's only 20 mins long. I tried going for all official quotes / projects. I was hasty with the 2025 part which is all the way at the very end. So until that point it's all 'for real', were the 2025 citations are 'speculation'. I'm thinking about what I might do with that ending now that I've seen the disclaimer in the 2025 doc.

There are a few NASA projects that look like you'd like them, I need to run to ground if they were bid out, if so who got it, and if it's classified. That would be more fun to add than just a description.

Also there's some stuff that might be down your alley as regards certain types of computers, they don't call it "AI" anymore. The new buzzword is "emergent behavior". But at any rate they are trying to figure out how to fab HAL9000. You'll love the presentation.

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
ignorantium

So you ignored the strong part of my 1st post while honing in on the weak point. And then you treated me like the same old chum, because you didn't even look at the materials behind my complete argument.

[edit on 30-4-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]