It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Dealing with 9/11 Madness (argumentum ad hominem veritas)

page: 10
100
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 



Originally posted by Lillydale
reply to post by scott3x
 


You have a little crush on me don't you? I am not sure what else you expect me to say on the subject.


Laugh :-). I do like you. If that's all you'd like to say on the subject, that's fine.




posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 08:31 PM
link   
Continuing with the same subject that I was speaking of with Lilydale...

reply to post by K J Gunderson
 



Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by scott3x
It seems to me that he never really understood what it was that KJ was saying he lied on. I tried to get him up to speed in post #2282, back on page 115, but he hasn't responded to it as of yet. It's possible that he missed it.


I will try this one last time. MMichael completely understood because he replied to it.


Replying to something in no way guarantees that someone fully or even partially understand what it is they're responding to.


Originally posted by K J Gunderson
He cannot be so stupid as to have twisted what he read into what he responded with and still be able to even use a keyboard.


I don't think that calling even theorizing that someone can be "so stupid" is appropriate for this forum. I personally don't think that simply misinterpreting you in the way that he did would mean that he lacks intelligence.


Originally posted by K J Gunderson
Moreover, he had already exchanged U2Us with me about it.


I am not privy to your U2Us with Michael and can therefore make no judgement call on them. I must go with what I can see on the subjet: what he has posted in this thread.



Originally posted by K J Gunderson
It is nice of you to babysit but this is not the place.


This isn't a matter of babysitting anyone. This is a matter of whether or not one should refrain from accusing someone of something without providing evidence to back up your claim.


Originally posted by K J Gunderson
If people cannot get their facts straight and cannot be honest, they need to be called on it and discredited or banned or shamed into silence because the only way to get to the truth is going to be to filter out all of the blatant lies.


Don't confuse issues here; one thing is to not getting the facts straight. Another is not being honest. I agree with you that Michael frequently has difficulties getting his facts straight, but I have seen no evidence that he has been dishonest. I don't think that someone should be banned or "shamed into silence" for making some honest mistakes.


Originally posted by K J Gunderson
A good place to start would be with all the debunkers that have been WRONGLY attributing certain quotes and ideas to others around here lately. MMichael is not the first and will not be the last. It is all about little drops of poison all over the well. It kills serious debate and takes credibility out of both sides hands.


I don't think so. I think the main issue is how you deal with mistakes; I certainly believe he has made numerous mistakes, and have even pointed this out to him more than once. I have found that mentioning where I think he has been mistaken has been fairly effective. Ofcourse, there are many posts and he may have missed a post or 2 that I addressed to him, but I can repeat certain points if necessary.


Originally posted by K J Gunderson
MM is pulling a Halpert and letting his credibility get shot in order to take Dwight out with it.


I see no evidence that MM is trying to do any such thing.



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 08:46 PM
link   
Continuing on the same theme...

reply to post by Lillydale
 



Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by scott3x
Actually, Michael stopped responding to KJ's posts for 2 days. His last post before his temporary lack of responses to KJ was post #2218, on page 111. He didn't respond to him again until post #2263, on page 114, wherein he stated that he had been ignoring KJ's posts.


If you read along, the last response to KJ before this "ignoring" thing came about was specifically about this so he was following along.


He was responding; I have seen no evidence that he actually understood KJ's point. For a while, he thought that KJ was accusing -him- of claiming that KJ was a liar; it would seem that the misunderstanding went deep.


Originally posted by Lillydale
There is also the matter of the U2U exchange but hey, that is not mine or your business now is it.


I've already addressed this issue in my response to KJ.



Originally posted by Lillydale
Speaking of which....

if you have anything 9/11 or scott related to discuss with me, great.


How truthers treat OSSers is 9/11 related.


Originally posted by Lillydale
You need to let MM stand on his own.


So you can keep on accusing him of deceiving without providing evidence?


Originally posted by Lillydale
He has now had more than enough time to just admit he was wrong and still hasn't so you go ahead and defend that all you like


I've never defended that.


Originally posted by Lillydale
but it will be on deaf ears here now. This is the biggest waste of time to derail a thread I have ever been sucked into and I am done.


I hope that you will one day come to realize that accusing people of things without evidence, whether 9/11 related or not, isn't a good idea, and that someone pointing it out to you shouldn't be seen as a waste of time.



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 12:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by scott3x


He was responding; I have seen no evidence that he actually understood KJ's point. For a while, he thought that KJ was accusing -him- of claiming that KJ was a liar; it would seem that the misunderstanding went deep.



Either you fell for a really poorly executed little trick you you did not really read as much of that conversation as someone with so much to say about it should have. You are not being intellectually dishonest. You should really go back and actually read the conversation you are jumping into the middle of. I already said I had nothing to really say to you on this topic and thank you very very much for making it clear that you really do not have much to say about it either, you just are.



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 01:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 



Originally posted by Lillydale
Either you fell for a really poorly executed little trick you you did not really read as much of that conversation as someone with so much to say about it should have. You are not being intellectually dishonest. You should really go back and actually read the conversation you are jumping into the middle of.


You have now stated elsewhere that you're ignoring me, but in the event that you're not or for othres, I'll state for the record that I think I know what happened better than anyone and I think the posts I've made make this clear upon close analysis.



Originally posted by Lillydale
I already said I had nothing to really say to you on this topic


And yet, you did say some things. You now claim that you will no longer be responding to me, so I suppose that that's done with now.


Originally posted by Lillydale
and thank you very very much for making it clear that you really do not have much to say about it either, you just are.


You are entitled to your opinion.



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 02:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by scott3x
I'll state for the record that I think I know what happened better than anyone and I think the posts I've made make this clear upon close analysis.


Really? Even better than MMichael and myself? Wow. I would really like to know how you determine you know more about this than anyone else that can read let alone the two main people involved. Please explain.





You are entitled to your opinion.


Really? So why have you been harassing her about it for pages and pages and pages? It does not seem you really want to allow any of us to have an opinion on this but that is probably because you understand it on a higher level than the rest of us?



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 02:47 AM
link   
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 



Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by scott3x
I'll state for the record that I think I know what happened better than anyone and I think the posts I've made make this clear upon close analysis.


Really? Even better than MMichael and myself?


Yes. Michael himself has stated that he's ignored a fair amount of your posts, but it goes beyond that. It's clear that he plain didn't understand what you were trying to get across to him; as you yourself may remember, he at one point thought that you were accusing him of calling -you- a liar :-p. As to you, you have constantly claimed that Michael was "lying", but you have never shown any evidence that this is so.


Originally posted by K J Gunderson
Wow. I would really like to know how you determine you know more about this than anyone else


I've determined this by watching you, Lily and Michael all get key points wrong. I've detailed these points out to you, Lily and Michael in previous posts, some of which are still unresponded to. For my part, I -know- that I've responded to all the posts directed to me in the last day or 2 in this thread as well as in the independent investigation thread, because I've been tracking every single post in these threads.



Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by scott3x
You are entitled to your opinion.


Really? So why have you been harassing her about it for pages and pages and pages?


I've done no such thing. In the last little whlie, I've only been responding to posts where she was responding to -me-. Check if you don't believe me. As I mentioned to her recently, the only reason this is continuing is because -she- wouldn't let it go. She now claims that she's ignoring me, so perhaps we'll go our separate ways again.


Originally posted by K J Gunderson
It does not seem you really want to allow any of us to have an opinion on this


This, coming from the guy who felt I should stay out of the whole thing even as you were taking up forum space demanding that Michael respond to your unproven accusation of being deliberately deceptive? Please. I'm fine with everyone having opinions. All I ask is that people respect the rules against ad hominem attacks.

[edit on 11-12-2009 by scott3x]



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 06:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by scott3x
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 



Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by scott3x
I'll state for the record that I think I know what happened better than anyone and I think the posts I've made make this clear upon close analysis.


Really? Even better than MMichael and myself?


Yes. Michael himself has stated that he's ignored a fair amount of your posts, but it goes beyond that. It's clear that he plain didn't understand what you were trying to get across to him; as you yourself may remember, he at one point thought that you were accusing him of calling -you- a liar :-p. As to you, you have constantly claimed that Michael was "lying", but you have never shown any evidence that this is so.



You really are a special kind of something. When exactly did you get to read the entire U2U exchange between Mmichael and myself?



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 09:30 PM
link   
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 



Originally posted by K J Gunderson
You really are a special kind of something. When exactly did you get to read the entire U2U exchange between Mmichael and myself?


I haven't. As I've mentioned before, -I- have seen no evidence that Michael has deliberately mislead anyone. If you've seen something that you think fits the bill and would like to share, I have no objection.



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 09:49 PM
link   
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 



Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by scott3x

Originally posted by Lillydale
You obviously have a little thing for MM because you are just plane making this part up.


What do you believe I'm making up?


Let me help you out here[:]


originally posted by scott3x
I accused you of claiming that Michael has been deliberately deceptive without providing evidence that this is the case.


You said that she presented no evidence and then when she points out that we both gave you the evidence, you say that you brought it up too.


No, I didn't, although I can see how you've come to believe that. I've been looking at the progression of responses and I see where things got really confusing. In post #2416, Lilly stated:

originally posted by Lillydale
Between K and myself it was repeated, quoted, and linked to more than once.


The problem here was the "it". She'd been talking of 2 things: 1, of Michael making mistakes, which I agreed with, and 2, of Michael deliberately trying to deceive, which I have seen no evidence for. When I said in post #2422 that "I brought it up as well", I was referring to bringing up Michael's mistakes.


Originally posted by K J Gunderson

originally posted by scott3x
Again, I have never seen any evidence that Michael has been deliberately deceptive.


Yes you have.


I disagree.


Originally posted by K J Gunderson
You just refuse to acknowledge it as such. Unfortunately, I can read out actual exchange and he misrepresented me and then I told him quite clearly it was wrong about about a dozen pages later he has responded a handful of times with anything and everything EXCEPT "I was mistaken."


That doesn't mean he's trying to be deceptive. From what I've seen, it seems he didn't even realize his mistake.


Originally posted by K J Gunderson

originally posted by scott3x
Lilly, there are 2 things here, which you and KJ frequently confuse; there is being wrong. There is being deliberately deceptive. They're not the same thing.


Actually you are mistaken about what is fact and what is your opinion.


You can claim whatever you like. Without evidence, though, all you have is your claim.



Originally posted by K J Gunderson

originally posted by scott3x
I have -never- said that he has tried to mislead. I said that he got things distorted, made assumptions and otherwise got things wrong.


LOL. So the difference is that you never said that he "tried." You say it right there, he got things wrong (misleading) and he got things distorted (misleading) and he made incorrect assumptions (misleading.) He mislead and has been misleading. Your contention is that he did not try to. Glad to see that although you do not care that he has been repeatedly misleading in regard to MANY quotes from other members, you at least applaud the fact that it took him little to no effort.


I think he's put in a fair amount of effort. And while you can say that a lost man "misleads" others, clearly the man is in need of some direction himself. Someone who deliberately misleads is something else.

[edit on 11-12-2009 by scott3x]



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 12:04 AM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


I miss the old "911 MADNESS" image that had the guy with the bugged out face! It was perfect because it was funny while everyones all rilled up. Comic Relief.



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 03:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by scott3x

No, I didn't, although I can see how you've come to believe that. I've been looking at the progression of responses and I see where things got really confusing. In post #2416, Lilly stated:

originally posted by Lillydale
Between K and myself it was repeated, quoted, and linked to more than once.


The problem here was the "it". She'd been talking of 2 things: 1, of Michael making mistakes, which I agreed with, and 2, of Michael deliberately trying to deceive, which I have seen no evidence for. When I said in post #2422 that "I brought it up as well", I was referring to bringing up Michael's mistakes.



There is a whole lot of nothing. I could really care less how this went between you and Lilly. You were not involved in my private conversation with MMichael so if you do not like the evidence that is all over the thread, then that is just too damn bad.

You do not know what you are talking about. You are speaking out of place, out of turn, and out of your ass. Until you can quote to me the private U2U exchange word for word, you are full of CRAP.

I am glad you had fun badgering Lilly with it and now you think you have some good fight going with me but I am even less interested in arguing with you. I would really rather spend more time here reading than writing by far but people like you just force it, don't you.

You got to see a little show that MMichael put on for you so that he could try to cover up the fact that he had been caught, AGAIN, misrepresenting someone. He knew exactly what he said and he knew it was wrong and why. If you really want to say that you are here in pursuit of 9/11 truth and spend all of your time defending some 'debunker' when you do not even have all of the facts then you do belong on ignore. Lilly has one whole person on that list and I no longer blame her for it.

Try sticking to subjects you can actually get your head around. You sound and look like a mental case sitting there defending someone when you really have no clue what it is that they said to me in private. Aside from me and Lilly and YOU pointing out how wrong MMichael was about and still NEVER GETTING A RETRACTION is pretty good but my U2Us are perfect.

Basically, you have two choices.

1- Get those U2Us in your hands and see what has really been said between us before you make any more judgements.

or

2- Admit you really do not have all of the facts and you should have stayed out of it because you are so so so so poorly informed.



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 05:47 AM
link   
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 



Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by scott3x
No, I didn't, although I can see how you've come to believe that. I've been looking at the progression of responses and I see where things got really confusing. In post #2416, Lilly stated:

originally posted by Lillydale
Between K and myself it was repeated, quoted, and linked to more than once.


The problem here was the "it". She'd been talking of 2 things: 1, of Michael making mistakes, which I agreed with, and 2, of Michael deliberately trying to deceive, which I have seen no evidence for. When I said in post #2422 that "I brought it up as well", I was referring to bringing up Michael's mistakes.


There is a whole lot of nothing. I could really care less how this went between you and Lilly.


I spent a good deal of time feretting out how things got to the point that you thought I was agreeing that Michael had lied; you wave the whole thing aside as irrelevant, and then use course language to boot. If your only interest is in insulting me, perhaps we should end things here.



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 06:43 AM
link   
Hi


I am new to all of this. I read and try to understsnd some of the logic of the posts. I was in the pentagon on 9/11 and it was a surreal time, especially becuase we had moved 1 month earlier into where it was hit. When it happened, I looked at my boss who was 50 something at the time and he told me it was "time to leave", we did, scurrying down corridor 3 to 1-2 and out to south parking, now in thinking about the thousands of people with the same idea at the time, it's amazing nobody got trampled. The DPS cops were very scared, you could see it in their eyes, yet they did their job and hustled 200000 people out to the S.Parrking lot.


Not too shabby



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by scott3x


I spent a good deal of time feretting out how things got to the point that you thought I was agreeing that Michael had lied; you wave the whole thing aside as irrelevant, and then use course language to boot. If your only interest is in insulting me, perhaps we should end things here.


I do not care what you spent a great deal of time doing. Unless it was getting your hands on the pirvate U2U exchange between MM and myself, you have no idea what you are talking about. I spent a great deal of time having a conversation you were not part of, did not get to read, and have no clue about. I told you this was beyond you but you persisted.

You need to end things here because you are wrong. You stepped on someone else's business and spoke WAYYYY out of turn. There is only one solution to all of this and that is for you to be the man you wanted to be when you jumped in.

1- Either you have those U2Us and you can appologize because you now see that you should have kept quiet

or

2- You have to admit you do not have all of the information you seem to think you do and you should appologize for saying such ininformed nonsense.

I gave you these two choices and all you do is complain about my course language and run. Why didn't you run 3 days ago when it was none of your business then.

Let me try one last time in English.

You do not have a clue what was exchanged between the two of us. You are defending something that is just not true. You think it is because you think you have all the facts but you do not. Maybe the truth movement is nothing more than a bunch of stuborn little brats who cannot accept the fact that they just might not know EVERYTHING.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 06:25 AM
link   
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 



Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by scott3x
I spent a good deal of time feretting out how things got to the point that you thought I was agreeing that Michael had lied; you wave the whole thing aside as irrelevant, and then use course language to boot. If your only interest is in insulting me, perhaps we should end things here.


I do not care what you spent a great deal of time doing.


Your lack of caring has been noted.


Originally posted by K J Gunderson
Unless it was getting your hands on the pirvate U2U exchange between MM and myself, you have no idea what you are talking about.


I know exactly what I'm talking about. I think you've failed to notice that I've always stated that -I- have seen no evidence that MM has been purposefully misleading. If such evidence exists, I'd be glad to see it, but I will not go on someone's word alone.



Originally posted by K J Gunderson
I spent a great deal of time having a conversation you were not part of, did not get to read, and have no clue about. I told you this was beyond you but you persisted.


Again, I will not simply take your word on something, sorry. Governments the world over would -love- it if the people they govern would just take their word for whatever it is they're stating because they have knowledge that their populaces don't have.


Originally posted by K J Gunderson
You need to end things here because you are wrong.


Your opinion is noted. Ironically, if you'd just not responded to my last post, which was rather short, things -would- have ended. But you responded, and responded at length :-p.



Originally posted by K J Gunderson
You stepped on someone else's business and spoke WAYYYY out of turn.


When you state that a community member is lying, I believe that any responsible community should try to assure that your statement is true. I have been falsely accused of lying myself in another forum and booted immediately thereafter, so I know full well the danger of making assumptions.



Originally posted by K J Gunderson
...I gave you these two choices and all you do is complain about my course language and run.


I haven't 'run'. I'm just not interested in responding much to posts that use such language.



Originally posted by K J Gunderson
Maybe the truth movement is nothing more than a bunch of stuborn little brats who cannot accept the fact that they just might not know EVERYTHING.


You seem to be suggesting that you don't consider yourself a part of the truth movement, of which I do consider myself a part of. I'll make a note to not call you a truther, but according to -my- definition of truther, you are one, because of your doubts concerning the official story. However, I respect others defining truther differently.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 09:07 AM
link   
Here's another example of accusations of lying, taken from another thread here, "Did the USAF Help pull off 911?". In this particular case, both sides have accused the other side of lying. I've so far only heard of one side of the argument for one of those accusations, but if someone wants me to dig deeper, I might do that.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


Already dealing with a case of an OS supporter being accused of lying, without any evidence that I could see. Not sure I want to get dragged into yet another case or 2, but if what Swampfox says is true about the quotes, it does appear that impressme was mistaken. This doesn't mean that impressme was intentionally trying to deceive though, which is how I like to define lying. It seems that impressme has accused Swampfox of lying as well. I haven't even seen one side of the arguments for that one, so I'll just say that if someone wants me to take a look, please point me to the alleged evidence; opinions of whether or not the evidence is credible are welcome as well.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by scott3x
 


If anyone is qualified to decide who is right and wrong it is most certainly you. You are so good that you do not even need all of the facts in order to decide. You are even aware that there is plenty out there that you do not know and you still insist you are magically right somehow.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 



Originally posted by K J Gunderson
If anyone is qualified to decide who is right and wrong it is most certainly you. You are so good that you do not even need all of the facts in order to decide.


I think you're confused as to what I have decided.


Originally posted by K J Gunderson
You are even aware that there is plenty out there that you do not know and you still insist you are magically right somehow.


Alright, I'll repeat what I believe and by implication what I've decided, since it seems you're confused. First of all, I think it bears repeating that my definition of lying is someone who is purposely trying to mislead.

I insist that -I- have seen no evidence that Michael is guilty of lying. The same goes for impressme and Swampfox, for that matter. If there is evidence out there that I haven't seen that would prove that any of them were lying, then I'd love to see it, but until I do, I will not simply assume that it's out there simply because you, Lilly, or anyone else, says it is.

[edit on 13-12-2009 by scott3x]



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by scott3x
 


Listen, Judge Judy, I am not sure who it is you think you are but you certainly think much of yourself. You have not seen it all. The evidence anyone needs to see is there but you do not. Fine, you are blind and that is ok. That does not change the fact that YOU DO NOT HAVE ALL THE FACTS so what the hell is your opinion on this worth? MM knows he was lying, I know he was lying and most people that can read know he was lying. I know that you do not even read all of the threads in order to actually read all of the quotes so you are not even looking at all the information available here. I am not sure who you think is sitting around waiting for your judgement though. If you refuse to see what is so obvious then you can sit there blind as you like. Obviously there are more than a few people that see what I see as well. I would love to think we are just going to disagree but apparently you have appointed yourself some sort of judge here. You go ahead and sit in judgement of situations you do not have all the facts about. If that makes you feel special, be my guest.



new topics

top topics



 
100
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join