Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Yep, It's Thermite! So Much for the "Oxygen" Excuse

page: 71
172
<< 68  69  70   >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by bsbray11
But you must have already been expecting as much because you were already insinuating there must have been problems with the methodology before you even knew it existed.


By the way, this is amongst the most wonderfully tortured pieces of logic I've ever seen on this site. Which is quite an acheivement.


I don't see how. You asked for a source for what he said. In the same post, and obviously before he had a chance to actually post it, you were already making excuses and insinuating how if there was actually such a poll, then you would challenge its "methodology."



You know what you argue makes no sense and that more and more people are disagreeing with you, but you just build your wall of lame excuses higher and higher rather than ever considering you may have been wrong this whole time you've been spewing garbage.
edit on 13-6-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by 000063
 


So saying that the American Society of Civil Engineers endorsed the paper, along with tons of other institutions is an "excuse"?


Do you care to give the names of these license Engineers that endorsed the pseudo NIST Report?
What tons of other institutions?
Show your evidence and sources? Your opinions are not the facts unless you can prove them. All you are giving is “your assumptions,” nothing more.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 03:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
What was the methodology?


I don't even care.


I'm not surprised. An indifference to methodology and rigour is probably a prerequisite of being a Truther.

Given that you've commented approvingly in a thread elsewhere that shows that Germans are among the most likely people in the world to believe that Al-Qaeda were responsible for 9/11, I'm interested in how you put up with the cognitive dissonance.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
What was the methodology?


I don't even care.


I'm not surprised. An indifference to methodology and rigour is probably a prerequisite of being a Truther.


Actually I don't care because opinion polls don't sway my opinion based on facts. It must be a prerequisite for being a truster, that you just do what you think "everybody else" is doing, which is also why you find these polls so disturbing that you instantly start making excuses for them before you even know anything about them.


Given that you've commented approvingly in a thread elsewhere that shows that Germans are among the most likely people in the world to believe that Al-Qaeda were responsible for 9/11, I'm interested in how you put up with the cognitive dissonance.


You are obviously confused because I never said any such thing.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

By the way, this is amongst the most wonderfully tortured pieces of logic I've ever seen on this site. Which is quite an acheivement.


I don't see how. You asked for a source for what he said. In the same post, and obviously before he had a chance to actually post it, you were already making excuses and insinuating how if there was actually such a poll, then you would challenge its "methodology."



You know what you argue makes no sense and that more and more people are disagreeing with you, but you just build your wall of lame excuses higher and higher rather than ever considering you may have been wrong this whole time you've been spewing garbage.
edit on 13-6-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)


So asking for a properly conducted poll is an insinuation? All I said was that if someone could do this I'd be very surprised.

You failed to do so. Indeed you provided one whose psephological accuracy you cheerfully admit you neither know nor care about! How is this adding to the debate, except apparently providing you with a reason to complain when I don't accept such poorly researched and sourced evidence as you?

If I ask you for any kind of proof of anything are you at liberty to simply say you don't care about its factual accuracy or methodology as long as it agrees with you? I suppose you sort of have to be, otherwise you'd have nothing at all.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
So asking for a properly conducted poll is an insinuation?


You were asking for it before you saw any data at all. So of course your definition of "properly conducted" must be pretty damned stringent, and of course it is, because it's subject to a slew of logical fallacies. You know this, because you were already preparing the excuses before you even saw the damned poll.



How is this adding to the debate, except apparently providing you with a reason to complain when I don't accept such poorly researched and sourced evidence as you?


You have not shown, anywhere, that the German poll on the last page is "poorly researched" or any other garbage you'll inevitably start throwing around. Are you actually going to prove that the poll was somehow inaccurate or are you just assuming on your faith because you don't feel comfortable in your convictions to be in the minority?



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11


You were asking for it before you saw any data at all.


So I should ask for a poll after I've seen one? Your ideas get stranger and stranger.


So of course your definition of "properly conducted" must be pretty damned stringent


It is actually. But this is because I actually know something about psephology and about how easy it is to make polls say what you want them to.

Of course in your world stringency about sources is actually undesirable.


and of course it is, because it's subject to a slew of logical fallacies. You know this, because you were already preparing the excuses before you even saw the damned poll.


How so? I asked for a properly conducted poll. Should I instead have asked you to provide me with an improperly conducted one?

And perhaps you could show one of the "logical fallacies" that my stringency is based on?

You appear to have arrived at a place where a requirement for properly sourced data is a logical fallacy. Not that surprising I suppose, given that you have to continuously prop up an unsustainable fantasy.




You have not shown, anywhere, that the German poll on the last page is "poorly researched" or any other garbage you'll inevitably start throwing around. Are you actually going to prove that the poll was somehow inaccurate or are you just assuming on your faith because you don't feel comfortable in your convictions to be in the minority?


The poll's result is suspect when compared to other polls I've seen that I know to be reasonably well conducted. That leads me to suspect its methodology. But I'm not going to spend my time dismantling every single piece of nonsense that you bring up, especially when you admit that you don't even care about its veracity as long as it agrees with you.





new topics

top topics



 
172
<< 68  69  70   >>

log in

join