Comments on: Danner’s ‘The Age of Rhetoric’ http://www.lies.com/wp/2007/06/01/danners-the-age-of-rhetoric/ believe nothing... Sat, 19 Jul 2008 23:27:53 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.4 by: leftbehind http://www.lies.com/wp/2007/06/01/danners-the-age-of-rhetoric/#comment-62735 Sat, 30 Jun 2007 15:27:15 +0000 http://www.lies.com/wp/2007/06/01/danners-the-age-of-rhetoric/#comment-62735 No, that wasn't directed at you. I was just having a Rudger-Huer-on-the-roof-in-Blade-Runner moment. No, that wasn’t directed at you. I was just having a Rudger-Huer-on-the-roof-in-Blade-Runner moment.

]]> by: shcb http://www.lies.com/wp/2007/06/01/danners-the-age-of-rhetoric/#comment-62726 Sat, 30 Jun 2007 04:40:18 +0000 http://www.lies.com/wp/2007/06/01/danners-the-age-of-rhetoric/#comment-62726 LB, I hope that wasn't directed at me, I was just kidding. I’m all for rational, reasonable discussions, if there is even an ounce of credibility I will debate it reasonably. I have demonstrated that many times on these pages. But at some point you have to call a spade a spade. LB,

I hope that wasn’t directed at me, I was just kidding. I’m all for rational, reasonable discussions, if there is even an ounce of credibility I will debate it reasonably. I have demonstrated that many times on these pages. But at some point you have to call a spade a spade.

]]> by: leftbehind http://www.lies.com/wp/2007/06/01/danners-the-age-of-rhetoric/#comment-62725 Sat, 30 Jun 2007 03:39:34 +0000 http://www.lies.com/wp/2007/06/01/danners-the-age-of-rhetoric/#comment-62725 And I really don't think that I am that crass. I just have a very combative and unconventional sense of fair play; if you act like a joke around me, you'll be treated like a joke, and I have no great difficulty with making myself a joke towards that end. It must be said that I generally stay away from the good kids and only horseplay with the one or two people who are clearly jerking around as haphazardly as I am, whether they see it that way themselves or not. Serious people having serious discussions in serious terms leave little room for jokers like me to disrupt the flow. It's when things have already gotten childish or silly ("rethuglicans") that I'm able to drag the tone down to its sad conclusion. The sorry state of contemporary political discourse, or at least the plethora of reactionary poses that pass for political discourse nowadays, breeds and nurtures shrill, misdirected people like Inky and Knarly and myself, and feeds our delusions of moral mission, our clannish xenophobia and our lycanthropic hunger for a pound of the other guy's flesh. You might as well get used to us. And I really don’t think that I am that crass. I just have a very combative and unconventional sense of fair play; if you act like a joke around me, you’ll be treated like a joke, and I have no great difficulty with making myself a joke towards that end. It must be said that I generally stay away from the good kids and only horseplay with the one or two people who are clearly jerking around as haphazardly as I am, whether they see it that way themselves or not. Serious people having serious discussions in serious terms leave little room for jokers like me to disrupt the flow. It’s when things have already gotten childish or silly (”rethuglicans”) that I’m able to drag the tone down to its sad conclusion. The sorry state of contemporary political discourse, or at least the plethora of reactionary poses that pass for political discourse nowadays, breeds and nurtures shrill, misdirected people like Inky and Knarly and myself, and feeds our delusions of moral mission, our clannish xenophobia and our lycanthropic hunger for a pound of the other guy’s flesh. You might as well get used to us.

]]> by: leftbehind http://www.lies.com/wp/2007/06/01/danners-the-age-of-rhetoric/#comment-62721 Sat, 30 Jun 2007 01:01:12 +0000 http://www.lies.com/wp/2007/06/01/danners-the-age-of-rhetoric/#comment-62721 Let the record show I have never used the phrase "lying sack of shit" on this, or any other thread. I have not shown some of knarly's sources undue respect,but I have never called any of them "lying sacks of shit." In Alex Jones' case, I used his own words via numerous Jones-produced videos, to show a pattern of sensationalism and to establish his standing as a fringe character pushing extreme and spurious notions (illuminati, etc.) In the case of Michael Ruppert, I called attention to his rather outre relationship with the law and noted with some amusement the debate (Ruppert himself acknowledges) regarding his mental health. With DR Griffin, I repeated criticisms first expressed by the man's own publisher, and expressed my believe that a theologian such as Griffin might not be as astute an authority on matters of mechanics and related physics as a writer for Popular Mechanics. Nowhere in any of this did I curse anyone, or outright call anyone a "liar," even as I questioned each man's veracity and reliability. I've encounter these men and their work long before I started popping off about them here. I feel that, since I have studied this matter and their opinions about at least as much as I believe Knarly has, my criticisms are as valid as his defenses. Let the record show I have never used the phrase “lying sack of shit” on this, or any other thread. I have not shown some of knarly’s sources undue respect,but I have never called any of them “lying sacks of shit.” In Alex Jones’ case, I used his own words via numerous Jones-produced videos, to show a pattern of sensationalism and to establish his standing as a fringe character pushing extreme and spurious notions (illuminati, etc.) In the case of Michael Ruppert, I called attention to his rather outre relationship with the law and noted with some amusement the debate (Ruppert himself acknowledges) regarding his mental health. With DR Griffin, I repeated criticisms first expressed by the man’s own publisher, and expressed my believe that a theologian such as Griffin might not be as astute an authority on matters of mechanics and related physics as a writer for Popular Mechanics. Nowhere in any of this did I curse anyone, or outright call anyone a “liar,” even as I questioned each man’s veracity and reliability. I’ve encounter these men and their work long before I started popping off about them here. I feel that, since I have studied this matter and their opinions about at least as much as I believe Knarly has, my criticisms are as valid as his defenses.

]]> by: shcb http://www.lies.com/wp/2007/06/01/danners-the-age-of-rhetoric/#comment-62716 Fri, 29 Jun 2007 21:19:35 +0000 http://www.lies.com/wp/2007/06/01/danners-the-age-of-rhetoric/#comment-62716 LB, I'm not as crass as you, since I don't have all the information, and since i obviously can't read Knarly's mind I have no opinion on that subject. That is also why I won't pass judgement on whether his sources are lying sacks of shit or not. I just realized something, I just wrote several thousand words on something I have no opinion on, maybe I am as dumb as Knarly says. LB,

I’m not as crass as you, since I don’t have all the information, and since i obviously can’t read Knarly’s mind I have no opinion on that subject. That is also why I won’t pass judgement on whether his sources are lying sacks of shit or not.

I just realized something, I just wrote several thousand words on something I have no opinion on, maybe I am as dumb as Knarly says.

]]> by: knarlyknight http://www.lies.com/wp/2007/06/01/danners-the-age-of-rhetoric/#comment-62715 Fri, 29 Jun 2007 19:36:44 +0000 http://www.lies.com/wp/2007/06/01/danners-the-age-of-rhetoric/#comment-62715 No. No.

]]> by: shcb http://www.lies.com/wp/2007/06/01/danners-the-age-of-rhetoric/#comment-62706 Fri, 29 Jun 2007 11:52:09 +0000 http://www.lies.com/wp/2007/06/01/danners-the-age-of-rhetoric/#comment-62706 one last thing, you don't want an unbiased investigation, you want the most biased of investigations, you want one that produces your outcome and nothing less. Anything else will always be deemed biased in your mind. one last thing, you don’t want an unbiased investigation, you want the most biased of investigations, you want one that produces your outcome and nothing less. Anything else will always be deemed biased in your mind.

]]> by: shcb http://www.lies.com/wp/2007/06/01/danners-the-age-of-rhetoric/#comment-62702 Fri, 29 Jun 2007 03:54:43 +0000 http://www.lies.com/wp/2007/06/01/danners-the-age-of-rhetoric/#comment-62702 You’re right of course to a point, but at some point you have to be smart enough to realize when something may be ever so slightly possible but it is highly improbable. I see this in manufacturing. You have a problem with your process, so several people divide and conquer the problem by developing and executing several tests independently or concurrently. You then look at the data and see which approach makes the most sense. Invariably someone champions their idea way too long, past the time an unbiased observer would say the idea is bad. This wastes time and resources of the group. Now you don’t throw all the data away, it may be useful later on a different problem or it may answer questions that arise in a more viable idea or process, but at some point that idea dies a merciful death. Your 911 conspiracy died about the second day after it was unveiled. And the bigger it got the deader it got. I have been harping on the Pentagon because it has the most holes in it. And since you guys have made this a full ¼ of your argument of the 911 conspiracy disproving it punches a huge hole in your theories as a whole. If you guys had been smart, you would have said “yup, the Arabs did the Pentagon just like the government says, at the behest of the government.” But that would have implicated the Arabs and a secondary purpose of your conspiracy is to help the Arabs, because you are afraid of them or because you want to avoid war at all costs, I don’t know, but the result are the same, you are standing up for our enemy, shame on you. The mistake you guys made was setting your sights too high, you wanted Bush and nothing less, somehow you had to work the path to him. This made it impossible from the start since there was simply no reason for him to be involved in something so dangerous when he can legally and morally send soldiers to Iraq with the stroke of a pen. You’re right of course to a point, but at some point you have to be smart enough to realize when something may be ever so slightly possible but it is highly improbable. I see this in manufacturing. You have a problem with your process, so several people divide and conquer the problem by developing and executing several tests independently or concurrently. You then look at the data and see which approach makes the most sense. Invariably someone champions their idea way too long, past the time an unbiased observer would say the idea is bad. This wastes time and resources of the group. Now you don’t throw all the data away, it may be useful later on a different problem or it may answer questions that arise in a more viable idea or process, but at some point that idea dies a merciful death. Your 911 conspiracy died about the second day after it was unveiled. And the bigger it got the deader it got.

I have been harping on the Pentagon because it has the most holes in it. And since you guys have made this a full ¼ of your argument of the 911 conspiracy disproving it punches a huge hole in your theories as a whole. If you guys had been smart, you would have said “yup, the Arabs did the Pentagon just like the government says, at the behest of the government.” But that would have implicated the Arabs and a secondary purpose of your conspiracy is to help the Arabs, because you are afraid of them or because you want to avoid war at all costs, I don’t know, but the result are the same, you are standing up for our enemy, shame on you.

The mistake you guys made was setting your sights too high, you wanted Bush and nothing less, somehow you had to work the path to him. This made it impossible from the start since there was simply no reason for him to be involved in something so dangerous when he can legally and morally send soldiers to Iraq with the stroke of a pen.

]]> by: leftbehind http://www.lies.com/wp/2007/06/01/danners-the-age-of-rhetoric/#comment-62701 Fri, 29 Jun 2007 02:44:59 +0000 http://www.lies.com/wp/2007/06/01/danners-the-age-of-rhetoric/#comment-62701 "...ha ha, you fools! Since I was actually arguing all sides of the debate at the same time, I was right the whole time!" “…ha ha, you fools! Since I was actually arguing all sides of the debate at the same time, I was right the whole time!”

]]> by: knarlyknight http://www.lies.com/wp/2007/06/01/danners-the-age-of-rhetoric/#comment-62700 Fri, 29 Jun 2007 02:22:32 +0000 http://www.lies.com/wp/2007/06/01/danners-the-age-of-rhetoric/#comment-62700 shcb, Aah, now you are starting to get it too. I've always taken ALL sources with a grain of salt. I've been harping on this for a long time: Question the source regardless of the source, on the merits of the information. Do not disqualify information simply because others call the source of that information bad names. Also, do not disqualify information simply because it does not fit into your pet conspicracy theory (OCT). There are GOOD reasons for the saying, "Question Authority!" And also, even if a particular Conspiracy theory seems wildly implausible given all the other data, that does not mean it is false, it just means another hypothesis that fits the data sets better is more LIKELY to be true. So, just because the government's version of events for 911 is full of holes does not mean it is wrong, or that all of it is wrong (like you have always accused me of saying the OCT is false because it doesn't fit all the data.) That is why you could never get me to say I thought that no plane hit the Pentagon. We have not seen all the evidence, plus the witholding of the evidence and destruction of evidence (normally a felony I believe) creates added suspicion and another layer of circumstancial evidence that the government's version of events is bogus, and increases the probability that another theory fitting the evidence better is the truth. Increases the probability... So you poking holes in other theories do not make them false any more than all those holes in the official conspiracy theory make that false. What determines the Truth (or as close as one can get) is when you have a real impartial UNENCUMBERED investigation, that is reviewed by third parties experts. You know, like the scientific method, a.k.a. the nemesis of the PM 911 method. That is why pilotsfortruth is already closer to the truth on the topics they examine than the Bush appointed 911 Conspiracy Commission Report ever was. shcb,
Aah, now you are starting to get it too. I’ve always taken ALL sources with a grain of salt. I’ve been harping on this for a long time: Question the source regardless of the source, on the merits of the information. Do not disqualify information simply because others call the source of that information bad names. Also, do not disqualify information simply because it does not fit into your pet conspicracy theory (OCT).

There are GOOD reasons for the saying, “Question Authority!”

And also, even if a particular Conspiracy theory seems wildly implausible given all the other data, that does not mean it is false, it just means another hypothesis that fits the data sets better is more LIKELY to be true. So, just because the government’s version of events for 911 is full of holes does not mean it is wrong, or that all of it is wrong (like you have always accused me of saying the OCT is false because it doesn’t fit all the data.)

That is why you could never get me to say I thought that no plane hit the Pentagon. We have not seen all the evidence, plus the witholding of the evidence and destruction of evidence (normally a felony I believe) creates added suspicion and another layer of circumstancial evidence that the government’s version of events is bogus, and increases the probability that another theory fitting the evidence better is the truth. Increases the probability…

So you poking holes in other theories do not make them false any more than all those holes in the official conspiracy theory make that false.

What determines the Truth (or as close as one can get) is when you have a real impartial UNENCUMBERED investigation, that is reviewed by third parties experts. You know, like the scientific method, a.k.a. the nemesis of the PM 911 method.

That is why pilotsfortruth is already closer to the truth on the topics they examine than the Bush appointed 911 Conspiracy Commission Report ever was.

]]> by: leftbehind http://www.lies.com/wp/2007/06/01/danners-the-age-of-rhetoric/#comment-62699 Fri, 29 Jun 2007 02:09:33 +0000 http://www.lies.com/wp/2007/06/01/danners-the-age-of-rhetoric/#comment-62699 Actually, I feel kind of sorry for picking on him so hard. It's kind of like when your too young to know better, and some jerk friend of yours starts picking on another kid, and everybody laughs. Then it goes on too long, or kid has some really sad problem and its not funny anymore, but it just keeps going on and on. Actually, I feel kind of sorry for picking on him so hard. It’s kind of like when your too young to know better, and some jerk friend of yours starts picking on another kid, and everybody laughs. Then it goes on too long, or kid has some really sad problem and its not funny anymore, but it just keeps going on and on.

]]> by: shcb http://www.lies.com/wp/2007/06/01/danners-the-age-of-rhetoric/#comment-62698 Fri, 29 Jun 2007 01:59:10 +0000 http://www.lies.com/wp/2007/06/01/danners-the-age-of-rhetoric/#comment-62698 I know, but it's good sport. It's like catch and release fishing, there is really no point in it but it's good exercise. I know, but it’s good sport. It’s like catch and release fishing, there is really no point in it but it’s good exercise.

]]> by: leftbehind http://www.lies.com/wp/2007/06/01/danners-the-age-of-rhetoric/#comment-62697 Fri, 29 Jun 2007 01:55:50 +0000 http://www.lies.com/wp/2007/06/01/danners-the-age-of-rhetoric/#comment-62697 Knarly - oh, aren't we the serious little man! Reality check: we're talking about the US Government blowing up the World Trade Center. Having a serious discussion about the Government blowing up the World Trade Center is like having a serious conversation about the Martains building the Hoover Dam. You don't actually believe any of this...do you? If so you should stop spending so much time on 911blogger, and log on to eharmony from time to time. You really need a girlfriend. Shcb - the Watchtower Society is the Jehovah's Witnesses, and you can't win with them either. I admire your presistance in this matter, but you're wasting your time. If Knarly isn't pulling our leg with all this, he's too thick a brick for you to crack. Maybe later in his life, when his hormones calm down, but not now. Knarly - oh, aren’t we the serious little man! Reality check: we’re talking about the US Government blowing up the World Trade Center. Having a serious discussion about the Government blowing up the World Trade Center is like having a serious conversation about the Martains building the Hoover Dam. You don’t actually believe any of this…do you? If so you should stop spending so much time on 911blogger, and log on to eharmony from time to time. You really need a girlfriend.

Shcb - the Watchtower Society is the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and you can’t win with them either. I admire your presistance in this matter, but you’re wasting your time. If Knarly isn’t pulling our leg with all this, he’s too thick a brick for you to crack. Maybe later in his life, when his hormones calm down, but not now.

]]> by: shcb http://www.lies.com/wp/2007/06/01/danners-the-age-of-rhetoric/#comment-62694 Fri, 29 Jun 2007 00:29:48 +0000 http://www.lies.com/wp/2007/06/01/danners-the-age-of-rhetoric/#comment-62694 Ha ha, ok, as you wish. I don't think I used much over about 10th grade math, even by todays standards. Pi times diameter isn't exactly "fuzzy". In the back of your mind one of your trusted sources is shakey, what about the rest? Mission accomplished! Ha ha, ok, as you wish. I don’t think I used much over about 10th grade math, even by todays standards. Pi times diameter isn’t exactly “fuzzy”. In the back of your mind one of your trusted sources is shakey, what about the rest? Mission accomplished!

]]> by: knarlyknight http://www.lies.com/wp/2007/06/01/danners-the-age-of-rhetoric/#comment-62693 Fri, 29 Jun 2007 00:06:06 +0000 http://www.lies.com/wp/2007/06/01/danners-the-age-of-rhetoric/#comment-62693 shcb, No, but I will agree that YOU have issues with the professional pilots’ analysis. Until you resolve those issues, and in the absence of more compelling analysis, I will continue to favour the pilots' assessment of the FAA data and the NTSB video over your “fuzzy math” reckonings. shcb,
No, but I will agree that YOU have issues with the professional pilots’ analysis. Until you resolve those issues, and in the absence of more compelling analysis, I will continue to favour the pilots’ assessment of the FAA data and the NTSB video over your “fuzzy math” reckonings.

]]> by: shcb http://www.lies.com/wp/2007/06/01/danners-the-age-of-rhetoric/#comment-62691 Thu, 28 Jun 2007 22:50:13 +0000 http://www.lies.com/wp/2007/06/01/danners-the-age-of-rhetoric/#comment-62691 ok, so you agree the Pilots for 911 were wrong, and won't use them for a source anymore? ok, so you agree the Pilots for 911 were wrong, and won’t use them for a source anymore?

]]> by: knarlyknight http://www.lies.com/wp/2007/06/01/danners-the-age-of-rhetoric/#comment-62688 Thu, 28 Jun 2007 22:17:25 +0000 http://www.lies.com/wp/2007/06/01/danners-the-age-of-rhetoric/#comment-62688 Shcb, Refer to my original comment on the flight path aspect of your Conspiracy Theory, of June 26, 2007 11:30 pm: “Regarding the flight path, I have only two observations (criticisms?) to offer…” The first, the nimbleness of the 757, was addressed at 911blogger.com/node/9643 and so I stand corrected. The second, that the plane skipped, you have conceded. That leaves me with no further comment. If you want further comments, seek it elsewhere. Shcb,

Refer to my original comment on the flight path aspect of your Conspiracy Theory, of
June 26, 2007 11:30 pm:

“Regarding the flight path, I have only two observations (criticisms?) to offer…”

The first, the nimbleness of the 757, was addressed at 911blogger.com/node/9643 and so I stand corrected.

The second, that the plane skipped, you have conceded.

That leaves me with no further comment. If you want further comments, seek it elsewhere.

]]> by: shcb http://www.lies.com/wp/2007/06/01/danners-the-age-of-rhetoric/#comment-62687 Thu, 28 Jun 2007 21:54:28 +0000 http://www.lies.com/wp/2007/06/01/danners-the-age-of-rhetoric/#comment-62687 we know who murdered 3000 Americans, Arabs, remember, they admitted it, they cheered! (not all Arabs but a whole bunch of them) we know who murdered 3000 Americans, Arabs, remember, they admitted it, they cheered! (not all Arabs but a whole bunch of them)

]]> by: shcb http://www.lies.com/wp/2007/06/01/danners-the-age-of-rhetoric/#comment-62686 Thu, 28 Jun 2007 21:52:10 +0000 http://www.lies.com/wp/2007/06/01/danners-the-age-of-rhetoric/#comment-62686 Now, see how that is done, I have a weak point my opponent is fixated on, so I concede it with reservations. Now I have taken it off the table forcing my opponent to focus on my strong point. I know that won’t happen with you, but it would work with a normal opponent. It was your source. I didn’t bring it up. If I confront them that will be between me and them. What conspiracy? I’m just analyzing their numbers. You may be right, Cheney may have been orchestrating the whole thing from the woods in back of the White House on a Radio Shack short-wave radio. “hello Tokyo, Tokyo are you there?” Now, see how that is done, I have a weak point my opponent is fixated on, so I concede it with reservations. Now I have taken it off the table forcing my opponent to focus on my strong point. I know that won’t happen with you, but it would work with a normal opponent.

It was your source. I didn’t bring it up. If I confront them that will be between me and them.

What conspiracy? I’m just analyzing their numbers. You may be right, Cheney may have been orchestrating the whole thing from the woods in back of the White House on a Radio Shack short-wave radio. “hello Tokyo, Tokyo are you there?”

]]> by: knarlyknight http://www.lies.com/wp/2007/06/01/danners-the-age-of-rhetoric/#comment-62685 Thu, 28 Jun 2007 21:32:49 +0000 http://www.lies.com/wp/2007/06/01/danners-the-age-of-rhetoric/#comment-62685 shcb - So you're still working on that conspiracy theory of yours? Seek help! (Like, perhaps ask someone from Pilotsfor911truth to help you with finding the faults, you aren't going to like anything I have to say about the 330 degree turn anyway.) shcb -
So you’re still working on that conspiracy theory of yours? Seek help!

(Like, perhaps ask someone from Pilotsfor911truth to help you with finding the faults, you aren’t going to like anything I have to say about the 330 degree turn anyway.)

]]>