Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
1 hour ago, Benjamin Franklin said:

 

Still can't respond when I quote you quoting yourself. 

 

You misquoted me, like you misquoted Trump yesterday and ran here to do so. 

 

If you read the quote you linked I was responding to Tom's quote on a specific point. 

 

But details don't matter when cognitive dissonance is kicking your ass over and over and over again. 

 

You remain terrible at this whole "reading comprehension" thing.

Posted
5 hours ago, Benjamin Franklin said:

 

Except in fact, you did. You posited two FF theories. 

 

 

 

 

Generally...he doesn't.  

 

Greg definitely has a preference for conspiracies - if I had to guess, it's more because his writers' background biases him towards nicely wrapped-up plots.  And in the greater context of his two years' of posts, it might end up being the same thing.  But 1) he does present facts and derive theories from them, not the other way around (usually - the pipe non-bomber is a notable exception), and 2) he is amenable to correction.  Neither is a trait held by true conspiracy theorists.  

 

Plus, while he may have posited two conspiracy theories, to posit is not to argue in favor of.  I posit things I don't believe all the time, as should anyone with a pretense of rationality.  It's a necessary step in falsifying hypotheses.  

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Posted
1 minute ago, DC Tom said:

 

Generally...he doesn't.  

 

Greg definitely has a preference for conspiracies - if I had to guess, it's more because his writers' background biases him towards nicely wrapped-up plots.  And in the greater context of his two years' of posts, it might end up being the same thing.  But 1) he does present facts and derive theories from them, not the other way around (usually - the pipe non-bomber is a notable exception), and 2) he is amenable to correction.  Neither is a trait held by true conspiracy theorists.  

 

Plus, while he may have posited two conspiracy theories, to posit is not to argue in favor of.  I posit things I don't believe all the time, as should anyone with a pretense of rationality.  It's a necessary step in falsifying hypotheses.  

 

 

QFT.

 

 

.

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
28 minutes ago, Benjamin Franklin said:

 

Who is getting arrested and when? Is this like when HRC was about to get detained? My popcorn got soggy waiting for that one so I'll pop a fresh bowl. 

 

It's likely to start with McCabe and Strzok, and will roll up from there.  That's where the mounds of evidence points.  As to HRC, the evidence of her malfeasance was more than enough to prompt House Judiciary Chair Bob Goodlatte to demand her indictment or the resignations of both Loretta Lynch and James Comey.

 

"Personal" attacks? By quoting him quoting himself? Good one!

 

You're aware that the board saves your posts, right?

  • Like (+1) 2
Posted
8 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Plus, while he may have posited two conspiracy theories, to posit is not to argue in favor of.  I posit things I don't believe all the time, as should anyone with a pretense of rationality.  It's a necessary step in falsifying hypotheses.  

 

 

He posited nonsense, then later quoted himself positing nonsense because he was so excited about it. 

 

I'm sure you're just as eager to defend Tiberius's theories as a "pretense of rationality."

 

You caught the stupid. Shake it off. 

Posted
Just now, Benjamin Franklin said:

 

He posited nonsense, then later quoted himself positing nonsense because he was so excited about it. 

 

I'm sure you're just as eager to defend Tiberius's theories as a "pretense of rationality."

 

You caught the stupid. Shake it off. 

 

Reading is hard. So is comprehension. If you read the conversations, or the threads I quoted them in, you'd understand what was going on. 

 

But that's not what you're interested in. You're interested in remaining attached to your world view - evidence be damned. 

 

CD is a SOB. 

Posted
52 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

What bombings?

Those fake bombings that the dems were all lining up for. I heard Bernie (sometimes a Dem) actually published his address so he could join the latest #Metoo movement. Unfortunately the feds caught the perp before Nancy, Chuck & Cherokee Liz could get theirs.

Posted
23 minutes ago, Benjamin Franklin said:

 

He posited nonsense, then later quoted himself positing nonsense because he was so excited about it. 

 

I'm sure you're just as eager to defend Tiberius's theories as a "pretense of rationality."

 

You caught the stupid. Shake it off. 

 

No...because Tiberius is irrational.  

 

Greg is rational.  He collects evidence, analyses it, and develops a theory to explain it and predict future evidence that may appear.  That his theories are often crackpot (but not universally, which is an important point) does not make him irrational.  What's more, like I said, he has and does accept criticism of his theories (you'll note that I provided just that above: stating that conspiracy theories are the crutch of the intellectually immature) and even change his mind.  

 

You should also note that, in "proving" he's "promoting" conspiracy theories, from his list of "theories in order of possibility," you cherry picked the "false flag" theory that he specifically considered least possible, and specifically by a wide margin, below three others.

  • Haha (+1) 1
Posted
8 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

No...because Tiberius is irrational.  

 

Greg is rational.  He collects evidence, analyses it, and develops a theory to explain it and predict future evidence that may appear.  That his theories are often crackpot (but not universally, which is an important point) does not make him irrational.  What's more, like I said, he has and does accept criticism of his theories (you'll note that I provided just that above: stating that conspiracy theories are the crutch of the intellectually immature) and even change his mind.  

 

You should also note that, in "proving" he's "promoting" conspiracy theories, from his list of "theories in order of possibility," you cherry picked the "false flag" theory that he specifically considered least possible, and specifically by a wide margin, below three others.

You are such an idiot 

Posted
22 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

You are such an idiot 

 

Which part can you empirically demonstrate is wrong?

 

(Note: "empirically" means "with evidence."  Not just pulling something out of your ass.)

  • Haha (+1) 1
Posted
21 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Reading is hard. So is comprehension. If you read the conversations, or the threads I quoted them in, you'd understand what was going on. 

 

But that's not what you're interested in. You're interested in remaining attached to your world view - evidence be damned. 

 

CD is a SOB. 

 

I don't think it's maintaining his world view that's important to him.  It's his self view that's important.  

 

He gets bored, wants to stop in, criticize people, feel superior, and leave.  He's not here for a discussion, or to prove anything.  Except what he feels he's proving to himself.

 

His occasional stops here are to snipe and insult.  He considers this forum and discussion beneath him.  This is cathartic for him as it helps maintain his sense of self and validate his opinions.

 

He cherry picks comments, sets up strawmen, insults, and leaves.  He used to be able to carry on a better dialogue.  But he's likely a casualty of the political climate we're in right now.  Angry and trying to reinforce his view of himself.

 

 

  • Like (+1) 2
Posted
14 minutes ago, Joe Miner said:

 

I don't think it's maintaining his world view that's important to him.  It's his self view that's important.  

 

He gets bored, wants to stop in, criticize people, feel superior, and leave.  He's not here for a discussion, or to prove anything.  Except what he feels he's proving to himself.

 

His occasional stops here are to snipe and insult.  He considers this forum and discussion beneath him.  This is cathartic for him as it helps maintain his sense of self and validate his opinions.

 

He cherry picks comments, sets up strawmen, insults, and leaves.  He used to be able to carry on a better dialogue.  But he's likely a casualty of the political climate we're in right now.  Angry and trying to reinforce his view of himself.

 

 

Don't blame him, he's doing what his husband tells him to do.

Posted
6 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Don't blame him, he's doing what his husband tells him to do.

 

I think we need a book about what happened.

Posted
21 hours ago, DC Tom said:

 

No...because Tiberius is irrational.  

 

Greg is rational.  He collects evidence, analyses it, and develops a theory to explain it and predict future evidence that may appear.  That his theories are often crackpot (but not universally, which is an important point) does not make him irrational.  What's more, like I said, he has and does accept criticism of his theories (you'll note that I provided just that above: stating that conspiracy theories are the crutch of the intellectually immature) and even change his mind.  

 

You should also note that, in "proving" he's "promoting" conspiracy theories, from his list of "theories in order of possibility," you cherry picked the "false flag" theory that he specifically considered least possible, and specifically by a wide margin, below three others.

 

Dqwa0UJWkAA-EOp.jpg

Posted
1 minute ago, peace out said:

 

What would this board be without your valuable wisdom?

 

"TWO SCOOPS SARCASM TWO SCOOPS HILLARY SUX" - Koko

sure beats two scoops of idiocy.

×
×
  • Create New...