Why are 'they' scaring us away from the news?

[rothbardian]

<br>Thoughtographer--<br><br>Your comment "Are you through?" I don't know why that struck me so funny. I was in tears. Thanks for a laugh.<br><br>Sorry, NavnDansk. I don't mean to hurt your feelings. It's just that it's late and I'm tired and this thread has been on a terrific tear, and you sort of picked the wrong thread to disseminate peace, love and tranquility. But it's 'all good'. Thanks for your effort.<br><br>FWIW-- you're right basically. If people get to ripping into each other, there's really nothing positive being accomplished. <p></p><i></i>

[NavnDansk]

thoughtographer has a dry, subtle humor when he wants to use it. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=navndansk>NavnDansk</A> at: 5/11/06 1:46 am<br></i>

[Dreams End]

navndansk, why don't you lable fourthbase's use of terms like "scumbag" as picking on people? Seems you have a very one sided view of who does the picking. <p></p><i></i>

[FourthBase]

"Scumbag" = Parthian shot, not "picking on".<br><br>Pan and thoughtographer and a few others have anointed themselves the RI board debunkers. They no longer converse, they debunk. Their premises are always <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>immaculate</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->, their opinions are always "facts". I fucking resent that, and personally, I will not tolerate another drawn-out "logical"-ish pissing match with them. <p></p><i></i>

[thoughtographer]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>I fucking resent that, and personally, I will not tolerate another drawn-out "logical"-ish pissing match with them.<br><hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br>Better you just sit there and piss down your own leg? <p><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>"A crooked stick will cast a crooked shadow."</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--></p><i></i>

[streeb]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Pan and thoughtographer and a few others have anointed themselves the RI board debunkers. They no longer converse, they debunk. Their premises are always immaculate, their opinions are always "facts".<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>I'm assuming that Dreams End is one of the "others". Personally, I'm consistently impressed with the depth of knowledge each brings to many of the discussions here, whether I agree or not. Furthermore, Pan has been perfectly reasonable in this particular thread, and has gracefully weathered a whole lot of name-calling in return. FourthBase - you're no slouch yourself, but I honestly don't understand your anger. What gives? <p></p><i></i>

[FourthBase]

No, not Dream's End.<br>Not RDR, either.<br><br>Pan is spinning a pseudo-logical web.<br>I don't have the time or patience to get caught in it.<br>His conjecture is fact, others' conjecture is fluff.<br>I'd rather just ignore that than fight it.<br><br>Thoughtographer?<br>Does anyone take him seriously? <p></p><i></i>

[rothbardian]

<br><br>I have no defense for FourthBase having a meltdown but I can sympathize. Yeah, it's a little tough to have certain kinds of conversations with badgering 'nabobs' (if you please) poking and pecking away at the edges. <br><br>DreamsEnd had an interesting post about the movie that he recently saw and I have about a hundred things like that, that I've come across which I'd love to discuss/collaborate on but...having those conversations while people are posting near life-size photos of UFOs and howling ridicule...it's like trying to discuss eighteenth century French poetry at a World Wrestling Federation match.<br><br>I think FourthBase is right about Pan (at least in a number of cases I have observed). The guy has a habit of entering into conversations and 'announcing' his conclusions, which in some ways is nearly as obnoxious as posting life-size photos of UFOs. He tried it with me when he interjected on my Napolis thread and I called him on it. To his credit he seemed temporarily chagrined. I suppose we could all wish that the chagrin were more sustained. <br><br>At first you try to handle these objections so that you can get on to the more interesting collaborative discussions. Pan's colossal faux paux in declaring the 'absolute extreme unlikelihood' of a connection between The Coup CD cover and 9/11 (hundreds of powerful, influential 'evil' people ramping up for this massive WTC attack couldn't have arranged a little bragging on a piddly little CD cover? That's absurd.) was knocked out of the park by a number of people here...but he just keeps circling back.<br><br>It's hard to know where to draw a personal line on this effort. To use an analogy-- it's a little bit like trying to have a Sunday School class about Noah's Ark, when the entire back row consists of very aggressive atheists. You never get so far as to a close examination of the Noah story because you keep getting drawn into the fundamental argument about theism.<br><br>Having said that, I would nevertheless like to find a way to compare notes with people like DreamsEnd to see where there is a match up and where there are some variations, and whether there could be more of a collaborative discovery process for those of us who recognize an obvious and systematic quest for world domination on the part of evil psychopaths.<br><br>Right now though I must run off to work.<br> <p></p><i></i>

[thoughtographer]

NOBODY LISTEN TO HOME PLATE. I'M SIRIUS! SERIOS!!! <p><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>"A crooked stick will cast a crooked shadow."</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=thoughtographer>thoughtographer</A> at: 5/11/06 12:51 pm<br></i>

[professorpan]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Professor Pan, you are an extremely naive individual, assuming you are not being disengenuous in this discussion. <hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Naive my ass. I've been following politics and parapolitics for a quarter of a century. And if anyone thinks I'm being disingenous I'd like to . <br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>The Coup cover is a non-sensical example for the overarching topic of the control and influence by a unified ultra-elite. First of all, The Coup is an anti-government group, and the image of the towers falling was in public consciousness prior to 9/11. So there are any number of explanations, which have been stated here, for the album cover.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Follow this thread back to the beginning, please. My use of The Coup cover was to point out the fallacy of using coincidences as proof of alleged complicity/foreknowledge. I have the feeling you jumped into this conversation without following the thread or you would know that.<br><br>And again, if you had read my previous posts, you'd see that what I'm discussing is the *degree* of influence elite interests have over the mediasphere, not whether or not such an influence exists. It most certainly does. But I do not believe -- and I'd suggest that the evidence is on my side -- that the content of entertainment is micromanaged by an elite group (i.e. writers of TV shows are under the total control of a cabal at the top, videogames are crafted to create robotic killers, etc).<br><br>So please read my words and stop suggesting I don't believe in any type of influence over media. I know it's hard for some logic-challenged assholes (cough... Fourthbase... cough) to get their heads around nuanced arguments, but please, read what I've actually written before putting words in my mouth and you'll see that I'm trying to separate the bullshit theories from the real, provable examples of influence and control.<br> <p></p><i></i>

[FourthBase]

[yawn] <p></p><i></i>

[FourthBase]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>I'm trying to separate the bullshit theories from the real, provable examples of influence and control.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>And that's the problem.<br>Unless it's "real, provable" by your definition...<br>Then you declare it to be "bullshit".<br><br>There's lot of room in the middle, there, Pan.<br><br>You may have a hunch that the media is not micromanaged beyond the "real, provable" cases you're willing to believe. But you are not the decider. You are not in charge of arbitrating what is possible and what is not possible. There may be <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>some</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> video games and <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>some</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> sitcoms and movies that have been micromanaged. There <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>may</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> have been an intentional or unintentional leak to the Coup cover designers or LG writers. These are <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>realistic</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> possibilities, and you have not been granted the wisdom and authority to strike those possibilities from our purview. <p></p><i></i>

[professorpan]

First, my apologies to FourthBase for the asshole comment. I try not to get drawn into personal shit-slinging and insults, even when it comes flying in my face.<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Pan and thoughtographer and a few others have anointed themselves the RI board debunkers. They no longer converse, they debunk. Their premises are always immaculate, their opinions are always "facts". I fucking resent that, and personally, I will not tolerate another drawn-out "logical"-ish pissing match with them./quote]<br><br>Disagreeing is not debunking. Presenting a viewpoint and backing it up with evidence is not debunking. Debunking suggests that the person making the argument is disingenous and has an agenda to promote -- I have no agenda except to separate the wheat from th<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <p></p><i></i>

[FourthBase]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Disagreeing is not debunking. Presenting a viewpoint and backing it up with evidence is not debunking. Debunking suggests that the person making the argument is disingenous and has an agenda to promote -- I have no agenda except to separate the wheat from th<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>...the chaff, I presume?<br><br>Again, not your place.<br><br>Debunking is debunking, agenda or not.<br>The <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>motive</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->, OTOH, would seem to be a huge fucking ego.<br>You think your shit doesn't stink.<br>We're all left guessing here, Pan.<br>Your guess is as good as ours.<br>No better. <p></p><i></i>

[snowlion2]

Rigorous<br>adj 1: rigidly accurate; allowing no deviation from a standard; "rigorous application of the law"; "a strict vegetarian" [syn: strict] 2: demanding strict attention to rules and procedures; "rigorous discipline"; "tight security"; "stringent safety measures" [syn: stringent, tight]<br><br>Intuition<br> noun_1 : immediate apprehension or cognition without reasoning or inferring _2 : knowledge or conviction gained by intuition _3 : the power or faculty of gaining direct knowledge or cognition without evident rational thought and inference<br><br>So...one theory is that a pendulum needs to swing to both extremes in order to come back to some sort of logical middle. But there's that old "L" word again.<br><br>FourthBase...there is no sin in logic. Professor (and you know I'm on your side in most of this), FourthBase's sometimes wild, sometimes completely<!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em> IL</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->logical conjecture is what forces those of us more left-brained to consider the previously unconsiderable.<br><br>We all need to be both rigorous <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>and</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> intuitive. And from my standpoint, if one poster is 90/10 one way and another is 90/10 the other, it just helps us all be a little better informed. As for me, I mostly use the left side...but I keep an eye on what the right side is doing. <p></p><i></i>