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

[professorpan]

In an effort to end this multi-thread shitstorm, I posted a summary of my thoughts here (for anyone who isn't sick of this yet):<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm10.showMessageRange?topicID=4235.topic&start=41&stop=41">p216.ezboard.com/frigorou...41&stop=41</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>I think I'll log off to suck my own dick and smell my sweet, succulent shit. <p></p><i></i>

[FourthBase]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>FourthBase's sometimes wild, sometimes completely ILlogical conjecture is what forces those of us more left-brained to consider the previously unconsiderable.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Wild? Il-logical? <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>Where</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->?<br>Where do I demonstrate a lack of logic in my conjectures?<br><br>As far as I can see, both sides have been guessing about the LG and Coup issue. Why are Pan's guesses "logical" and mine not? Bullshit. <p></p><i></i>

[snowlion2]

<!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>conjecture</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br><br>n 1: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence); "speculations about the outcome of the election"; "he dismissed it as mere conjecture" [syn: speculation]<br><br>2: a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence [syn: guess, supposition, surmise, surmisal, speculation, hypothesis]<br><br>3: reasoning that involves the formation of conclusions from incomplete evidence v : to believe especially on uncertain or tentative grounds; "Scientists supposed that large dinosaurs lived in swamps" [syn: speculate, theorize, theorise, hypothesize, hypothesise, hypothecate, suppose]<br> <p></p><i></i>

[FourthBase]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>2: a message expressing an opinion based on <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>incomplete evidence</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> [syn: guess, supposition, surmise, surmisal, speculation, hypothesis]<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>And again, why are Pan's guesses more "logical"? <p></p><i></i>

[professorpan]

Snowlion,<br><br>I agree with you -- there's nothing wrong with speculation and conjecture. But if someone is going to offer up speculation, he or she should be open to discussing it honestly. That's the root of dialogue -- a back-and-forth examination of the issue, pro and con.<br><br>Some people just want to say "This is what I believe." That's fine, too. But if you post your thoughts and opinions on a public board, you should expect that others will sometimes disagree, and will explain why.<br><br>It's a cliche, but if people can argue about ideas without attacking the presenter of the ideas, it makes for better dialogue. <br> <p></p><i></i>

[FourthBase]

I was open to discussing it honestly.<br>Don't even try to fucking take the high road.<br>BOTH OF US WERE DISPENSING CONJECTURE.<br>WHAT YOU OFFERED WAS NOT ANY MORE LOGICAL. <p></p><i></i>

[Lizzy Dearborn]

certain people i tend to skip over, sometimes.<br><br>It's ok to do that, it really is!. <!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :b --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/tongue.gif ALT=":b"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <p></p><i></i>

[snowlion2]

Ok....first of all...FourthBase...your insights and inquiries are invaluable starting points for discussion. I don't mean to, and would never, devalue your work. However...<br><br>Two cars collided in front of my house this morning. A number of neighbors gathered, surveying the damage. No one was seriously injured.<br><br>I had a chance to discuss the accident with one of our local police officers after the vehicles had been removed. He told me that one of the vehicles lost its brakes while coming down the hill and couldn't stop at the stop sign. The oncoming vehicle, believing that the other would obey the stop sign, never thought to stop. Hence collision.<br><br>Now..I was on the scene shortly after I heard the crash. The PO's explanation was (sorry) logical and (sorry again) consistent with my own observations.<br><br>Other possibilities:<br><br>1) The two drivers knew each other. One was trying to kill the other, even if it meant losing his/her own life.<br><br>2) The PO was confused. It was the other driver who lost brakes.<br><br>3) The PO was lying. One of the drivers was an old college buddy who was known to dring and drive. The PO was lying to protect him.<br><br>4) One of the drivers had a child who was classmates in school with one of the neighborhood children. His/her child told daddy that his/her classmate was being mean. Daddy was trying to run down said neighborhood child and didn't see the oncoming car.<br><br>And on...and on.<br><br>Any of those theories may be possible...even plausible. But I (and perhaps others) need a reason <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>not</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> to accept the original, logical, consistant with the facts, version. Otherwise, we spend our lives wondering why the sparrow outside our window landed on one branch and not the other. What was the reason? Who <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>prevented</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> him from landing on the other branch?<br><br>Sorry, but the burden of proof lies on those whose theories lie outside the obvious and logical explanation. I don't have to <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>prove</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> to anyone why the two cars crashed. But if someone has an alternative theory...and can provide at least some explanation of why I should consider it...that's a different story. But <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>just</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> because something is remotely possible doesn't make it worthy of consideration. <p></p><i></i>

[FourthBase]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Any of those theories may be possible...even plausible. But I (and perhaps others) need a reason not to accept the original, logical, consistant with the facts, version. Otherwise, we spend our lives wondering why the sparrow outside our window landed on one branch and not the other. What was the reason? Who prevented him from landing on the other branch?<br><br>Sorry, but the burden of proof lies on those whose theories lie outside the obvious and logical explanation. I don't have to prove to anyone why the two cars crashed. But if someone has an alternative theory...and can provide at least some explanation of why I should consider it...that's a different story. But just because something is remotely possible doesn't make it worthy of consideration.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <br><br>And the logical explanation in the LG and Coup cases is...?<br>A morphogenic field? Synchronicity? Pure coincidence?<br>Or that destroying the WTC via remote control and/or commercial plane was just a thought that came naturally within a year before 9/11 to two separate artists interested in right-wing conspiracies?<br><br>I see nothing logical or obvious about any of those options. <p></p><i></i>

[streeb]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Or that destroying the WTC via remote control and/or commercial plane was just a thought that came naturally within a year before 9/11 to two separate artists interested in right-wing conspiracies?<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Sorry, FB - I find that to be eminently logical, myself. The WTC was already a well established target, and I think there's a feedback loop between popular culture and real life, even at the extreme fringes of 'real life' where people plot to destroy things. Before 9/11, I'd wager that countless thousands of people quite innocently fantasized about what might happen if somebody aimed a commercial airliner at a skyscraper. The artists we're discussing did the same thing. <p></p><i></i>

[FourthBase]

And I find it equally logical that some form of literal foreknowledge leaked to the two artists we're talking about. It's a small world. <p></p><i></i>

[rothbardian]

My ONLY issue with Pan was that originally he <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>virtually announced</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> conclusions about a couple of subjects (The Coup CD cover and something about the Titanic). He presented the issues in such a way, as though his view on them was a foregone conclusion. I took issue with that. He is NOW saying that he carefully presented a reasoning process from the very outset. Well...you could go back and look at what he originally stated. That would be easy enough.<br><br>I'll just say that if it happens again when I am trying to make a point about something, I'm going to be a pretty tough customer. There are no hard feelings here at all, but that kind of thing is rather annoying.<br><br>In randomly browsing through this discussion board I see that Mr.Pan is already back to his usual stuff, over at the "Rockefellers Funded Terence McKenna?" thread. I decided to jump in with a response:<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm10.showMessage?topicID=4276.topic">p216.ezboard.com/frigorou...4276.topic</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br> <p></p><i></i>

[NavnDansk]

Sylvester. Tweedy Pie goads Sylvester until he does something bad just when the woman of the house walks in and Sylvester gets punished and and Tweedy Pie hypocritally faces the camera and says "That bad puddy cat." Tweety Pie may be cute but the real Tweedys cause a lot of pain and trouble. It does feel empowering to provoke someone to a reaction including obvious insults and obscenties and then act cool, calm, collected and outside of the hubbub like Michael Corleone but if you look back to the provocation, it seems like it would not have occured if the person had not been goaded.<!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :| --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/indifferent.gif ALT=":|"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <p></p><i></i>

[Dreams End]

Oh, so let me translate. Fourthbase isn't responsible for what he says but Pan is...got it.<br><br>Babies. <p></p><i></i>

[thoughtographer]

I hope that the irony of someone constructing an analogy using an ACTUAL CARTOON to explain the situation isn't lost on everyone here. <p><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>"A crooked stick will cast a crooked shadow."</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--></p><i></i>