Ralph Schoenman: The Underlying Politics of 9/11 (Page 4): Damn you are good Payne!!!! Nice work!!!! What a "putz" :-) LMAO. And the hole gets deeper! Is it time to fill it in with Jho...

eagleye13 Loc: Fl

Damn you are good Payne!!!!
Nice work!!!!
What a "putz" :-) LMAO.
And the hole gets deeper!
Is it time to fill it in with Jho in it? :-)

payne1000 wrote:

JMHO, when you post material from another author without quotes and without revealing the source, that is plagiarism. Plagiarism is practiced often by those who want to deceive.
Here is one of the sources for the article you plagiarized. http://www.urban75.org/info/conspiraloons.html

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

eagleye13 Loc: Fl

payne1000 wrote:

Some of your employers, JMHO:

All fine specimens:-) :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

JMHO Loc: Utah

pain-in-the-ass1000 wrote:

JMHO, when you post material from another author without quotes and without revealing the source, that is plagiarism. Plagiarism is practiced often by those who want to deceive.
Here is one of the sources for the article you plagiarized. http://www.urban75.org/info/conspiraloons.html

Sue me asshole!

10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists morons like pain-in-the-ass1000 and birdbrain13.

1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep", patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc.

2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say "no thanks", you'll be called a "sheep" again.) Additionally, they have no capacity for precis whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length.

3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make.

4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include Cicero's "cui bono?" (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle's "once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth". What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply "eliminate the impossible" (i.e. say the official account can't stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on "cui bono?" (which is always the government) is therefore the truth.

5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor. Aided by the principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative account.

6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.

7. Inability to withdraw. It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot.

8. Leaping to conclusions. Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed to declare the "official" account totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables them to wheel on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Small inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to declare the "official" account clearly and definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or that they even definitely exist.

9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims. This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some weight (because it's happened before.) They do not pause to reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always far more unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies with which they make comparison, or that the fact that something might potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it anything other than extremely unlikely.

10. It's always a conspiracy. And it is, isn't it? No sooner has the body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are questions which need to be answered, at the same unbearable length. Because the most important thing about these people is that they are people entirely lacking in discrimination. They cannot tell a good theory from a bad one, they cannot tell good evidence from bad evidence and they cannot tell a good source from a bad one. And for that reason, they always come up with the same answer when they ask the same question.

A person who always says the same thing, and says it over and over again is, of course, commonly considered to be, if not a monomaniac, then at very least, a bore.

payne1000

JMHO wrote:

Sue me asshole!

10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists morons like pain-in-the-ass1000 and birdbrain13.

1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep", patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc.

2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say "no thanks", you'll be called a "sheep" again.) Additionally, they have no capacity for precis whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length.

3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make.

4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include Cicero's "cui bono?" (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle's "once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth". What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply "eliminate the impossible" (i.e. say the official account can't stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on "cui bono?" (which is always the government) is therefore the truth.

5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor. Aided by the principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative account.

6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.

7. Inability to withdraw. It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot.

8. Leaping to conclusions. Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed to declare the "official" account totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables them to wheel on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Small inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to declare the "official" account clearly and definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or that they even definitely exist.

9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims. This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some weight (because it's happened before.) They do not pause to reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always far more unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies with which they make comparison, or that the fact that something might potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it anything other than extremely unlikely.

10. It's always a conspiracy. And it is, isn't it? No sooner has the body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are questions which need to be answered, at the same unbearable length. Because the most important thing about these people is that they are people entirely lacking in discrimination. They cannot tell a good theory from a bad one, they cannot tell good evidence from bad evidence and they cannot tell a good source from a bad one. And for that reason, they always come up with the same answer when they ask the same question.

A person who always says the same thing, and says it over and over again is, of course, commonly considered to be, if not a monomaniac, then at very least, a bore.

Sue me asshole! br br 10 characteristics of consp... (show quote)

Exposing your dishonesty is good enough for me.

JMHO Loc: Utah

payne1000 wrote:

Exposing your dishonesty is good enough for me.

Exposing your colossal ignorance is good enough for me...moron.

eagleye13 Loc: Fl

poor old JHo; He is a legend in his own mind. He just took a good whoopen!

JMHO wrote:

Exposing your colossal ignorance is good enough for me...moron.

JMHO Loc: Utah

eagleye13 wrote:

poor old JHo; He is a legend in his own mind. He just took a good whoopen!

Whoopin?? Not by any of you moron wussies, pal. That would be the day, I get a whoopin by gutless wonders like you or payne1000.

payne1000

JMHO wrote:

Exposing your colossal ignorance is good enough for me...moron.

But you haven't exposed any ignorance on my part. Hurling insult after insult reveals you lack the intelligence required to discuss the issues presented.

JMHO Loc: Utah

payne1000 wrote:

But you haven't exposed any ignorance on my part. Hurling insult after insult only exposes your lack of the intelligence required to discuss the issues presented.

Your colossal ignorance and gullibility is exposed in every one of your dumb ass postings, idiot. They're stupid and nothing but bullshit. There is no issues to discuss!!!! It's BULLSHIT! It's like spitting into the wind trying to discuss something that makes no sense to begin with. And, the real humorous part of it is that you're too damn blind and ignorant to realize it. Just look at your postings, and see how many people just look at the posting but don't comment...because they know it's bullshit. the same goes for birdbrain13. My intelligence? Yours is so far down the totem pole that it is buried in the ground. At least I know how to recognize nonsense and bullshit when I see it, pal...you don't even have that intelligence to do that. You're an idiot...an absolute idiot!

Comment Loc: California

payne1000 wrote:

If you are even remotely interested in how the world works today, spend a little time listening to common sense and history as it would have been written if truth prevailed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aci9PD6jNlg

Trump will kick ass and fix it.

payne1000

JMHO wrote:

Your colossal ignorance and gullibility is exposed... (show quote)

As I said before, insults, all-caps and multiple exclamations is a sign that you've lost the exchange.

payne1000

Comment wrote:

Trump will kick ass and fix it.

Trump won't be the candidate unless he is vetted by the Council on Foreign Relations and gets invited to a Bilderberg meeting for vetting.