Okay here's the challenge to all 911 debaters! - Page 13

Denie · 12-01-2007, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sunflower

You mean YOUR scientific method, don't you?

Lots of scientists have provided theories about what happened. Also, many other professionals have provided their individual observations on what happened. But they don't seem to be good enough for you. So what will be good enough for you, then?

No, I mean the very same definition by the very same source WR used to define scientific evidence. How is does this work? A definition is posted and you get to change it once it doesn't follow your paradigm?

Denie · 12-01-2007, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sunflower

And you go off in a huff because you set the rules for the debate, and we won't play.

Business as usual, indeed!

LMAO!! A HUFF? Hardly so...No, I have this thing called a L I F E and that entails being places other than here.

I didn't set the rule, WR did. As a moderator, you should have stepped in when others started to steer off-topic, but you didn't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WR

This thread is dedicated to scientific evidence. No name calling and all the rest of the flaming that has gone on for years.

This means you present scientific evidence period. No conjecture speculation and nothing about Jewish involvement.

So what part of this don't you seem to grasp? What does my belief of an inside job have to do with scientific evidence?

Why do you not step in and keep the thread on-topic...for ONCE?

A better question is why are you even a moderator? You don't do anything about WR infantile antics... ever!! Really, what's the point of being a moderator if you do nothing? Does the little moderator sign do something for your ego or what?

Really, this is ridiculous!!

White Rabbit · 12-01-2007, 07:01 PM

Ask me if i care? Can you answer this question are you a boy or a girl ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Denie

LMAO!! A HUFF? Hardly so...No, I have this thing called a L I F E and that entails being places other than here.

I didn't set the rule, WR did. As a moderator, you should have stepped in when others started to steer off-topic, but you didn't.

So what part of this don't you seem to grasp? What does my belief of an inside job have to do with scientific evidence?

Why do you not step in and keep the thread on-topic...for ONCE?

A better question is why are you even a moderator? You don't do anything about WR infantile antics... ever!! Really, what's the point of being a moderator if you do nothing? Does the little moderator sign do something for your ego or what?

Really, this is ridiculous!!

sunflower · 12-01-2007, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Denie

LMAO!! A HUFF? Hardly so...No, I have this thing called a L I F E and that entails being places other than here.

I didn't set the rule, WR did. As a moderator, you should have stepped in when others started to steer off-topic, but you didn't.

So what part of this don't you seem to grasp? What does my belief of an inside job have to do with scientific evidence?

Why do you not step in and keep the thread on-topic...for ONCE?

A better question is why are you even a moderator? You don't do anything about WR infantile antics... ever!! Really, what's the point of being a moderator if you do nothing? Does the little moderator sign do something for your ego or what?

Really, this is ridiculous!!

Number 1, I have a life, too...and it isn't made easier by this kind of nonsense.
Number 2, you want discussion on your terms and your terms only.
Number 3, maybe your ego is getting a boost from rattling on about what I do or do not do as a moderator.
Number 4, yes this is ridiculous.

Now, if you want to discuss science, please be my guest and do so. However, when setting the rules, you might be well advised to first research the subject that you claim to have no knowledge of. Your credibility will be enhanced as a result.

White Rabbit · 12-01-2007, 07:09 PM

100 points for SF.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sunflower

Number 1, I have a life, too...and it isn't made easier by this kind of nonsense.
Number 2, you want discussion on your terms and your terms only.
Number 3, maybe your ego is getting a boost from rattling on about what I do or do not do as a moderator.
Number 4, yes this is ridiculous.

Now, if you want to discuss science, please be my guest and do so. However, when setting the rules, you might be well advised to first research the subject that you claim to have no knowledge of. Your credibility will be enhanced as a result.

Denie · 12-01-2007, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sunflower

Number 1, I have a life, too...and it isn't made easier by this kind of nonsense.
Number 2, you want discussion on your terms and your terms only.
Number 3, maybe your ego is getting a boost from rattling on about what I do or do not do as a moderator.
Number 4, yes this is ridiculous.

Now, if you want to discuss science, please be my guest and do so. However, when setting the rules, you might be well advised to first research the subject that you claim to have no knowledge of. Your credibility will be enhanced as a result.

What's wrong with you? The terms of this topic of discussion were set by WR. not me.
Now how does my belief in an inside job fit into the topic or the outline discussion rules set by WR?

If not to keep threads on topic and control childish antic of the likes of WR, what is your job? Spam the threads of those you do not agree with like my thread?

sunflower · 12-01-2007, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Denie

What's wrong with you? The terms of this topic of discussion were set by WR. not me.
Now how does my belief in an inside job fit into the topic or the outline discussion rules set by WR?

If not to keep threads on topic and control childish antic of the likes of WR, what is your job? Spam the threads of those you do not agree with like my thread?

I tried to have a discussion with you, denie....I asked you what I thought was a valid question on your thread - you threw a hissy fit each and every time I tried to give you my position, and what I felt was a valid point. You came back at me with whining...so I decided not to play with you anymore.

Now, Rabbit has started his own thread, in the slimmest of hopes that it doesn't turn into a bloodbath, and that some rational discussion by those who choose to be here, and those who choose to participate, doesn't ensue.

Yet every time you come back with this complaint, you claim not to know what the official story is. Why is that? And how can you compare the CD theory if you know nothing, as you claim, of the official story?

I still do not understand what your problem is, but if you have a problem with me, feel free to report me. That's your privilege.

White Rabbit · 12-01-2007, 07:22 PM

Correction the contract did not specify anything about asking or not asking if you thought 911 was an inside job. If you don't I'm not going to waste my time on you because you have already made up your mind if you would have read my post in posting issues as I asked you to you would know that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Denie

What's wrong with you? The terms of this topic of discussion were set by WR. not me.
Now how does my belief in an inside job fit into the topic or the outline discussion rules set by WR?

If not to keep threads on topic and control childish antic of the likes of WR, what is your job? Spam the threads of those you do not agree with like my thread?

dadakarma · 12-01-2007, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by anhailla

you didn't answer any of his questions, as usual... it was a long-winded diatribe about Bush.

As per usual, your comprehension handicap is showing.

Denie · 12-01-2007, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sunflower

I tried to have a discussion with you, denie....I asked you what I thought was a valid question on your thread - you threw a hissy fit each and every time I tried to give you my position, and what I felt was a valid point. You came back at me with whining...so I decided not to play with you anymore.

You did no such thing. The topic was very clear and you insisted it include another theory. I did not throw a hissy fit and asked you several times to stay on topic. You refused.

Quote:

Now, Rabbit has started his own thread, in the slimmest of hopes that it doesn't turn into a bloodbath, and that some rational discussion by those who choose to be here, and those who choose to participate, doesn't ensue.

WR starts the thread, sets the guildlines and then does the exact opposite and changes the thread to a "Denie, Do you believe 911 was a inside job" topic in which I'm not allowed to qualify my answer beyond "yes or no".

Quote:

Yet every time you come back with this complaint, you claim not to know what the official story is. Why is that? And how can you compare the CD theory if you know nothing, as you claim, of the official story?

What complaint? Why do I have to know the NIST report in order to debate on the credibility of a CD theory? I've told you over and over but it never sinks in. I've read several papers on the collapse of the WTC published in science/engineering journals. Do you understand now that I've read more than one report? How does that translate to not having anything to compare CD theory to?
Now, how many reports that do not subscribe to a CD theory, other than the NIST report, have you read?

Quote:

I still do not understand what your problem is,

Why am I not surprised?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode