Here's an example from the "collection of news stories, with no commentary", as you call it (emphasis mine), found at CCR:
Yet another AOer willing to ignore most of the info in order to try to prove a point.
There are what, 30-some pages listing every news story that refers to that 1/2 hour, and you try to BS with a quick scan? you're pathetic and you are only demonstrating how informed your beliefs are.
But the bigger issue is that the great thing the timeline does is show you the patterns as you read it all the way through. If you have a problem with CCR's summary of a certain story, the link is there. Really, you are in no position to discuss it until you have really read it.
I guess my 'there is no spoon is right' comment hit a little too close to home.
It's liberals I'm arguing with so I'll just post little snippets here and there and hope people forget about this thread? I think you're the one living in a fantasy world.
Of course there were Arabs on Flight 77 because there is no conspiracy in the Bush administration.
Yet another AOer willing to ignore most of the info in order to try to prove a point.
There are what, 30-some pages listing every news story that refers to that 1/2 hour, and you try to BS with a quick scan? you're pathetic and you are only demonstrating how informed your beliefs are.
You earn no respect for your point of view with pointless insults like "you're pathetic". Am I really? Or are you just too emotionally wound up here to be counted on for any objectivity?
But the bigger issue is that the great thing the timeline does is show you the patterns as you read it all the way through. If you have a problem with CCR's summary of a certain story, the link is there. Really, you are in no position to discuss it until you have really read it.
You're in no position to promote this material until you can summarize it and present an analysis in your own words, until you can make it sound compelling interesting enough to expect others to pour over pages and page of text to prove your point for you.
You're also being evasive if you don't come out and state your opinion on this matter. Do you or do you not believe their were Arab terrorists on Flight 77? The other 9/11 flights? If you say no, what alternate explanations do you offer, if any, and what proof would support those explanations?
Or do you wish to cop out and leave it at "Well, there's something funny going on, anyone who bothers can see it, and I'm not saying any more."?
You guys are dishonest. You're creating a false point of view to argue against. Yes, it's your strawman, again and again.
No Arabs on Flight 77 != Bush administration conspiracy theory.
Now keep that equation in mind when you write your posts so you don't appear to be so childish.
What the hell is going on here? Does anyone have any ideas, or can anyone provide any links and stories that debunk this strange state of affairs? No, you can only scream like little children: "There is no Bush conspiracy!!!"
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
And everyone here has to admit that this conspiracy is a possiblity regardless of how remote of a possibility it may be. And it's still an irrelevant point.
You guys can't even begin to admit that this incorrect information about the hijacker identities could be real, simply because it would be admitting something negative about your Prez captain dumb-ass. So instead you attack with childish avoidance responses.
Quote:
If you actually read the thread you'd see that I already responded to shetline's critique. And the critique is still irrelevant to the point of this thread.
You conservatives are running scared, that's all. Your man is responsible and you don't like that thought. Instead of tarnishing his image you have to deflect. There is no spoon is right, only I'm not sure the conservatives around here understand what that means.
Quote:
quote:Originally posted by Tulkas
------------------------------
Responsible for what?
------------------------------
What this thread is addressing.
Quote:
Why don't you read the thread? I'll say it again for you, since you've not retained it yet, but we're not discussing a Bush conspiracy in this thread.
Now, all of that to ask this question. You say "Your man is responsible and you don't like that thought." but you also say "but we're not discussing a Bush conspiracy in this thread." So what is he responsible for? that there were not any Arabs on the flight? Lets be plain Bunge, what are you really tring to say. Lets dispense with the one liners and the "if you are too stupid to figure it out" attitude. You obvioulsy think that this topic is about the lack of Arabs on the flight and somehow Bush had something to do with it. Spell it out. Or can you?
Now, all of that to ask this question. You say "Your man is responsible and you don't like that thought." but you also say "but we're not discussing a Bush conspiracy in this thread." So what is he responsible for? that there were not any Arabs on the flight? Lets be plain Bunge, what are you really tring to say. Lets dispense with the one liners and the "if you are too stupid to figure it out" attitude. You obvioulsy think that this topic is about the lack of Arabs on the flight and somehow Bush had something to do with it. Spell it out. Or can you?
The "Your man is responsible" quote is referring to Bush being responsible for how the government led post 9/11 terrorist trackdown is being handled.
If there were no Arabs on Flight 77, Bush is responsible for whatever implications might come of this. Was there a government coverup? Was there a government screwup? Did the administration know this in 2001? Did they figure it out months later and just decide it was not important? Have they not even figured it out yet?
Yes, obviously, one implication is that it could be a part of a gigantic conspiracy. But the number of Arabs on Flight 77 doesn't confirm nor deny this. The conspiracy issue is still irrelevant until we figure out this number (be it zero or 100) and then the Bush administration's connection (ie Was there a government coverup? Was there a government screwup? Did the administration know this in 2001? Did they figure it out months later and just decide it was not important? Have they not even figured it out yet?)
Bush is responsible, not for the attacks, but for the administration's role throughout the investigation. If there were no Arabs on flight 77 then there was a major **** up/cover up somewhere and he's responsible.
Now was that so hard? That, for me, clears up a lot of what you intended to get across.
Of course there are a lot of possibilities as to what could hav happened on the flights that were used to destroy the WTC. However, the lack of a name on a list holds little or no water for me. The simple fact of being Arab does not make one an extremist any more that not having an arab name makes one not an Islamic extremist. This thread will not make any headway past where it is. Enjoy the rest of it.
You earn no respect for your point of view with pointless insults like "you're pathetic".
And I don't try to. Every time I've said something here folks like you play games, but in the end the truth comes out and you people disappear. Skimming is pathetic. end of story.
Quote:
You're in no position to promote this material until you can summarize it and present an analysis in your own words, until you can make it sound compelling interesting enough to expect others to pour over pages and page of text to prove your point for you.
You are in no position to comment on something you haven't researched, much less spend day upon day, week upon week researching. It's not my job to sell you anything. If you want to base your world-view on ignorant speculation, it's a free enough country that you can do so.
And I don't try to. Every time I've said something here folks like you play games, but in the end the truth comes out and you people disappear. Skimming is pathetic. end of story.
You didn't say skimming was pathetic before, you said I was pathetic, a needless and pointless bit of rudeness.
You are in no position to comment on something you haven't researched, much less spend day upon day, week upon week researching. It's not my job to sell you anything. If you want to base your world-view on ignorant speculation, it's a free enough country that you can do so.
Of course it's your job to sell me something... that's how arguments work. That's part of "making your case." Of course, to make a case, you have to have one first.
There is more information out there in the world than any of us can read in ten thousand life times. (That dreaded "skimming" you seem to so despise is in fact a valuable survival tool in this sea of information.) If you believe what you have to say is truly important, and not mere I'm-so-superior-because-I-studied-so-much posturing, you should want to present the information in a compelling way to inspire others to research further.
If all you can say to make your case, however, is "Go read, without any further direction from me, these hundreds of pages of text, and somewhere in there you'll see that I'm right" -- you haven't got much of a case, and you're playing a very old game of evasion.
That dreaded "skimming" you seem to so despise is in fact a valuable survival tool in this sea of information.
Nope. My work is literally one of the deepest trenches of the global sea of information, and the first thing one learns here is that focused, deep research is the only way to understanding a subject. Skimming forces you to fill in the massive gaps with speculation, making your world view nothing more than a fantasy.
Long story short: an intelligent person knows that when they haven't truly researched something, they really know nothing about it.
Quote:
If you believe what you have to say is truly important, and not mere I'm-so-superior-because-I-studied-so-much posturing, you should want to present the information in a compelling way to inspire others to research further.
What your kind doesn't seem to get is that it's not about winning a battle or boosting ego, it's about understanding what's going on around you. Hell, you people come on here with your minds made up about things you've never studied and then act like it's up to those 'opposing' your imaginary stance to sway you or be 'defeated.' The irony is that people who base their lives on this kind of fantasy can't avoid failing in the end.
As for your second point, individuals on AI have demonstrated more than clearly that they will go on living in fantasy land even when the truth beats them to within an inch of their life. As nice as it is to hope that people will actually learn about the world around them, the fact is that most people seem to think that it's just too much work. Either you will research it objectively or you won't. What I say won't change that.
If you believe what you have to say is truly important, and not mere I'm-so-superior-because-I-studied-so-much posturing, you should want to present the information in a compelling way to inspire others to research further.
If all you can say to make your case, however, is "Go read, without any further direction from me, these hundreds of pages of text, and somewhere in there you'll see that I'm right" -- you haven't got much of a case, and you're playing a very old game of evasion.
Shetline: welcome to the wonderful world of derisive, ?Academia Knows Best" responses from our Ivory Tower representative. Better to save yourself some time and give up now. All you will get are pages of links, insulted about your apparent lack of of intelligence (generally proven simply by not agreeing with him), and told you will need to spend a few weeks/months/years cloistered away in a library in order to comprehend the greatness that is him.
At least bunge responds civilly before calling me names
Shetline: welcome to the wonderful world of derisive, ?Academia Knows Best" responses from our Ivory Tower representative.
Screw learning. Why would learning about something help you understand it? We don't need doctors! Just get Jim from Recieving to take care of that tumor. What could a doctor possibly know that Jim doesn't?
I can't believe some of you are that backwards that you fall for this 'Learning is Elitist' propaganda. Could it be more obvious? I guess it appeals to those who are looking for ways to deal with failure.
Screw learning. Why would learning about something help you understand it? We don't need doctors! Just get Jim from Recieving to take care of that tumor. What could a doctor possibly know that Jim doesn't?
I can't believe some of you are that backwards that you fall for this 'Learning is Elitist' propaganda. Could it be more obvious? I guess it appeals to those who are looking for ways to deal with failure.
Learning is not elitist. I never said that. However, to write off the Academic Elitists as nonexistent is foolish.
You can only fail if you try. One could easily make broad statements like yours and state that the problem with professional academics is that they are too afraid of failure, that's why the stay in academics. Sort of the limp dick syndrome.
You can only fail if you try. One could easily make broad statements like yours and state that the problem with professional academics is that they are too afraid of failure, that's why the stay in academics.
Yeah, like how acedemics don't run the government, advance science or basically do everything other than sing and dance on TV. It would do you well to get a clue and realize that just about every person who does anything of significance also teaches at a university or has ~10 years in higher education.
Hell, even our moron of a president has a Master's degree, and he's considered a failure and uneducated when compared to any of his peers.
Get a clue. And rather than trying to talk yourself into being ignorant, do yourself a favor and take a risk.
I think you'll all find that most people in here over the age of 21 have college degrees, and many have advanced degrees. It's a mistake to think that any one person is more, what, qualified or learned than another.
Yeah, like how acedemics don't run the government, advance science or basically do everything other than sing and dance on TV. It would do you well to get a clue and realize that just about every person who does anything of significance also teaches at a university or has ~10 years in higher education.
Hell, even our moron of a president has a Master's degree, and he's considered a failure and uneducated when compared to any of his peers. Get a clue.
Notice the common thread of the people in government...they are doing something outside of academia. Education is wonderful, and learning for the sake of learning if great. Learning, when not applied is essentially useless, until it is used, ie. applied.
Academics can be great people. Some can be dicks, who decide they are better than others, and others can be worse and decide that their best arguement is to insult others, instead of actually demonstrating their greater knowledge (which no one here has ever questioned, but continues to be brought up by someone). It would be great to see a statement followed up by facts and analysis, instead of personal attacks.
Notice the common thread of the people in government...they are doing something outside of academia.
Notice the common thread of the people in academia...they do something outside of academia. Hell, that how they get and keep jobs. And the ones in fields that don't require outside work (well, other than the heavy, steady stream of trade papers and research) spend their lives educating others. That's what the job is. You learn, then you teach. Sure a Philosophy professor will act like he knows more about philosophy than you, but that's because *gasp* he does!
instead of actually demonstrating their greater knowledge (which no one here has ever questioned, but continues to be brought up by someone).
When I brought up that Iraq had little or no WMD and that Bush was lying, what happened? Then, when I provided a mountain of info demonstrating it conclusively, what happened?
Anyone who has really spent any significant time studying 9/11 knows that every arrow points to one direction. I've already learned that providing a mountain of info doesn't accomplish anything with the people here, so that's that.
I've already given you a good place to start. Read the timeline from front to back and then we can start with the real grit.
Notice the common thread of the people in academia...they do something outside of academia. Hell, that how they get and keep jobs. And the ones in fields that don't require outside work spend their lives educating others. That's what the job is. You learn, then you teach.
And at which stage are you? You don't seem inclined to teach.
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
Sure a Philosophy professor will act like he knows more about philosophy than you, but that's because *gasp* he does!
And if all the prof does is insult other around him and allows his greater knowledge to swell his head and make him arrogant, his is just a dick.
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
All you are doing is advocating ignorance.
No, I am advocation civillity in your conversation. It great that you have a position that allows you the opportunity to study at your leisure. Not everyone has that option. Show that you aren't so small that you think this makes you better than others not in your position. Some people actually have to work for a living. The guys cleaning your washrooms and building your car may not have the opportunity you have, but that doesn't mean his is dumb, or that you are his better.
When I brought up that Iraq had little or no WMD and that Bush was lying, what happened? Then, when I provided a mountain of info demonstrating it conclusively, what happened?
What happened was that many peopel read it. Months ago, when you posted a link about the Pakistani links to 9/11 (ISS stuff if I recall) I, and other read the analysis. I think we had a pretty good discussion, excluding the derogatory, personal comments.
Addition:
I would like to see you post not just links, but your thoughts on the information. I, for one, would like to read the analysis of a person who had access to the amount of information that your do. You and I will always be on opposite sides of the political fence, but I would find your analysis interesting and probably insightful, even if I don't agree with it.
Comments
Originally posted by shetline
Here's an example from the "collection of news stories, with no commentary", as you call it (emphasis mine), found at CCR:
Yet another AOer willing to ignore most of the info in order to try to prove a point.
There are what, 30-some pages listing every news story that refers to that 1/2 hour, and you try to BS with a quick scan? you're pathetic and you are only demonstrating how informed your beliefs are.
But the bigger issue is that the great thing the timeline does is show you the patterns as you read it all the way through. If you have a problem with CCR's summary of a certain story, the link is there. Really, you are in no position to discuss it until you have really read it.
Originally posted by alcimedes
bunge lives in an alternate universe.
I guess my 'there is no spoon is right' comment hit a little too close to home.
It's liberals I'm arguing with so I'll just post little snippets here and there and hope people forget about this thread? I think you're the one living in a fantasy world.
Of course there were Arabs on Flight 77 because there is no conspiracy in the Bush administration.
Originally posted by giant
Yet another AOer willing to ignore most of the info in order to try to prove a point.
There are what, 30-some pages listing every news story that refers to that 1/2 hour, and you try to BS with a quick scan? you're pathetic and you are only demonstrating how informed your beliefs are.
You earn no respect for your point of view with pointless insults like "you're pathetic". Am I really? Or are you just too emotionally wound up here to be counted on for any objectivity?
But the bigger issue is that the great thing the timeline does is show you the patterns as you read it all the way through. If you have a problem with CCR's summary of a certain story, the link is there. Really, you are in no position to discuss it until you have really read it.
You're in no position to promote this material until you can summarize it and present an analysis in your own words, until you can make it sound compelling interesting enough to expect others to pour over pages and page of text to prove your point for you.
You're also being evasive if you don't come out and state your opinion on this matter. Do you or do you not believe their were Arab terrorists on Flight 77? The other 9/11 flights? If you say no, what alternate explanations do you offer, if any, and what proof would support those explanations?
Or do you wish to cop out and leave it at "Well, there's something funny going on, anyone who bothers can see it, and I'm not saying any more."?
Or do you wish to cop out and leave it at "Well, there's something funny going on, anyone who bothers can see it, and I'm not saying any more."?
Originally posted by bunge
You guys are dishonest. You're creating a false point of view to argue against. Yes, it's your strawman, again and again.
No Arabs on Flight 77 != Bush administration conspiracy theory.
Now keep that equation in mind when you write your posts so you don't appear to be so childish.
What the hell is going on here? Does anyone have any ideas, or can anyone provide any links and stories that debunk this strange state of affairs? No, you can only scream like little children: "There is no Bush conspiracy!!!"
Originally posted by bunge
And everyone here has to admit that this conspiracy is a possiblity regardless of how remote of a possibility it may be. And it's still an irrelevant point.
You guys can't even begin to admit that this incorrect information about the hijacker identities could be real, simply because it would be admitting something negative about your Prez captain dumb-ass. So instead you attack with childish avoidance responses.
If you actually read the thread you'd see that I already responded to shetline's critique. And the critique is still irrelevant to the point of this thread.
You conservatives are running scared, that's all. Your man is responsible and you don't like that thought. Instead of tarnishing his image you have to deflect. There is no spoon is right, only I'm not sure the conservatives around here understand what that means.
quote:Originally posted by Tulkas
------------------------------
Responsible for what?
------------------------------
What this thread is addressing.
Why don't you read the thread? I'll say it again for you, since you've not retained it yet, but we're not discussing a Bush conspiracy in this thread.
Now, all of that to ask this question. You say "Your man is responsible and you don't like that thought." but you also say "but we're not discussing a Bush conspiracy in this thread." So what is he responsible for? that there were not any Arabs on the flight? Lets be plain Bunge, what are you really tring to say. Lets dispense with the one liners and the "if you are too stupid to figure it out" attitude. You obvioulsy think that this topic is about the lack of Arabs on the flight and somehow Bush had something to do with it. Spell it out. Or can you?
Originally posted by NoahJ
Now, all of that to ask this question. You say "Your man is responsible and you don't like that thought." but you also say "but we're not discussing a Bush conspiracy in this thread." So what is he responsible for? that there were not any Arabs on the flight? Lets be plain Bunge, what are you really tring to say. Lets dispense with the one liners and the "if you are too stupid to figure it out" attitude. You obvioulsy think that this topic is about the lack of Arabs on the flight and somehow Bush had something to do with it. Spell it out. Or can you?
The "Your man is responsible" quote is referring to Bush being responsible for how the government led post 9/11 terrorist trackdown is being handled.
If there were no Arabs on Flight 77, Bush is responsible for whatever implications might come of this. Was there a government coverup? Was there a government screwup? Did the administration know this in 2001? Did they figure it out months later and just decide it was not important? Have they not even figured it out yet?
Yes, obviously, one implication is that it could be a part of a gigantic conspiracy. But the number of Arabs on Flight 77 doesn't confirm nor deny this. The conspiracy issue is still irrelevant until we figure out this number (be it zero or 100) and then the Bush administration's connection (ie Was there a government coverup? Was there a government screwup? Did the administration know this in 2001? Did they figure it out months later and just decide it was not important? Have they not even figured it out yet?)
Bush is responsible, not for the attacks, but for the administration's role throughout the investigation. If there were no Arabs on flight 77 then there was a major **** up/cover up somewhere and he's responsible.
Of course there are a lot of possibilities as to what could hav happened on the flights that were used to destroy the WTC. However, the lack of a name on a list holds little or no water for me. The simple fact of being Arab does not make one an extremist any more that not having an arab name makes one not an Islamic extremist. This thread will not make any headway past where it is. Enjoy the rest of it.
Originally posted by shetline
You earn no respect for your point of view with pointless insults like "you're pathetic".
And I don't try to. Every time I've said something here folks like you play games, but in the end the truth comes out and you people disappear. Skimming is pathetic. end of story.
You're in no position to promote this material until you can summarize it and present an analysis in your own words, until you can make it sound compelling interesting enough to expect others to pour over pages and page of text to prove your point for you.
You are in no position to comment on something you haven't researched, much less spend day upon day, week upon week researching. It's not my job to sell you anything. If you want to base your world-view on ignorant speculation, it's a free enough country that you can do so.
Originally posted by giant
And I don't try to. Every time I've said something here folks like you play games, but in the end the truth comes out and you people disappear. Skimming is pathetic. end of story.
You didn't say skimming was pathetic before, you said I was pathetic, a needless and pointless bit of rudeness.
You are in no position to comment on something you haven't researched, much less spend day upon day, week upon week researching. It's not my job to sell you anything. If you want to base your world-view on ignorant speculation, it's a free enough country that you can do so.
Of course it's your job to sell me something... that's how arguments work. That's part of "making your case." Of course, to make a case, you have to have one first.
There is more information out there in the world than any of us can read in ten thousand life times. (That dreaded "skimming" you seem to so despise is in fact a valuable survival tool in this sea of information.) If you believe what you have to say is truly important, and not mere I'm-so-superior-because-I-studied-so-much posturing, you should want to present the information in a compelling way to inspire others to research further.
If all you can say to make your case, however, is "Go read, without any further direction from me, these hundreds of pages of text, and somewhere in there you'll see that I'm right" -- you haven't got much of a case, and you're playing a very old game of evasion.
Originally posted by shetline
That dreaded "skimming" you seem to so despise is in fact a valuable survival tool in this sea of information.
Nope. My work is literally one of the deepest trenches of the global sea of information, and the first thing one learns here is that focused, deep research is the only way to understanding a subject. Skimming forces you to fill in the massive gaps with speculation, making your world view nothing more than a fantasy.
Long story short: an intelligent person knows that when they haven't truly researched something, they really know nothing about it.
If you believe what you have to say is truly important, and not mere I'm-so-superior-because-I-studied-so-much posturing, you should want to present the information in a compelling way to inspire others to research further.
What your kind doesn't seem to get is that it's not about winning a battle or boosting ego, it's about understanding what's going on around you. Hell, you people come on here with your minds made up about things you've never studied and then act like it's up to those 'opposing' your imaginary stance to sway you or be 'defeated.' The irony is that people who base their lives on this kind of fantasy can't avoid failing in the end.
As for your second point, individuals on AI have demonstrated more than clearly that they will go on living in fantasy land even when the truth beats them to within an inch of their life. As nice as it is to hope that people will actually learn about the world around them, the fact is that most people seem to think that it's just too much work. Either you will research it objectively or you won't. What I say won't change that.
Originally posted by shetline
If you believe what you have to say is truly important, and not mere I'm-so-superior-because-I-studied-so-much posturing, you should want to present the information in a compelling way to inspire others to research further.
If all you can say to make your case, however, is "Go read, without any further direction from me, these hundreds of pages of text, and somewhere in there you'll see that I'm right" -- you haven't got much of a case, and you're playing a very old game of evasion.
Shetline: welcome to the wonderful world of derisive, ?Academia Knows Best" responses from our Ivory Tower representative. Better to save yourself some time and give up now. All you will get are pages of links, insulted about your apparent lack of of intelligence (generally proven simply by not agreeing with him), and told you will need to spend a few weeks/months/years cloistered away in a library in order to comprehend the greatness that is him.
At least bunge responds civilly before calling me names
Originally posted by Tulkas
Shetline: welcome to the wonderful world of derisive, ?Academia Knows Best" responses from our Ivory Tower representative.
Screw learning. Why would learning about something help you understand it? We don't need doctors! Just get Jim from Recieving to take care of that tumor. What could a doctor possibly know that Jim doesn't?
I can't believe some of you are that backwards that you fall for this 'Learning is Elitist' propaganda. Could it be more obvious? I guess it appeals to those who are looking for ways to deal with failure.
Originally posted by giant
Screw learning. Why would learning about something help you understand it? We don't need doctors! Just get Jim from Recieving to take care of that tumor. What could a doctor possibly know that Jim doesn't?
I can't believe some of you are that backwards that you fall for this 'Learning is Elitist' propaganda. Could it be more obvious? I guess it appeals to those who are looking for ways to deal with failure.
Learning is not elitist. I never said that. However, to write off the Academic Elitists as nonexistent is foolish.
You can only fail if you try. One could easily make broad statements like yours and state that the problem with professional academics is that they are too afraid of failure, that's why the stay in academics. Sort of the limp dick syndrome.
Originally posted by Tulkas
You can only fail if you try. One could easily make broad statements like yours and state that the problem with professional academics is that they are too afraid of failure, that's why the stay in academics.
Yeah, like how acedemics don't run the government, advance science or basically do everything other than sing and dance on TV. It would do you well to get a clue and realize that just about every person who does anything of significance also teaches at a university or has ~10 years in higher education.
Hell, even our moron of a president has a Master's degree, and he's considered a failure and uneducated when compared to any of his peers.
Get a clue. And rather than trying to talk yourself into being ignorant, do yourself a favor and take a risk.
Originally posted by giant
Yeah, like how acedemics don't run the government, advance science or basically do everything other than sing and dance on TV. It would do you well to get a clue and realize that just about every person who does anything of significance also teaches at a university or has ~10 years in higher education.
Hell, even our moron of a president has a Master's degree, and he's considered a failure and uneducated when compared to any of his peers. Get a clue.
Notice the common thread of the people in government...they are doing something outside of academia. Education is wonderful, and learning for the sake of learning if great. Learning, when not applied is essentially useless, until it is used, ie. applied.
Academics can be great people. Some can be dicks, who decide they are better than others, and others can be worse and decide that their best arguement is to insult others, instead of actually demonstrating their greater knowledge (which no one here has ever questioned, but continues to be brought up by someone). It would be great to see a statement followed up by facts and analysis, instead of personal attacks.
Originally posted by Tulkas
Notice the common thread of the people in government...they are doing something outside of academia.
Notice the common thread of the people in academia...they do something outside of academia. Hell, that how they get and keep jobs. And the ones in fields that don't require outside work (well, other than the heavy, steady stream of trade papers and research) spend their lives educating others. That's what the job is. You learn, then you teach. Sure a Philosophy professor will act like he knows more about philosophy than you, but that's because *gasp* he does!
All you are doing is advocating ignorance.
Originally posted by Tulkas
instead of actually demonstrating their greater knowledge (which no one here has ever questioned, but continues to be brought up by someone).
When I brought up that Iraq had little or no WMD and that Bush was lying, what happened? Then, when I provided a mountain of info demonstrating it conclusively, what happened?
Anyone who has really spent any significant time studying 9/11 knows that every arrow points to one direction. I've already learned that providing a mountain of info doesn't accomplish anything with the people here, so that's that.
I've already given you a good place to start. Read the timeline from front to back and then we can start with the real grit.
Originally posted by giant
Notice the common thread of the people in academia...they do something outside of academia. Hell, that how they get and keep jobs. And the ones in fields that don't require outside work spend their lives educating others. That's what the job is. You learn, then you teach.
And at which stage are you? You don't seem inclined to teach.
Originally posted by giant
Sure a Philosophy professor will act like he knows more about philosophy than you, but that's because *gasp* he does!
And if all the prof does is insult other around him and allows his greater knowledge to swell his head and make him arrogant, his is just a dick.
Originally posted by giant
All you are doing is advocating ignorance.
No, I am advocation civillity in your conversation. It great that you have a position that allows you the opportunity to study at your leisure. Not everyone has that option. Show that you aren't so small that you think this makes you better than others not in your position. Some people actually have to work for a living. The guys cleaning your washrooms and building your car may not have the opportunity you have, but that doesn't mean his is dumb, or that you are his better.
Originally posted by giant
When I brought up that Iraq had little or no WMD and that Bush was lying, what happened? Then, when I provided a mountain of info demonstrating it conclusively, what happened?
What happened was that many peopel read it. Months ago, when you posted a link about the Pakistani links to 9/11 (ISS stuff if I recall) I, and other read the analysis. I think we had a pretty good discussion, excluding the derogatory, personal comments.
Addition:
I would like to see you post not just links, but your thoughts on the information. I, for one, would like to read the analysis of a person who had access to the amount of information that your do. You and I will always be on opposite sides of the political fence, but I would find your analysis interesting and probably insightful, even if I don't agree with it.