The Zeitgeist Movement - Podcast show now online!

Post Reply New Topic

sorry adam, but i haven't jumped on any bandwagon. i was simply answering his query. and besides, he's not "picking at little things", the issue the poster raised with you creates serious problems in any continuing discourse with you. you do such things frequently.

And what heinous crime have I committed by using the term "you people"? If you pay any attention to your behaviour and the behaviour of anyone who attempts to disprove my information, you will notice a certain beligerence and ignorance which borders onto troll behaviour.

Or, other posters are simply asking you for more information than you are able or are prepared to give them.

Let's not start getting personal by wheeling out accusations of troll behaviour.
Attacking an opinion, belief or philosophy is acceptable, but attacking the person making the comments is not.

I don't think it is that simple. In a number of posts you have posted information in support of the movies. Looking at page 13 alone, you used a substantial amount of prose posting information relating to both the first and second movies. As the author of the OP you certainly had every opportunity to define this conversation but if you really wanted to confine it to the RBE, then you would not have defended these other concepts, simply labeled them non-sequiturs and moved on.



If you want to introduce sources into this discussion, be prepared to defend them. Otherwise you place the rest of us in the unfortunate position of having you make assertions but depriving us of our right to respond, without being attacked and told we are moving the discussion off topic. Talking about 9/11 as an inside job and putting forward some really terribly researched materiel about the first movie is fair game for a response on the PPR.



None at all.

the issue at hand is you failing to maintain a consistent line of reasoning. referring collectively to everyone who disagrees with you in any way as "you people" simply demonstrates your own hubris.

I think the length of this thread in addition to 2 other threads that go way into pages of double figures shows how much information I'm "prepared" to give. I am prepared to explain this to people. The one thing I am not prepared to do, is understand it for them. And I recognise that I can talk to you lot till I'm blue in the face. Until you actually look at the material for yourselves and see what is what, my words are completely meaningless.

What is difficult to understand about that? Are you THAT ardent in your defense of intellectual laziness?



Raising a troll BEHAVIOUR accusation is not a personal attack. Because behaviour is learned. Hense behaviour is not the individual themselves.



I have just explained how behaviour is not the person themselves. How can I attack someone personally when I am only remarking on what they are acting LIKE? I find it quite comical that after all this you step in in defense of those who REGULARLY use ad hominem attacks and logical fallacies. What exactly are your qualifications as a moderator?

Did I refer "collectively to everyone who disagrees with me"? No. Not everyone who has disagreed with me has made me facepalm repeatedy. There have been those who are actually capable of respectful disagreement. And I love interacting with those individuals. Because an actual mature discussion can take place.

When someone is able to respecfully disagree, and actually takes the time to look at the material then I am overcome with appreciation. It is a shame however that those wonderful individuals are few and far between here.

adam, the majority of this thread consists of you apparently being wilfully obfuscative, dodging questions, and delivering self-agrandising but ultimately meaningless lectures at the mass of people in the thread who disagree with you, whom you condescendingly refer to as "you lot" or "you people".

i've asked you numerous questions (since you refused to engage in meaningful debate, which is apparently beneath you, and asked that we submit questions which you would then answer) and none of them have been addressed to any degree of satisfaction. you also appear to be of the belief that you are refuting things when half the time the information in your posts is just simply wrong, ill-conceived or irrelevant.



adam, i'm sure you do actually understand that this is nonsense. besides, your accusation was of belligerence and ignorance, not simply trolling.

Last edited by peebo on 29 Dec 2011, 6:23 am, edited 1 time in total.

Sorry, it really is that simple. I don't care how much you like to muddy the waters to suit your own arguments.



Did I state that information off my own back? Or was I asked? Your circular argument isn't getting you anywhere.



Because my PODCAST, yea, my PODCAST is about answering questions and interviewing people in regards to an RBE. So when people ask me about an RBE shall I start talking about other things JUST so you won't think Im restricting things? Grow up will you?





Wrong. I was asked to provide the sources. And I provided them. The information speaks for itself. You see that is why this whole argument of yours falls under the category of intellectual laziness. Because you perpetually wish for information to have a person attatched to it, to represent it and to defend it. This will always stop you from having the freedom to simply look at the information itself FOR YOURSELF. Maybe because you have learned to perpetually argue about something, and when it comes to information you WANT someone to argue with, and information cannot argue. Information is simply what it is. This explains your perpetual drive to nail someone to the forefront of a piece of information and force your arguments through them while shielding yourself from the information itself.



No, no, no, I leave you in the "unfortunate position" of analysing the information upon its OWN merits.



Please can you paste in here a quote from where I have actually used those words in regards to 9/11.



Good. I hope you can apply that attitude to everything else.

ah i know, adam. and the rest of us, "us lot", continually disappoint you with our belligerent ignorance and fallacious logic. it must be tiring for you to afford so much of your time in showing us the error of our ways. but we are grateful.

If I may I will emphasise possibly the key word in your response here. "apparently".



As I have already explained you will never be satisfied. If you will never be satisfied no amount of explanation will satisfy your insatiable argument. You are making the error of confusing "dodging questions" which is not responding AT ALL, with not providing "satisfactory" responses. And since your mind will never BE satisfied, this has lead you to assume that I am not answering anything.



Again, I will highlight an important phrase here. "appear to be".



Nonsense like the freeman position? Oh yea, you still havent been able to back that assertion up with anything besides infantile ridicule.

Absolutely. I do devote a lot of time. Arguably way TOO much time to those who really don't get it and WON'T get it because they do not WANT to get it. I really should stop and concentrate on those who WOULD get it.

yes, apparently. it is possible that you DON'T actually realise that you are doing this, but given the protracted nature of the discussion and your consistence in such tactics, it appears doubtful.



on the contrary, i am often satisfied. in addition to "dodging questions by not responding AT ALL", you also dodge questions by providing irrelevant answers and confusing issues.

i do not assume that you are not answering anything. it is a fact, that is evidenced by reading your responses to questions posed.



yes, it is important. it is impossible for me to know if you really do think you are refuting things, or if you are simply simply being obfuscative for the sake of not conceding that you are wrong.

[/quote]

i am still waiting for you to present even the most scant evidence that the FREEMAN position has ever been successfully deployed by anyone anywhere in challenging the state. your APPARENT inability to do this leads me to believe that my assertion is correct.

Why is it important for you to find out about my personal positions? Is that even relevant? Shall I open up a thread about me personally and allow others to comment on my personality? You would be all over that thread, wouldn't you? Is it because you think if you reveal some flaw in my personality you can raise your fist in victory against the whole matter being discussed?

Tell you what, howabout you grow up and realise that it is THE INFORMATION ITSELF that truly matters.



You must be blind as well as ignorant. Shall I continually post the links over and over until they finally register with your brain?

The infantile compulsion to demand that someone, somewhere is nailed up against the front of a pice of information as both a shield against the information itself, and someone to fuel the infantile compulsion to argue something perpetually has to stop. I can explain it to you, but I cannot understand it for you. In order to see what I am saying, I'm really sorry to say this, but your gonna have to brave the pain of thinking and consider the information itself. I know you may not wanna do that. And that's fine as well, ok? Its cool. But if you actually want to be taken seriously in this discussion, you need to know what you're talking about. Only then can a sane and productive discussion be held.

So from this point onwards, if anyone wants to "debate" me, then you're gonna find yourself disappointed. If you wanna discuss, that's cool, but I do ask that you take the simple facts under your belt first, and if you wish to quibble and insult, then you might as well stop wasting your time.

Namaste.

because, adam, the way you have conducted yourself in interacting with me has begged the question, and curiosity is a natural facet in humans. whether your logical faculties are seriously flawed, whether you are very in your own head and don't care to look at things in a pragmatic and realistic manner, or whether you just like having a pedantic argument, as much as you claim you don't, it is very difficult to have a coherent discussion with you.



i've already told you i'm not going to waste two or three hours of my day watching youtube videos about this. if there is hard evidence in any of those videos showing the FREEMAN ON THE LAND idea being successfully used in a court, please either describe it or point me to a time point in any of the videos. otherwise, i'll assume that the evidence of this is not forthcoming, and will continue to believe as i do, that it is simply sophistry and is of no benefit to anyone in reality.