Guest Gary Loughran Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 I moved this topic as I couldn't discern any relevance, anywhere, to JFK Assassination. I hope no one minds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted August 13, 2010 Author Share Posted August 13, 2010 No problems here. After a while, I might merge it with the challenge thread if no-one minds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 As a person has phrased it: So in other words, everything will go the exact same way as they've gone for years, except White now wants someone else to reply to Burton's evaluations. Cluck Cluck... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 So I assume you refuse to accept our terms of engagement? Jack I refuse to engage in a pointless exercise. My reasons are detailed on the appropriate thread here. I would ask / request that you post your reply on the appropriate thread, though if you prefer to post it here then please link the reply on that thread. It enables everyone to understand exactly what people have said and why they have decided on the decisions they have made. Edited to add: I have detailed my reasons on the appropriate thread, but if members would like to see them repeated here then I have no objection. Exactly. Fetzer and I refuse to engage in a pointless exercise wherein personal attacks substitute for discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 Exactly. Fetzer and I refuse to engage in a pointless exercise wherein personal attacks substitute for discussion. Now that's got the be the funniest thing I have ever read in my entire life... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 Exactly. Fetzer and I refuse to engage in a pointless exercise wherein personal attacks substitute for discussion. That’s a cop out Jack, the whole point of the proposed exchange was for you to respond to Evan’s and others’ debunkings of your studies. The fact that you refuse to do so can only be considered indicative of the lack of faith you have in them. One again you use the excuse of non-existent “personal attacks” to duck legitimate criticism of your work. You should rephrase the above for accuracy, "Fetzer and I refuse to defend my studies" Let’s try just one, if the converging shadows in some Apollo photos were caused by multiple light sources how come each object casts a single shadow? Since you spent years doing studio work and continuously claim to be a photo expert you should easily be able to create such a photo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted August 13, 2010 Author Share Posted August 13, 2010 Exactly. Fetzer and I refuse to engage in a pointless exercise wherein personal attacks substitute for discussion. I have stated that I will subject myself to the strictest interpretations of civility whilst giving you and Jim a far wider range. If you or Jim believe I am making a personal attack, etc, and the moderators agree then I will subject myself to their actions without recourse; I will waive any right of reply whatsoever. If you make a complaint to the moderators then I will not attempt to defend myself. The only condition I make is that you and / or Jim have to actually engage in a civil debate, that you have to show why your claims are correct and why my rebuttal to those claims are wrong, to discuss the claims. How in any way could that be considered other than a fair proposal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted August 14, 2010 Share Posted August 14, 2010 Exactly. Fetzer and I refuse to engage in a pointless exercise wherein personal attacks substitute for discussion. I have stated that I will subject myself to the strictest interpretations of civility whilst giving you and Jim a far wider range. If you or Jim believe I am making a personal attack, etc, and the moderators agree then I will subject myself to their actions without recourse; I will waive any right of reply whatsoever. If you make a complaint to the moderators then I will not attempt to defend myself. The only condition I make is that you and / or Jim have to actually engage in a civil debate, that you have to show why your claims are correct and why my rebuttal to those claims are wrong, to discuss the claims. How in any way could that be considered other than a fair proposal? The proposal was for a "debate" between Burton and Fetzer. This cannot occur without a thread closed to all others such as Lamson and Colby. Jim is willing to "debate" each one of my studies with only you, as I post them. This seems a fair proposal to me. Any comments by others can be on a separate thread. Jim wants to discuss ONLY with Burton...not Lamson, Colby et al. 1. I post an Apollo study 2. You submit your evaluation 3. Jim comments on your evaluation 4. The next study is submitted. What is wrong with such a format? It seems very orderly. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted August 14, 2010 Share Posted August 14, 2010 Exactly. Fetzer and I refuse to engage in a pointless exercise wherein personal attacks substitute for discussion. I have stated that I will subject myself to the strictest interpretations of civility whilst giving you and Jim a far wider range. If you or Jim believe I am making a personal attack, etc, and the moderators agree then I will subject myself to their actions without recourse; I will waive any right of reply whatsoever. If you make a complaint to the moderators then I will not attempt to defend myself. The only condition I make is that you and / or Jim have to actually engage in a civil debate, that you have to show why your claims are correct and why my rebuttal to those claims are wrong, to discuss the claims. How in any way could that be considered other than a fair proposal? The proposal was for a "debate" between Burton and Fetzer. This cannot occur without a thread closed to all others such as Lamson and Colby. Jim is willing to "debate" each one of my studies with only you, as I post them. This seems a fair proposal to me. Any comments by others can be on a separate thread. Jim wants to discuss ONLY with Burton...not Lamson, Colby et al. 1. I post an Apollo study 2. You submit your evaluation 3. Jim comments on your evaluation 4. The next study is submitted. What is wrong with such a format? It seems very orderly. Jack WHY IS FETZER discussing YOUR work? Why are YOU not diiscussing YOUR work? What are you afraid of? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted August 14, 2010 Share Posted August 14, 2010 Exactly. Fetzer and I refuse to engage in a pointless exercise wherein personal attacks substitute for discussion. I have stated that I will subject myself to the strictest interpretations of civility whilst giving you and Jim a far wider range. If you or Jim believe I am making a personal attack, etc, and the moderators agree then I will subject myself to their actions without recourse; I will waive any right of reply whatsoever. If you make a complaint to the moderators then I will not attempt to defend myself. The only condition I make is that you and / or Jim have to actually engage in a civil debate, that you have to show why your claims are correct and why my rebuttal to those claims are wrong, to discuss the claims. How in any way could that be considered other than a fair proposal? The proposal was for a "debate" between Burton and Fetzer. This cannot occur without a thread closed to all others such as Lamson and Colby. Jim is willing to "debate" each one of my studies with only you, as I post them. This seems a fair proposal to me. Any comments by others can be on a separate thread. Jim wants to discuss ONLY with Burton...not Lamson, Colby et al. 1. I post an Apollo study 2. You submit your evaluation 3. Jim comments on your evaluation 4. The next study is submitted. What is wrong with such a format? It seems very orderly. Jack WHY IS FETZER discussing YOUR work? Why are YOU not diiscussing YOUR work? What are you afraid of? My studies speak for themselves. Fetzer agrees with my studies. Burton challenged Fetzer to debate my studies. And you think I am afraid of something? Absurd. It is Burton who is afraid of Fetzer. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted August 14, 2010 Author Share Posted August 14, 2010 No, I want to debate YOU, but Jim Fetzer accused me of "faking it" and so I want to debate him as well. You and Jim should present SEPARATE studies, making it twice as difficult for me. After all, if I am 'faking it' then I don't stand a chance, do I? I have also said previously that we will be the sole participants. Anyone posting in that thread other than the participants or moderators will have their posts made invisible. I would also suggest that if a non-participant posts in the thread, they be placed on moderation for the duration of the debate. Here is a compromise: 1. Jack posts a claim. 2. I respond to the claim. 3. Jack responds to my rebuttal. 4. I respond to Jack. 5. Jim posts a claim. 6. I respond to the claim. 7. Jim responds to my rebuttal. 8. I respond to Jim. 9. Jack posts a new claim, and the cycle begins again. This makes my job twice as difficult since I am debating two people, and we each get two posts per claim. That's fair and even. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted August 14, 2010 Share Posted August 14, 2010 No, I want to debate YOU, but Jim Fetzer accused me of "faking it" and so I want to debate him as well. You and Jim should present SEPARATE studies, making it twice as difficult for me. After all, if I am 'faking it' then I don't stand a chance, do I? I have also said previously that we will be the sole participants. Anyone posting in that thread other than the participants or moderators will have their posts made invisible. I would also suggest that if a non-participant posts in the thread, they be placed on moderation for the duration of the debate. Here is a compromise: 1. Jack posts a claim. 2. I respond to the claim. 3. Jack responds to my rebuttal. 4. I respond to Jack. 5. Jim posts a claim. 6. I respond to the claim. 7. Jim responds to my rebuttal. 8. I respond to Jim. 9. Jack posts a new claim, and the cycle begins again. This makes my job twice as difficult since I am debating two people, and we each get two posts per claim. That's fair and even. No...you do not get it. My studies say everything I want to say. I will post a study. You will respond to my study. Jim will respond to your contentions. You will not be debating two people, just Jim...REGARDING MY STUDY(S). I will not put in, because my studies were done years ago, and I do not have time nor inclination to rehash them for your benefit. They exist. Criticize them however you want, but I have more important things to do than go over old ground. Taunt me all you want. I will not join the debate. I have nothing additional to say about my studies. Why cannot you and Jim discuss them without interference from me or others? Jim has agreed to this format, why can't you? Are you afraid of Jim? Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted August 14, 2010 Author Share Posted August 14, 2010 Why do you need Jim Fetzer to defend your work? Was he an unacknowledged co-author? Why are you afraid to have an open, civil debate with me regarding your Apollo claims? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted August 14, 2010 Share Posted August 14, 2010 Taunt me all you want. I will not join the debate. I have nothing additional to say about my studies. Why cannot you and Jim discuss them without interference from me or others? Jim has agreed to this format, why can't you? Are you afraid of Jim? Jack All of my Apollo studies are "into the public domain" and have been for years. Visit: http://www.aulis.com...ies_index1.html http://www.aulis.com/skeleton.htm Study all of them and post refutations of any or all of them on the Conspiracies Forum. I will comment on any valid objections which contain no personal attacks. Jack So which one is it Jack? Was the second statement untrue? What has changed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted August 15, 2010 Share Posted August 15, 2010 What has changed? I have become very busy with my new interest, running a history forum with nearly 80 members; I have produced over 2000 studies of Fort Worth history, which can be seen at: http://www.fortwortharchitecture.com/oldftw/oldftw.htm I have no time to waste on people like Lamson, Burton and Colby. They are meaningless diversions. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now