Cliff Varnell Posted March 7, 2010 Share Posted March 7, 2010 why use long words when brevity will suffice? When I hire an editor I'll keep you in mind. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted March 7, 2010 Share Posted March 7, 2010 please dont Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted March 7, 2010 Share Posted March 7, 2010 please dont Which long word was unsettling to you -- "nonsensically" or "frivolous"? Given the tenor of your post it had to be one or the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted March 7, 2010 Share Posted March 7, 2010 Neither, there's nothing unsettling there at all. Pardon my humour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted March 7, 2010 Share Posted March 7, 2010 Neither, there's nothing unsettling there at all. Pardon my humour. Ah, the dry Aussie wit! Pardon granted... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted March 7, 2010 Share Posted March 7, 2010 Sorry to hijack the thread again, Andy! Tough to keep up around here, but that's why I love the joint, warts and all. Mike Tribe added a couple of interesting "conspiracy" theories to the pile which you, Mike and David Aaronovitch equate with 9/11 and the JFK assassination. One is on the frivolous list -- that the US government conspired to create Hurrican Katrina. I've never heard that one before. Did Mike Tribe encounter a drunk under a full moon and transcribe this scenario as it was spoken of between swigs? The other Tribe cite is the assassination of Benizar Bhutto. Well, the guy the Pakistani gov't fingered for the deed (Mehsud) denied it. Don't terrorists commit terror in order to brag about it? Isn't there a legitimate question as to the parties responsible? At any rate, the assassination of Bhutto was certainly a criminal conspiracy left un-examined. Seems we have a case of false equivalency, Andy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Tribe Posted March 7, 2010 Share Posted March 7, 2010 At the risk of incurring yet more snide remarks from the usual sources, I suggest that both these conspiracy theories were aired here on this forum. I haven't even scraped the bottom of the barrel, either. Try reading some of Ms Maura's posts... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted March 7, 2010 Share Posted March 7, 2010 (edited) At the risk of incurring yet more snide remarks from the usual sources, I suggest that both these conspiracy theories were aired here on this forum. I haven't even scraped the bottom of the barrel, either. Try reading some of Ms Maura's posts... So what? By what form of logic do you equate what you scrap off the bottom of the barrel with the hard evidence of 2+ shooters in the JFK assassination? http://occamsrazorjfk.net/ You're guilty of academic malpractice here, Prof. Tribe. Edited March 7, 2010 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted March 7, 2010 Share Posted March 7, 2010 Cross-posted: Many years ago, when the Education Forum still mostly dealt with education issues, I became worried that it was being taken over, more and more, by people whose primary interest was not educational but rather the discussion of the arcane details of what they saw as government conspiracies to, among other things, change the climate in order to cause flooding in New Orleans, falsify the Apollo moon landings, destroy the WTC, assassinate Benazir Bhutto, etc, etc, etc. Hurricane Katrina was an epochal natural disaster; to ascribe this to a US government conspiracy is utterly fanciful and not widely held. The Apollo moon landings were an epochal achievement in human history that has attracted a small cohort of naysayers who can produce no prima facie evidence of criminal conspiracy. Three buildings at the WTC collapsed in free-fall speed in the direction of greatest resistance. This strikes many people as prima facie evidence of controlled demolition. The murder of Benazir Bhutto was a criminal conspiracy according to the official version blaming Mehsud. Prof. Tribe, your etc., etc, etc. certainly includes the JFK assassination with its abundant and redundant evidence of criminal conspiracy, of which this is a handy sample: http://occamsrazorjfk.net/ How on earth do you conflate fanciful speculation for which there is no prima facie evidence of criminal conspiracy with hard, cold crime scene facts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted March 7, 2010 Share Posted March 7, 2010 At the risk of incurring yet more snide remarks from the usual sources, I suggest that both these conspiracy theories were aired here on this forum. I haven't even scraped the bottom of the barrel, either. Try reading some of Ms Maura's posts... So what? By what form of logic do you equate what you scrap off the bottom of the barrel with the hard evidence of 2+ shooters in the JFK assassination? http://occamsrazorjfk.net/ You're guilty of academic malpractice here, Prof. Tribe. Sadly for you and your silly website, it is unimpeachable that there was a fold of fabric large enough to obsure JFKJ's jacket collar in Betzner. You fail at intellectual honesty... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted March 7, 2010 Share Posted March 7, 2010 At the risk of incurring yet more snide remarks from the usual sources, I suggest that both these conspiracy theories were aired here on this forum. I haven't even scraped the bottom of the barrel, either. Try reading some of Ms Maura's posts... So what? By what form of logic do you equate what you scrap off the bottom of the barrel with the hard evidence of 2+ shooters in the JFK assassination? http://occamsrazorjfk.net/ You're guilty of academic malpractice here, Prof. Tribe. Sadly for you and your silly website, it is unimpeachable that there was a fold of fabric large enough to obsure JFKJ's jacket collar in Betzner. You fail at intellectual honesty... This one is above your pay-grade, son. Take a seat and watch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted March 7, 2010 Share Posted March 7, 2010 At the risk of incurring yet more snide remarks from the usual sources, I suggest that both these conspiracy theories were aired here on this forum. I haven't even scraped the bottom of the barrel, either. Try reading some of Ms Maura's posts... So what? By what form of logic do you equate what you scrap off the bottom of the barrel with the hard evidence of 2+ shooters in the JFK assassination? http://occamsrazorjfk.net/ You're guilty of academic malpractice here, Prof. Tribe. Sadly for you and your silly website, it is unimpeachable that there was a fold of fabric large enough to obsure JFKJ's jacket collar in Betzner. You fail at intellectual honesty... This one is above your pay-grade, son. Take a seat and watch. Well David, anytime you care to take a shot at proving me wrong, please by all means have at it. I'm not too worried. You don't have what it takes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted March 7, 2010 Share Posted March 7, 2010 (edited) At the risk of incurring yet more snide remarks from the usual sources, I suggest that both these conspiracy theories were aired here on this forum. I haven't even scraped the bottom of the barrel, either. Try reading some of Ms Maura's posts... So what? By what form of logic do you equate what you scrap off the bottom of the barrel with the hard evidence of 2+ shooters in the JFK assassination? http://occamsrazorjfk.net/ You're guilty of academic malpractice here, Prof. Tribe. Sadly for you and your silly website, it is unimpeachable that there was a fold of fabric large enough to obsure JFKJ's jacket collar in Betzner. You fail at intellectual honesty... Craig Lamson back on the attack! Are you referring to the fold that you didn't notice until after two years of intense analysis? The fold where both the sunny side and the shadow side are in shadow? Funny how such obvious artifacts escaped the keen eye of Craig Lamson for two years. Of course, what are we to expect from one who can't discern the difference between horizontal and vertical, indentations and bulges, or stretching fabric and bunching fabric. It's all the same to Craig Lamson. Intellectual malpractice. Edited March 7, 2010 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted March 7, 2010 Share Posted March 7, 2010 (edited) At the risk of incurring yet more snide remarks from the usual sources, I suggest that both these conspiracy theories were aired here on this forum. I haven't even scraped the bottom of the barrel, either. Try reading some of Ms Maura's posts... So what? By what form of logic do you equate what you scrap off the bottom of the barrel with the hard evidence of 2+ shooters in the JFK assassination? http://occamsrazorjfk.net/ You're guilty of academic malpractice here, Prof. Tribe. Sadly for you and your silly website, it is unimpeachable that there was a fold of fabric large enough to obsure JFKJ's jacket collar in Betzner. You fail at intellectual honesty... Craig Lamson back on the attack! Are you referring to the fold that you didn't notice until after two years of intense analysis? The fold where both the sunny side and the shadow side are in shadow? Funny how such obvious artifacts escaped the keen eye of Craig Lamson for two years. Of course, what are we to expect from one who can't discern the difference between horizontal and vertical, indentations and bulges, or stretching fabric and bunching fabric. It's all the same to Craig Lamson. Intellectual malpractice. I see you still can't impeach that large fold fold of fabric that obscures the jacket collar in Betzner. The large fold where the sunny side is in full sun and the shadow side is in ...well open shade. Edited March 8, 2010 by Evan Burton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted March 7, 2010 Share Posted March 7, 2010 Craig Lamson back on the attack!Are you referring to the fold that you didn't notice until after two years of intense analysis? Why yes I DID find new evidence and I adjusted my positon. Thats how it works, at least for the intellectually honest. And I do find it very amusing that after, wha tis it...10 yeats YOU still can't understand the fold! Stones and glass houses and all of that. The fold where both the sunny side and the shadow side are in shadow? Thats really a funny one Varnell. I can't wait for your to explain this one! Funny how such obvious artifacts escaped the keen eye of Craig Lamson for two years. How long has this fold escaped your eye? 10 years? Of course, what are we to expect from one who can't discern the difference between horizontal and vertical, indentations and bulges, or stretching fabric and bunching fabric. It's all the same to Craig Lamson. There is a fold, large enough to obscures the jacket collar in Betzner. That is unimpeachable. How it got there is irrelevent. It's there and your simply can't refute it. Get back to us when YOU adjust your failed position to reflect the new..and unimpeachable evidence. Intellectual Malpractice. Yes, you are clearly guilty of it.... 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