FBI, the mob, and 9/11

[Michael Hogan]

Michael's comment is nonesense.

You really should stop using words you can't spell.

Egads, not another typo! How can I ever live down the shame? Your post was nonsense whether I spelt it correctly or not which is why you didn’t reply to its contents. Odd that your Pavlovian urge to point out spelling/grammar errors seems limited to one member of the forum.

EDIT - Typo fixed LOL

Go look up spelt in the dictionary. While you're at it, look up the meaning of pavlovian. For every spelling/grammar/logic error of yours I point out, I let a few hundred go by.

Your consistent pattern of errors, coupled with your failure to employ basic proofreading techniques are simply a characteristic of your lightweight approach.

I didn't reply to the contents (and I use the term loosely) of your post because it contained nothing of substance. I finally learned that responding to your insulting language

and meaningless comments with more than a few sentences is a waste of time.

Here's one I let go by.

....John clearly indicated he wants posts on this forum to be accuruate,

Edited August 9, 2008 by Michael Hogan

[Craig Lamson]

Michael's comment is nonesense.

You really should stop using words you can't spell.

Egads, not another typo! How can I ever live down the shame? Your post was nonsense whether I spelt it correctly or not which is why you didn’t reply to its contents. Odd that your Pavlovian urge to point out spelling/grammar errors seems limited to one member of the forum.

EDIT - Typo fixed LOL

Go look up spelt in the dictionary. While you're at it, look up the meaning of pavlovian. For every spelling/grammar/logic error of yours I point out, I let a few hundred go by.

Your consistent pattern of errors, coupled with your failure to employ basic proofreading techniques are simply a characteristic of your lightweight approach.

I didn't reply to the contents (and I use the term loosely) of your post because it contained nothing of substance. I finally learned that responding to your insulting language

and meaningless comments with more than a few sentences is a waste of time.

Here's one I let go by.

....John clearly indicated he wants posts on this forum to be accuruate,

Childish to say the least. Chalk up another one for the CT's

[Evan Burton]

Gentlemen, please! This has nothing to do with the pilot skills of the hijackers.

We all make spelling mistakes from time to time.

I believe the accuracy to which John seeks is in providing accurate information in your posts.

[Michael Hogan]

Gentlemen, please! This has nothing to do with the pilot skills of the hijackers.

We all make spelling mistakes from time to time.

I believe the accuracy to which John seeks is in providing accurate information in your posts.

Colby initiated the insulting language.

And I believe you're mistaken.

(v) Members should take care over the accuracy of their postings. This includes spellings, capital letters, etc. This is important as the forum is read by young students and therefore we should not be setting them a bad example. I would suggest you write initially in a word processing program that automatically checks spellings, etc. The finished work can then be copied and posted into the forum.

[Evan Burton]

I stand corrected, Michael - you are quite right. We should, at all times, seek to have accuracy in our spelling and grammar.

With regard to who insulted who first, you could set an example for others and be the first to finish it. That is up to you.

Edited August 9, 2008 by Evan Burton

[Michael Hogan]

I stand corrected, Michael - you are quite right. We should, at all times, seek to have accuracy in our spelling and grammar.

With regard to who insulted who first, you could set an example for others and be the first to finish it. That is up to you.

Why don't you just render the posts invisible, Evan? I'm not going to be intimidated by Colby. Or you.

Especially when you don't have your facts straight.

[Evan Burton]

That's okay - you have chosen what type of example you wish to set for others.

BTW, are you willing to point out what I failed to address in Maggie's post? I will try to answer it, but I simply do not understand what I am missing. If you point it out, I will try to answer it.

[Michael Hogan]

That's okay - you have chosen what type of example you wish to set for others.

BTW, are you willing to point out what I failed to address in Maggie's post? I will try to answer it, but I simply do not understand what I am missing. If you point it out, I will try to answer it.

At this point, I don't care if you answer Maggie or not. As I said earlier you could go back and look; it might take all of thirty seconds. Colby's already spoken for you anyway.

As a moderator of this Forum, you also have a responsibility to set an example for others. This and other threads show how successful you have been.

Evan, you've shown that you aren't even familiar with the Forum rules as set down by John Simkin and what's more, you weren't willing to make the effort to look before showing your bias.

That's okay.

Edited August 9, 2008 by Michael Hogan

[Evan Burton]

Okay - I tried. I said I simply did not understand what you wanted me to address. You won't point it out, then I won't bother to answer it; it can't have been that important then.

You are entitled to your opinion. If you change your mind, let me know and I'll try to answer it to the best of my ability.

[Guest David Guyatt]

Okay - I tried. I said I simply did not understand what you wanted me to address. You won't point it out, then I won't bother to answer it; it can't have been that important then.

You are entitled to your opinion. If you change your mind, let me know and I'll try to answer it to the best of my ability.

Evan,

I also believe that you are showing considerable bias in your moderating decisions in recent times. Nor am I or Michael alone in that regard.

There is a growing number of members who also fear that is the case. I have written at length to Kathy Beckett about the growing sense of unease that the Debunking Bunch are championed by you and the rest of us who hold views and opinions contrary to the debunkers are without support and that moderating decisions are now heavily loaded.

This may not be the case, of course, it is just my opinion, but I think you should be aware that this same opinion is shared quite widely by quite a few regular members of this particular forum. The locked Len Brazil thread has simply brought this to a head. Deleting posts, placing members on moderation, deleting or locking threads will not lance this boil. What these actions (I personally regard them as knee-jerk reactions) will do is simply cause the discontent to simmer even more causing it to irrupt again and again.

David

[Len Colby]

Michael's comment is nonesense.

You really should stop using words you can't spell.

Egads, not another typo! How can I ever live down the shame? Your post was nonsense whether I spelt it correctly or not which is why you didn’t reply to its contents. Odd that your Pavlovian urge to point out spelling/grammar errors seems limited to one member of the forum.

EDIT - Typo fixed LOL

Go look up spelt in the dictionary. While you're at it, look up the meaning of pavlovian.

Great idea!

Longman's

spelt [see pronunciation table in "How to use dictionary" pages] especially British English

the past tense and past participle of spell

http://pewebdic2.cw.idm.fr/dictionary/spelt

Webster's

Main Entry:

2spelt

Pronunciation:

\ˈspelt\

chiefly British past and past participle of spell

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/spelt

The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition. 2002.

Pavlov’s dogs

[...]

‡ Someone who reacts instinctively rather than reflectively to a situation is said to be engaging in a Pavlovian reaction.

http://www.bartleby.com/59/17/pavlovsdogs.html

Longman's

Pavlov, Ivan Petrovich

(1849-1936) a Russian scientist who won the Nobel Prize for Medicine for his work on the digestive system. He is famous especially for his work with dogs, which proved the existence of the conditioned reflex (=a physical reaction that you cannot control, caused by repeated training or experiences) [...] —Pavlovian adjective

http://pewebdic2.cw.idm.fr/dictionary/Pavlov-Ivan-Petrovich

Commonly used to refer to any uncontrollable urge or habitual behavior

Time-

Stimulated by food, sex or the smell of tobacco, former smokers can no more control the urge to light up than Pavlov's dogs could stop their urge to salivate.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...86282-5,00.html

A university website-

# You are in your dentist's office. Your dentist is looking at your x-rays, when he gets that far-off look that only dentists can get when they are looking at x-rays of The Big One!

# He turns to you, and with a half-sadistic, half-empathetic look, says, "My, my! I don't see cavities like this very often!"

# You hunker down, experiencing the drilling (the tape should be running by now!).

# Take notice of any changes in the way your body is reacting. Pay particular attention to bodily responses (remember, Pavlovian conditioning is about involuntary responses--those we do not have control over!).

http://employees.csbsju.edu/TCREED/pb/p3d.html

A paper by 2 economics professors published by the Federal Reserve -

The Pavlovian response of term rates to Fed announcements

Selva Demiralp and Oscar Jorda (ojorda@ucdavis.edu)

No 2001-10, Finance and Economics Discussion Series from Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.)

Abstract: The traditional view of the monetary transmission mechanism rests on the premise that the Federal Reserve (Fed) controls the level of the federal funds rate via open market operations and the liquidity effect. By contrast, this paper argues that the Fed also manipulates the federal funds rate via public disclosures of the new level of the federal funds rate target and the "announcement effect." We define the announcement effect as the portion of interest rate movements associated with public statements on interest rate targets that do not require conventional open market operations for their support. This paper provides evidence on how the Fed uses the liquidity effect in conjunction with the announcement effect to execute monetary policy. In addition, it investigates the implications of the announcement effect in term structure behavior and the rational expectations hypothesis.

http://econpapers.repec.org/paper/fipfedgfe/2001-10.htm

Full paper http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/20...0/200110pap.pdf

SF Chronicle (Sports section) -

Pavlovian response at Haas Pavilion: Kick Ben Braun

Ray Ratto

Friday, January 25, 2008

(01-24) 20:22 PST -- The odd thing about this year's edition of "Throw Ben Braun Under The Bandwagon" is that his team is being faulted for having a hyperkinetic offense and shoddy defense. Typically, the complaint works the other way.

Of course, the Bears are blamed for more than that from loyal Cal fans who would be more loyal if they could only be loyal for some other coach. The Golden Bears are gimping into Saturday's game at Haas Pavilion against Stanford having built yet another towering monument to inconsistency, and when the Bears are spotty, Braun becomes the man in the Kick-Me sandwich board. It's Pavlov's theory to the nines.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...5/SPD5UL5BC.DTL

I finally learned that responding to your insulting language and meaningless comments with more than a few sentences is a waste of time.

(To Evan in post #46) Colby initiated the insulting language.

You’re joking right, you don’t consider “You really should stop using words you can't spell” insulting? If you don’t want someone to toss rocks at you don’t throw rocks at them first you constantly insult me and now Evan, you’ve insulted other members (Jack, David Healy, Paul) in the past. Or are going to pretend you were offended by me saying your post was ‘nonsense’? If so how is that offensive but you saying to Evan “you don't have your facts straight” not?

I didn't reply to the contents (and I use the term loosely) of your post because it contained nothing of substance.

Rubbish, as I told Jan I find it amusing when people make up an excuse not to reply rather than reply. Truth was the 911myths page answered Maggie’s question. Even if for the sake of argument we assume that one teacher really thought Hanjour couldn’t have been the Pentagon crash pilot:

• he (Hanjour) had several months training after he (the teacher) last saw him fly
  
• Other flight school professionals familiar with his sill set disagreed
  
• Several professional pilots said what he did was not especially difficult.
  

Thus you claim that Evan’s post hadn’t answered he question was nonsense, however it’s spelt.

I’m not going to get involved in another divisionary sideshow with you, I will only reply to points related to the topic of this thread from now on.

Evan wrote:

Okay - I tried. I said I simply did not understand what you wanted me to address. You won't point it out, then I won't bother to answer it; it can't have been that important then.

See my previous posts he was/is insisting Maggies paraphrase of Hanjour’s teacher saying ‘he couldn’tfly at all’ had not been addressed. I think at this point he realizes his error but is too stubborn to admit it which is why he won’t 1) clarify the question for you or 2) respond to my points.

[Len Colby]

2. Scaffolds on three of the four corners. ("Jet engine" is under one of them.)

I figured out what you were talking about, what you think is a scaffold on the SE corner (below the word EARLIER) is in fact a store awning, which as of when the street view photo was taken was still there.

Edited August 9, 2008 by Len Colby

[Michael Hogan]

(To Evan in post #46) Colby initiated the insulting language.

You’re joking right, you don’t consider “You really should stop using words you can't spell” insulting? If you don’t want someone to toss rocks at you don’t throw rocks at them first you constantly insult me and now Evan, you’ve insulted other members (Jack, David Healy, Paul) in the past. Or are going to pretend you were offended by me saying your post was ‘nonsense’? If so how is that offensive but you saying to Evan “you don't have your facts straight” not?

No, not joking. I simply said you initiated the insulting language. You did. Whether or not my replies were insulting to you or I've insulted anyone in the past is irrelevant. My statement was accurate.

I didn't claim to be offended, so don't imply that I am. I was just pointing out that the very word you chose to insult me with you couldn't spell correctly. As I said, I ignore the vast majority of your mistakes.

As far as what I said about Evan, it was understated. He is the most pro-active moderator in this part of the Forum. He was participating in the thread as a member, when he suddenly switched roles to a moderator

and offered an interpretation of the Forum rules that was clearly wrong. He demonstrated an unfamiliarity with the very rules he claims to enforce. He didn't have his facts straight.

See my previous posts he was/is insisting Maggies paraphrase of Hanjour’s teacher saying ‘he couldn’tfly at all’ had not been addressed. I think at this point he realizes his error but is too stubborn to admit it which is why he won’t 1) clarify the question for you or 2) respond to my points.

Not even close. Or logical. Or based on what transpired.

I told you I didn't believe you made any points, thus nothing to respond to. Evan could have easily found Maggie's question, yet he chose not to. I was under no obligation to reproduce it for him.

The posting of a long link did not answer Maggie's question, despite everything you wrote. It was you that made the error, failing to understand her question in your haste to answer for Evan.

[Len Colby]

In post # 71 of the “Len Brazil thread” Drago wrote:

About a year ago "Colby" used the same tactic - decontextualization -- to misrepresent one of my positions. I called him on it and did not relent until the "moderator" who got involved -- I believe it was Burton -- reluctantly agreed that "Colby" had intentionally misrepresented me. "Colby's" post, if memory served, was removed.

Drago once again gave a distorted version of what transpired. What he omitted is that the post in which I truncated his comment immediately followed the post in which he made it. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=126881 (See posts 67 & 68)

He spoke of "the near total absence of damage to the building [Pentagon - LC] and adjacent grounds consistent with [the impact of a 757]" which I truncated to "the near total absence of damage to the building " because I wasn’t responding to the part about the lawn. My reply was obviously rebutting the notion that the damage to the Pentagon was inconsistent with “the impact of a 757” Among other things I wrote “Good debunkings of the a 757 didn’t hit the Pentagon nonsense from a leading ‘truther’” followed by links to the debunkings and the following photo which was obviously meant to show that the damage was indeed consistent with the impact of a large plane.

I didn’t “relent” I changed the quote in my first visit to the forum following making my post in question, less than 17 hours after having made it.

He falsely claimed on the JFK forum that I edited my post to “cover [my] tracks” omitting that he insisted that I do so and that 7 minutes after the edit I said in a post to Kathy “I edited my post as per your request…” (post 79 on the next page)

[Len Colby]

(To Evan in post #46) Colby initiated the insulting language.

You’re joking right, you don’t consider “You really should stop using words you can't spell” insulting? If you don’t want someone to toss rocks at you don’t throw rocks at them first you constantly insult me and now Evan, you’ve insulted other members (Jack, David Healy, Paul) in the past. Or are going to pretend you were offended by me saying your post was ‘nonsense’? If so how is that offensive but you saying to Evan “you don't have your facts straight” not?

No, not joking. I simply said you initiated the insulting language. You did. Whether or not my replies were insulting to you or I've insulted anyone in the past is irrelevant. My statement was accurate.

I didn't claim to be offended, so don't imply that I am. I was just pointing out that the very word you chose to insult me with you couldn't spell correctly.

See my reply here - http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=13272

As far as what I said about Evan, it was understated. He is the most pro-active moderator in this part of the Forum. He was participating in the thread as a member, when he suddenly switched roles to a moderator

and offered an interpretation of the Forum rules that was clearly wrong. He demonstrated an unfamiliarity with the very rules he claims to enforce. He didn't have his facts straight.

Yes but under your "logic" it was “insulting language” .

See my previous posts he was/is insisting Maggies paraphrase of Hanjour’s teacher saying ‘he couldn’tfly at all’ had not been addressed. I think at this point he realizes his error but is too stubborn to admit it which is why he won’t 1) clarify the question for you or 2) respond to my points.

Not even close. Or logical. Or based on what transpired.

I told you I didn't believe you made any points, thus nothing to respond to. Evan could have easily found Maggie's question, yet he chose not to. I was under no obligation to reproduce it for him.

The posting of a long link did not answer Maggie's question, despite everything you wrote. It was you that made the error, failing to understand her question in your haste to answer for Evan.

Rubbish Mike, you simply don’t and still don’t have a reasonable reply but make up excuses rather than acknowledge it. Maggie’s concerns were addressed and you can’t explain why you think otherwise.