Diane's Question for Mark

[pomeroo]

This can be merged with the thread "Hardfire News." I am posting it separately to make sure that Mark sees it. Diane had asked how Mark felt about appearing with her and how he regarded her in general.

Here is the link to her blog:

New York City Activist blog
http://activistnyc.wordpress.com/

[LashL]

I'm pretty sure that Mark is in Florida at the moment, at TAM 5.5 so he may not be checking in here today...

[Hyperviolet]

Originally Posted by LashL

I'm pretty sure that Mark is in Florida at the moment, at TAM 5.5 so he may not be checking in here today...

Yeah, he must be.
TAM 5.5 is this weekend.
And with him being one of the speakers, I doubt he'll be accessing the forum.

[JAStewart]

I'd be surprised if he wasn't able to access the JREF forum at a JREF convention!

[DGM]

Originally Posted by JAStewart

I'd be surprised if he wasn't able to access the JREF forum at a JREF convention!

What makes you think he would want to? I hope he has a good time and can't remember why he was there in the first place. Plus maybe a little skeptilady companionship.

[pomeroo]

I'm bumping this thread so that Mark sees it when he returns.

[Alareth]

Ron, this may be a silly question, but do you not have Mark's phone number?

[uk_dave]

Originally Posted by Alareth

Ron, this may be a silly question, but do you not have Mark's phone number?

I bet the area code is 555

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by uk_dave

I bet the area code is 555

Keyboard war!

Dave

[Gravy]

Originally Posted by pomeroo

This can be merged with the thread "Hardfire News." I am posting it separately to make sure that Mark sees it. Diane had asked how Mark felt about appearing with her and how he regarded her in general.

Here is the link to her blog:

New York City Activist blog
http://activistnyc.wordpress.com/

I had one email exchange with her about a trivial matter and haven't read her blog. I'll take a look at it later. I'm not aware of any influence she's had or anything new she has to offer, but if you think she's a reasonable representative, I'll certainly participate. To be honest, since I don't see the need for the show, I'm mainly interested in meeting Arthur Scheuerman, but as always I'm flattered to be asked.

[Elizabeth I]

Originally Posted by uk_dave

I bet the area code is 555

Are you sure you don't mean 666?

[uk_dave]

Quote:

Ever noticed that phone numbers given in American movies and TV shows invariably start with the 555 prefix? Ever wondered why 555 and not something else?
The answer lies 30 years ago or more when the use of exchange names as part of the telephone number was still popular in the USA. Dials had letters as well as numbers and the first 3 letters of the exchange name were dialled followed by numbers. An example might be CENtral 78978. You dialled CEN 78978 or, using all numbers, 236 78978.
It so happened that 5 on the dial corresponded with J K and L and you can’t make any English place names using any combination of J, K and L as the first 3 letters. So the 555 code was allocated to service levels such as Directory Assistance, Operator, Repair Service, etc.


Due to the "low fill" of the 555 code, Hollywood was encouraged to quote 555 numbers in their productions to prevent real subscribers being harassed by members of the public trying out the numbers quoted on the screen. Generic and satirical advertisements and commercials often used 555 numbers. In the early days of exchange names the prefix KLondike-5 was used as this exchange did not exist.

http://www.telephonecollecting.org/code.htm

[Disbelief]

Originally Posted by uk_dave

I bet the area code is 555

You do know that 555 is the area code for Mexico City?

[uk_dave]

Originally Posted by Disbelief

You do know that 555 is the area code for Mexico City?

And Gravy has a green jalapeno as his avatar...hmmmmmmmmm

[pomeroo]

Then let's consider the matter settled. We will tape two editions of 'Hardfire' on February 26 with or without a representative of the other side. If we have just Arthur and Mark, we'll do the second show as a call-in. There's a limit to the amount of time we can spend searching for someone in possession of a great truth who is willing to share it with the rest of the world.

[pomeroo]

Originally Posted by Alareth

Ron, this may be a silly question, but do you not have Mark's phone number?

I do not, but I wish I did.

[Max Photon]

So you can read Putting the Wet Stuff on the Red Stuff to each other?

Oh, sorry......

[T.A.M.]

I think getting Diane, from what I have read here, sounds like a good idea...

PROS
------
1.She sounds reasonable, and mature enough to make the debate interesting and informative.
2.It will eliminate some of the truther whining that the video does not let them have a voice.

CONS
------
1. She is not a truther leader, so a lot of the movement will simply brush he performance off if poor.
2. With only a single guest for the TM, versus Mark, Arthur, and a bias host (despite his fair play), the truthers will still whine.

TAM

[Max Photon]

Well the take with Diane is in the can. That went smashingly!

Let's watch...

[DGM]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

I think getting Diane, from what I have read here, sounds like a good idea...

PROS
------
1.She sounds reasonable, and mature enough to make the debate interesting and informative.
2.It will eliminate some of the truther whining that the video does not let them have a voice.

CONS
------
1. She is not a truther leader, so a lot of the movement will simply brush he performance off if poor.
2. With only a single guest for the TM, versus Mark, Arthur, and a bias host (despite his fair play), the truthers will still whine.

TAM

Another con is she wants to limit the debate to WTC 7. She is smart and I think she knows that going this way will lead to having to discredit eyewitnesses (sounds of explosions). She could very easily personalize the debate to the point where nobody wins.

Just my $.02

[T.A.M.]

Mark is more than able to deal with WTC7 if that is her choice. In the end she will likely pull the Kevin McPadden card, which as you say, you either believe, or do not (i am in the latter group, given his story changes dramatically based on his audience).

TAM

[DGM]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

Mark is more than able to deal with WTC7 if that is her choice. In the end she will likely pull the Kevin McPadden card, which as you say, you either believe, or do not (i am in the latter group, given his story changes dramatically based on his audience).

TAM

She's smart. All you need to do in a public debate is 'cast the doubt upon the waters' and you will find followers. Remember any publicity is good publicity.

Logic has nothing to do with what people will think.

[pomeroo]

Originally Posted by DGM

Another con is she wants to limit the debate to WTC 7. She is smart and I think she knows that going this way will lead to having to discredit eyewitnesses (sounds of explosions). She could very easily personalize the debate to the point where nobody wins.

Just my $.02

It wasn't Diane's decision to limit the debate to WTC 7. I wanted to revisit the issue with Mark, and Arthur Scheuerman has a lot to say on the subject.

[T.A.M.]

I'd say do it Ron. It will make for an interesting debate, and given nothing has come out of the movement as of late, we could do with something interesting to watch.

TAM

[nicepants]

Originally Posted by pomeroo

Then let's consider the matter settled. We will tape two editions of 'Hardfire' on February 26 with or without a representative of the other side.

Be sure to read the responses you've gotten from truthers explaining why they've decided not to show. I love the excuse they use that Mark isn't qualified. If that was the case, it would be a slam dunk.

[Gravy]

Just got an email saying that Diane has backed out of the Hardfire show.

http://activistnyc.wordpress.com/200...n-wiecks-show/

She doesn't feel prepared. Okay, that's fine. But if she were prepared, she'd want to debate someone more capable than me. Interesting logic.

[Viper Daimao]

Originally Posted by Gravy

Just got an email saying that Diane has backed out of the Hardfire show.

http://activistnyc.wordpress.com/200...n-wiecks-show/

She doesn't feel prepared. Okay, that's fine. But if she were prepared, she'd want to debate someone more capable than me. Interesting logic.

Sounds like she actually watched the episodes and realized she doesn't have enough insulation from reality to think she would have "won" or looked good..

ETA: Actually reading her post, he seems she honestly admits to not knowing very much about the collapse and issues. Perhaps she would be interested in some written debates or just discussions totally separate from the show. Has anyone actually tried to show her that she's wrong?

[Gravy]

Ha! I see that Diane wants to know if I would face Jon Gold, who has run from my challenges in the past but has apparently has been running off at the mouth about wanting to debate me, although he can't be bothered to tell me that. Yoo-hoo, Jon! I'm over here!

Let's look at Jon Gold from 911blogger, last year, regarding the Fetzer Hardfire shows:

Gold, blatantly lying:

Quote:

I watched...

Until Ronny said we "tremble" at the site of Roberts. Roberts who I've b-slapped a few times on blogger.

Gold, having problems:

Quote:

And the funny thing is, at least to me (because I've been harassed by "debunkers" for being overweight) is that Mark is getting to be a fatty.

Fetzer:

Quote:

Am I to infer that, if he [Gold] had been invited to appear with Mark Roberts on "Hardfire", he would have declined? And on what grounds?

Gold, cowering:

Quote:

You're damn right I would...

Because any IDIOT would know that they are being set up to look like a fool on such a biased show. Then again, I guess you didn't see Les Jamieson, Dylan Avery, and Jason Bermas on "Hardfire" before, or know ANYTHING about the fact that Ronald Wieck spends his time bashing the 9/11 Truth Movement with lies, distortions, and bullsh_t on the internet. On top of that, I would NOT accept money from our enemies. Something you don't seem to have a problem with.

Fetzer:

Quote:

Are you afraid of them?...

Gold, blatantly lying again:

Quote:

I have bitch-slapped Ronald Wieck and Mark Roberts on several occasions. It's not about fear Jim. It's about not doing things that are detrimental to the movement to the BEST of our ability.

You didn't even question Ronald when he said we "tremble" at the site of Roberts. You didn't even correct Ronald when he referred to us as the 9/11 Conspiracy Movement. We are the 9/11 Truth Movement Jim. They came up far from short, and we have you and your crazy theories to thank for it.

Me:

Quote:

That's interesting, Jon.

I'm not aware of these bitch-slappings. I'm sure you won't have any trouble pointing them out to us, right? You wouldn't be fibbing about that on your own website, where your fans are, would you?

So prove it.

The last I remember, you said you didn't believe my account of what Kevin Barrett said to me. I offered to send you his emails. You refused. Not so concerned with the truth, are you?

Since you believe that you do speak for the "truth" movement, how about debating me? You're not afraid to, are you?

My prediction about Jon's response to both of my challenges here: "I'm not gonna waste time with you. The time for debate is over. It's time for action!"

Yawn.

The inveterate coward Gold did not reply.

Sure, Diane, I'll debate Jon Gold any time, on Hardfire or elsewhere. He seems to have a great deal of trouble finding me, though. Perhaps you can pass my contact information on, since you have it.

[Gravy]

Originally Posted by Viper Daimao

Sounds like she actually watched the episodes and realized she doesn't have enough insulation from reality to think she would have "won" or looked good..

ETA: Actually reading her post, he seems she honestly admits to not knowing very much about the collapse and issues. Perhaps she would be interested in some written debates or just discussions totally separate from the show. Has anyone actually tried to show her that she's wrong?

This is my first time reading her blog. I have no problem with her asking for a rain check to appear on Hardfire so she can bone up. I do have a problem with her suggesting that I'm unprepared.

[ref]

Originally Posted by Gravy

This is my first time reading her blog. I have no problem with her asking for a rain check to appear on Hardfire so she can bone up. I do have a problem with her suggesting that I'm unprepared.

Strange for her to suggest you are unprepared. Let's see if Jon Gold accepts the challenge. My guess: He'll back out, blaming the biased host/show or you being only a tour guide.

[Totovader]

I never understood that sort of ad hominem attack. If Mark really is that incompetent, incapable, or otherwise an easy adversary- then why not destroy him in a debate? He's obviously a well-recognized figure for "our side", but somehow going after an "easy" figurehead just doesn't seem like a good strategy to these people?

Diane I can excuse- she's unprepared... but the rest of the jokers who try and claim that Mark is unqualified as an excuse are only making themselves look worse, and contradicting their entire position.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by pomeroo

This can be merged with the thread "Hardfire News." I am posting it separately to make sure that Mark sees it. Diane had asked how Mark felt about appearing with her and how he regarded her in general.

Here is the link to her blog:

New York City Activist blog
http://activistnyc.wordpress.com/

She does indeed appear to be reasonably intelligent and civil. It seems unlikely that if that is the case, she can continue to keep the company she does for much longer.

The debunkers are not uniformly civil, or intelligent, or witty, or accurate - but they are all of these things far more than the conspiracists. After a few months of having obvious errors pointed out, she might be brought into the light.

The most important point is that any real investigation into the causes of 911 is hindered, not helped by the conspiracy theories. The failure to prevent an attack on the United States was a failure, not a plan.

[Henry Crun]

I just don´t understand this movement.

Diane has a blog running, seems to be a full truther and now she basically admits she didn´t do enough research on the topic.
Seems to me she is sure 911 was an inside job, but not sure why she thinks that way.

Strange.

9/11 is not a rhetoric game or a highschool debate. I would have researched the topic very well before I came to the inside-job-conclusion and advocate it online.

Ron (he may be Mr. Hyde in the forum but it very Dr. Jekyll on the show) offers a great opportunity to the truther side but they prefer to shout "inside job!" in the streets, making movies at home or debate on forums because they have "the option of doing online research on the fly".

Maybe Mr. Hyde is right and they are all pathetic liars - and they know it.

[maccy]

No longer relevant.

[Henry Crun]

cancelled

[maccy]

No longer relevant.

[Henry Crun]

cancelled

[Hyperviolet]

I'll echo what others have said; that Diane certainly seems like a sincere and intelligent individual.

However, regarding the notion that Mark isn't well-versed enough to discuss the actual collapses, and instead relies on the Appeal To Authority fallacy, I can say, without equivocation, that this is simply untrue.
To any regular in the Conspiracy sub-forum it's obvious that he has a strong understanding of the collapse of the Twin Towers.
And has debated the specifics countless times.

(Seen as Diane reads these posts, maybe she could join the forum and participate in the discussions directly? It'd sure be nice to have a civil truther around to spark reasonable debate.)

[pomeroo]

I'm sorry that Diane has decided that she isn't quite ready to appear on 'Hardfire.' She strikes me as intelligent and reasonable, which, of course, raises the question of what she's doing on her side of the fence. We can look forward to her participation at a later date.

I'm back to square one. I can't produce any champion of Truth to explain to Mark and Arthur Scheuerman where they're going wrong. Isn't this an astonishing development? How can these people prefer endlessly reciting the same canards on tiny blogs to spreading the gospel to a worldwide audience?

The comical buffoon Jon Gold, incidentally, wouldn't dream of facing Mark or even poor little me. He has richly earned his nickname, "The Running Man."

[Viper Daimao]

Originally Posted by pomeroo

I'm sorry that Diane has decided that she isn't quite ready to appear on 'Hardfire.' She strikes me as intelligent and reasonable, which, of course, raises the question of what she's doing on her side of the fence. We can look forward to her participation at a later date.

I'm back to square one. I can't produce any champion of Truth to explain to Mark and Arthur Scheuerman where they're going wrong. Isn't this an astonishing development? How can these people prefer endlessly reciting the same canards on tiny blogs to spreading the gospel to a worldwide audience?

The comical buffoon Jon Gold, incidentally, wouldn't dream of facing Mark or even poor little me. He has richly earned his nickname, "The Running Man."

this may be a silly question, but the bbc wants to use the footage for another show they're doing right? Can't they use some of the past footage with the loose change boys and/or fetzer or others? Or are they using that and want some new stuff too?