Diane Reviews Loose Change Debates

pomeroo · 9th February 2008, 04:29 PM

Diane has posted a thoughtful review of Mark's debates with the Boys:

http://activistnyc.wordpress.com/200...e-change-crew/

Viper Daimao · 9th February 2008, 06:52 PM

it is well written and level headed. I'm curious as to her claim that mark made an appeal to authority. It's been awhile since I watched the debate but I don't remember him actually doing this. I'm also wondering what expertise she has to reject the explanations of structural engineers as she mentioned in the piece.

but I haven't read a lot of her. She is no doubt an anomaly in the truth movement. She agrees with much of what Mark says to counter jason and dylan, so I'm wondering just what makes her think they're right overall.

pomeroo · 9th February 2008, 07:08 PM

Originally Posted by Viper Daimao

it is well written and level headed. I'm curious as to her claim that mark made an appeal to authority. It's been awhile since I watched the debate but I don't remember him actually doing this. I'm also wondering what expertise she has to reject the explanations of structural engineers as she mentioned in the piece.

but I haven't read a lot of her. She is no doubt an anomaly in the truth movement. She agrees with much of what Mark says to counter jason and dylan, so I'm wondering just what makes her think they're right overall.

A subject that I intend to explore with Diane is just how rational can a person be without abandoning the inside job theory. It is noteworthy that she didn't comment on my falsifiability question to the Boys.

Pardalis · 10th February 2008, 01:53 AM

Boy, that Diane lady sure was nice to the LC crew. I wonder why a rational woman can give credence to such dolts and their idiotic claims.

boloboffin · 10th February 2008, 02:08 AM

Well, I'm having a puzzling time with someone so rational.

I was having a decent conversation with her at that link. But she expressed doubt that WTC 7 was leaning as it fell.

I linked to a video that shows the lean of WTC 7 clearly.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Diane has a comment policy about linking to videos. So she deleted the link and asked my to post pictures of the lean. Well, I was happy to do that. I have two framegrabs from that short video:

However, I had no idea how her comment page would accept code to post the pictures: HTML, BBCode, or just links to the pictures.

I tried HTML first. No dice. And her comments don't allow editing. So I tried the BBCode. That just printed the code out. I was considerate and said in the comment that she could delete that one if the pictures didn't print again. I also told her I wasn't trying to spam her comments.

So the third time I simply posted links to my photobucket pages with those pictures.

And when I came back, all three comments had been deleted.

So on the subject of an actual discussion with evidence being able to be presented, I'm not very convinced of Diane's good faith right now.

Alt+F4 · 10th February 2008, 05:35 AM

Originally Posted by Pardalis

Boy, that Diane lady sure was nice to the LC crew. I wonder why a rational woman can give credence to such dolts and their idiotic claims.

Maybe it's because she's not rational at all. She lives in NYC, why doesn't she just ask some of those nice, real life FDNY firefighters what happened to WTC 7? Oh, I forgot, "truthers" don't believe in real life stuff.

westprog · 10th February 2008, 05:42 AM

Originally Posted by boloboffin

Well, I'm having a puzzling time with someone so rational.

I was having a decent conversation with her at that link. But she expressed doubt that WTC 7 was leaning as it fell.

I linked to a video that shows the lean of WTC 7 clearly.

Diane has a comment policy about linking to videos. So she deleted the link and asked my to post pictures of the lean. Well, I was happy to do that. I have two framegrabs from that short video:

However, I had no idea how her comment page would accept code to post the pictures: HTML, BBCode, or just links to the pictures.

I tried HTML first. No dice. And her comments don't allow editing. So I tried the BBCode. That just printed the code out. I was considerate and said in the comment that she could delete that one if the pictures didn't print again. I also told her I wasn't trying to spam her comments.

So the third time I simply posted links to my photobucket pages with those pictures.

And when I came back, all three comments had been deleted.

So on the subject of an actual discussion with evidence being able to be presented, I'm not very convinced of Diane's good faith right now.

The links are back now.

I find that site quite flaky, and I've had comments disappear and reappear, but I've found Diane quite capable of accepting dissenting views.

She seems to be quite receptive to well made technical arguments. Whether she's an example of someone who can be brought into the light, I don't know, but unlike most of the conspiracists who post here, she at least gives nodding respect to rationality.

boloboffin · 10th February 2008, 10:37 AM

Well, that's all better then. In fact, she did a good turn by pasting the picture links into the original comment and deleting the other two unnecessary ones. I'm satisfied with that explanation completely and apologize for any untoward suggestion here.

ETA: She said something about the system informing me that the comments would be moderated. Perhaps I missed that message. If I had seen that, I wouldn't have had any cause for alarm.

boloboffin · 12th February 2008, 05:53 AM

Diane has been able to look at the northeast video I linked to (or rather an 8-second version that she was able to download). She posts her take on it here:

Two WTC 7 collapse videos: Can both be real?

That's right. Faced with two videos of the same event, one clearly demonstrating the lean as Building 7 fell, Diane's first thought is that one or the other video has been faked.

Quote:

To my admittedly untrained eye, these two videos look too different from each other for both of them to be genuine, unaltered recordings of the exact same event from different angles.

Why this is important: The northeast video, if genuine, substantially weakens the “symmetry of collapse” argument regarding WTC 7. Hence, if the genuineness of the northwest video can be established, and if the incompatibility I percieve turns out to be valid, we can thereby disprove an important piece of alleged evidence against the “symmetry of collapse” argument.

"Alleged evidence." Oh, well.

Dave Rogers · 12th February 2008, 06:17 AM

Is the "large vertical split" in the northeast video actually a column of smoke obscuring part of the facade? That's what it looks like to me.

Dave

boloboffin · 12th February 2008, 06:36 AM

I think you're right, Dave. The sun is hitting the camera right there, and that combined with that smoke might looking like the building has broken apart. It isn't moving away or at a different speed than the rest of the building though. Hopefully, Diane is going to be looking at that clip a few times.

DGM · 12th February 2008, 06:41 AM

Originally Posted by boloboffin

I think you're right, Dave. The sun is hitting the camera right there, and that combined with that smoke might looking like the building has broken apart. It isn't moving away or at a different speed than the rest of the building though. Hopefully, Diane is going to be looking at that clip a few times.

It also might be worth directing her to pictures of the debris pile. The north face of the building is clearly laid over the top of the pile confirming what is seen in the video.

You can find pictures of this on Gravy's site.

bje · 12th February 2008, 12:25 PM

From my little interaction with Diane and reading her posts and comments, my feeling is that there would be a lot of "hurdles" and "conditions" attached to any possible debate with Mark or anyone else.

In my opinion, she is too much of a "control person", needing to have everything just "so." She appears to be navigating a very thin line between wanting to appear objective (sometimes she is), not wanting to appear to take sides, but then happy to make unsubstantiated assertions that the 9/11 Truth Movement makes, while trying to distance herself from "that" part of the 9/11 Truth Movement.

I think she is delighted to be the recent center of attention here by JREFers but has an overriding need to control everything, including endless justifications about the meaning of words and terms she had previously used in a post or comment but would normally be taken differently in general usage. The net effect is a deflection from the conversation at hand, a neat skirting of issues or points, and a general frustration with the course of a conversation.

She is suspicious of "us", questioning our "motives", what "axes" we have to "grind", (why could we possibly spend so much time arguing with Truthers if we did not have some overriding, and hidden, "motive?")

I make clear this is my opinion, a gut feeling about a personality type that requires careful handling and one who is more trouble than its worth. I could be very wrong, but that's the sense that I have gotten. In the end, I don't think there is much value in pursuing Diane for any kind of debate.

Geedubya · 12th February 2008, 01:07 PM

Originally Posted by bje

From my little interaction with Diane and reading her posts and comments, my feeling is that there would be a lot of "hurdles" and "conditions" attached to any possible debate with Mark or anyone else.

In my opinion, she is too much of a "control person", needing to have everything just "so." She appears to be navigating a very thin line between wanting to appear objective (sometimes she is), not wanting to appear to take sides, but then happy to make unsubstantiated assertions that the 9/11 Truth Movement makes, while trying to distance herself from "that" part of the 9/11 Truth Movement.

I think she is delighted to be the recent center of attention here by JREFers but has an overriding need to control everything, including endless justifications about the meaning of words and terms she had previously used in a post or comment but would normally be taken differently in general usage. The net effect is a deflection from the conversation at hand, a neat skirting of issues or points, and a general frustration with the course of a conversation.

She is suspicious of "us", questioning our "motives", what "axes" we have to "grind", (why could we possibly spend so much time arguing with Truthers if we did not have some overriding, and hidden, "motive?")

I make clear this is my opinion, a gut feeling about a personality type that requires careful handling and one who is more trouble than its worth. I could be very wrong, but that's the sense that I have gotten. In the end, I don't think there is much value in pursuing Diane for any kind of debate.

That's an excellent and well-written summation, one that I fully agree with, but couldn't do half as good a job of putting into words. Well said!

A W Smith · 12th February 2008, 01:21 PM

Originally Posted by bje

From my little interaction with Diane and reading her posts and comments, my feeling is that there would be a lot of "hurdles" and "conditions" attached to any possible debate with Mark or anyone else.

In my opinion, she is too much of a "control person", needing to have everything just "so." She appears to be navigating a very thin line between wanting to appear objective (sometimes she is), not wanting to appear to take sides, but then happy to make unsubstantiated assertions that the 9/11 Truth Movement makes, while trying to distance herself from "that" part of the 9/11 Truth Movement.

I think she is delighted to be the recent center of attention here by JREFers but has an overriding need to control everything, including endless justifications about the meaning of words and terms she had previously used in a post or comment but would normally be taken differently in general usage. The net effect is a deflection from the conversation at hand, a neat skirting of issues or points, and a general frustration with the course of a conversation.

She is suspicious of "us", questioning our "motives", what "axes" we have to "grind", (why could we possibly spend so much time arguing with Truthers if we did not have some overriding, and hidden, "motive?")

I make clear this is my opinion, a gut feeling about a personality type that requires careful handling and one who is more trouble than its worth. I could be very wrong, but that's the sense that I have gotten. In the end, I don't think there is much value in pursuing Diane for any kind of debate.

I was thinking along similar lines. She is carefully assembling a construct to support a pre conceived conclusion. She does not want to fail like all the rest. She is a liar getting all her ducks in a row before she puts herself out there. Selecting pieces of a puzzle and discarding others. Putting them together. Though the puzzle piece may fit in its incorrect location.. The colors do not make a picture.

Snide · 15th February 2008, 02:25 PM

Before we get into any further intense disagreements on other issues, may I just say keep up the good fight here, pomeroo.

Miragememories · 15th February 2008, 03:13 PM

Originally Posted by A W Smith

I was thinking along similar lines. She is carefully assembling a construct to support a pre conceived conclusion. She does not want to fail like all the rest. She is a liar getting all her ducks in a row before she puts herself out there. Selecting pieces of a puzzle and discarding others. Putting them together. Though the puzzle piece may fit in its incorrect location.. The colors do not make a picture.

Failure is a relative concept.

The "all the rest" you refer to, have only failed if they didn't achieve their goals in coming here. You can only speculate as to what their expectations were. I have certainly achieved all my goals and expecting to persuade hardcore members here that there is reason to strongly doubt the Official Story was not one of them.

It's a rare duck that would start posting here without having already reached some beliefs, the best ones remain open minded.

It's also a favorite tactic, commonly used by the many false skeptics here, to attempt to intimidate by calling people names and label anyone who disagrees with them a liar.

MM

Hokulele · 15th February 2008, 03:17 PM

Originally Posted by Miragememories

It's also a favorite tactic, commonly used by the many false skeptics here, to attempt to intimidate by calling people names and label anyone who disagrees with them a liar.

Irony, thy name is MM.

~enigma~ · 15th February 2008, 03:23 PM

Originally Posted by Miragememories

It's also a favorite tactic, commonly used by the many false skeptics here, to attempt to intimidate by calling people names and label anyone who disagrees with them a liar.

You could always try a lawsuit...

DavidJames · 15th February 2008, 03:33 PM

Originally Posted by ~enigma~

You could always try a lawsuit...

Indeed, there few things CTists can do with less impact then posting on an Internet forum. Yet, that's pretty much all they do.

bje · 15th February 2008, 03:35 PM

Originally Posted by Miragememories

I have certainly achieved all my goals and expecting to persuade hardcore members here that there is reason to strongly doubt the Official Story was not one of them.

The sooner 9/11 truthers get over their "official story" canard, the sooner it will dawn on them that the burden of proof is on them to either put up, bring evidence to the table, and file criminal charges, or slither away with their tails between their legs.

It should be clear after six years of whining, they have no charges to file.

pomeroo · 15th February 2008, 10:09 PM

Originally Posted by Snide

Before we get into any further intense disagreements on other issues, may I just say keep up the good fight here, pomeroo.

I wouldn't describe our political disagreements as being particularly intense. Thanks for the encouragement. The profusion of vacuous dunces among the recent infestation of twoofers strongly suggests that the good guys are winning and the bad guys really have nothing to say in support of their evil movement.

Max Photon · 16th February 2008, 10:42 AM

How monohypothesiseistic of you, Pomeroo...enough for two.

pomeroo · 17th February 2008, 08:47 AM

Originally Posted by Max Photon

How monohypothesiseistic of you, Pomeroo...enough for two.

I expected my opinion to be confirmed, but not quite that quickly.

tsig · 17th February 2008, 09:26 AM

Originally Posted by Miragememories

Failure is a relative concept.

The "all the rest" you refer to, have only failed if they didn't achieve their goals in coming here. You can only speculate as to what their expectations were. I have certainly achieved all my goals and expecting to persuade hardcore members here that there is reason to strongly doubt the Official Story was not one of them.

It's a rare duck that would start posting here without having already reached some beliefs, the best ones remain open minded.

It's also a favorite tactic, commonly used by the many false skeptics here, to attempt to intimidate by calling people names and label anyone who disagrees with them a liar.

MM

Failure is not a relative concept. Some win and some lose. I'll have my duck well done. Does a false skeptic believe everything?

9th February 2008, 04:29 PM	#1
pomeroo Banned Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 7,081	Diane Reviews Loose Change Debates Diane has posted a thoughtful review of Mark's debates with the Boys: http://activistnyc.wordpress.com/200...e-change-crew/
pomeroo Banned Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 7,081

9th February 2008, 07:08 PM	#3
pomeroo Banned Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 7,081	Originally Posted by Viper Daimao it is well written and level headed. I'm curious as to her claim that mark made an appeal to authority. It's been awhile since I watched the debate but I don't remember him actually doing this. I'm also wondering what expertise she has to reject the explanations of structural engineers as she mentioned in the piece. but I haven't read a lot of her. She is no doubt an anomaly in the truth movement. She agrees with much of what Mark says to counter jason and dylan, so I'm wondering just what makes her think they're right overall. A subject that I intend to explore with Diane is just how rational can a person be without abandoning the inside job theory. It is noteworthy that she didn't comment on my falsifiability question to the Boys.
pomeroo Banned Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 7,081

10th February 2008, 01:53 AM	#4
Pardalis Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 25,817	Boy, that Diane lady sure was nice to the LC crew. I wonder why a rational woman can give credence to such dolts and their idiotic claims.
Pardalis Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 25,817	Last edited by Pardalis; 10th February 2008 at 01:54 AM.

10th February 2008, 05:42 AM	#7
westprog Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,928	Originally Posted by boloboffin Well, I'm having a puzzling time with someone so rational. I was having a decent conversation with her at that link. But she expressed doubt that WTC 7 was leaning as it fell. I linked to a video that shows the lean of WTC 7 clearly. Diane has a comment policy about linking to videos. So she deleted the link and asked my to post pictures of the lean. Well, I was happy to do that. I have two framegrabs from that short video: However, I had no idea how her comment page would accept code to post the pictures: HTML, BBCode, or just links to the pictures. I tried HTML first. No dice. And her comments don't allow editing. So I tried the BBCode. That just printed the code out. I was considerate and said in the comment that she could delete that one if the pictures didn't print again. I also told her I wasn't trying to spam her comments. So the third time I simply posted links to my photobucket pages with those pictures. And when I came back, all three comments had been deleted. So on the subject of an actual discussion with evidence being able to be presented, I'm not very convinced of Diane's good faith right now. The links are back now. I find that site quite flaky, and I've had comments disappear and reappear, but I've found Diane quite capable of accepting dissenting views. She seems to be quite receptive to well made technical arguments. Whether she's an example of someone who can be brought into the light, I don't know, but unlike most of the conspiracists who post here, she at least gives nodding respect to rationality.
westprog Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,928

10th February 2008, 10:37 AM	#8
boloboffin Guest Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 4,986	Well, that's all better then. In fact, she did a good turn by pasting the picture links into the original comment and deleting the other two unnecessary ones. I'm satisfied with that explanation completely and apologize for any untoward suggestion here. ETA: She said something about the system informing me that the comments would be moderated. Perhaps I missed that message. If I had seen that, I wouldn't have had any cause for alarm.
boloboffin Guest Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 4,986	Last edited by boloboffin; 10th February 2008 at 10:50 AM.

9th February 2008, 06:52 PM	#2
Viper Daimao Critical Thinker Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 496	it is well written and level headed. I'm curious as to her claim that mark made an appeal to authority. It's been awhile since I watched the debate but I don't remember him actually doing this. I'm also wondering what expertise she has to reject the explanations of structural engineers as she mentioned in the piece. but I haven't read a lot of her. She is no doubt an anomaly in the truth movement. She agrees with much of what Mark says to counter jason and dylan, so I'm wondering just what makes her think they're right overall.

10th February 2008, 05:35 AM	#6
Alt+F4 diabolical globalist Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 10,017	Originally Posted by Pardalis Boy, that Diane lady sure was nice to the LC crew. I wonder why a rational woman can give credence to such dolts and their idiotic claims. Maybe it's because she's not rational at all. She lives in NYC, why doesn't she just ask some of those nice, real life FDNY firefighters what happened to WTC 7? Oh, I forgot, "truthers" don't believe in real life stuff.

12th February 2008, 05:53 AM	#9
boloboffin Guest Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 4,986	Diane has been able to look at the northeast video I linked to (or rather an 8-second version that she was able to download). She posts her take on it here: Two WTC 7 collapse videos: Can both be real? That's right. Faced with two videos of the same event, one clearly demonstrating the lean as Building 7 fell, Diane's first thought is that one or the other video has been faked. Quote: To my admittedly untrained eye, these two videos look too different from each other for both of them to be genuine, unaltered recordings of the exact same event from different angles. Why this is important: The northeast video, if genuine, substantially weakens the “symmetry of collapse” argument regarding WTC 7. Hence, if the genuineness of the northwest video can be established, and if the incompatibility I percieve turns out to be valid, we can thereby disprove an important piece of alleged evidence against the “symmetry of collapse” argument. "Alleged evidence." Oh, well.
boloboffin Guest Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 4,986	Last edited by boloboffin; 12th February 2008 at 05:58 AM.

12th February 2008, 06:17 AM	#10
Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD Posts: 33,287	Is the "large vertical split" in the northeast video actually a column of smoke obscuring part of the facade? That's what it looks like to me. Dave
	__________________ There is truth and there are lies. - President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021

12th February 2008, 06:36 AM	#11
boloboffin Guest Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 4,986	I think you're right, Dave. The sun is hitting the camera right there, and that combined with that smoke might looking like the building has broken apart. It isn't moving away or at a different speed than the rest of the building though. Hopefully, Diane is going to be looking at that clip a few times.
boloboffin Guest Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 4,986

12th February 2008, 06:41 AM	#12
DGM Skeptic not Atheist Join Date: May 2007 Location: West of Northshore MA Posts: 24,734	Originally Posted by boloboffin I think you're right, Dave. The sun is hitting the camera right there, and that combined with that smoke might looking like the building has broken apart. It isn't moving away or at a different speed than the rest of the building though. Hopefully, Diane is going to be looking at that clip a few times. It also might be worth directing her to pictures of the debris pile. The north face of the building is clearly laid over the top of the pile confirming what is seen in the video. You can find pictures of this on Gravy's site.
	__________________ "Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 Last edited by DGM; 12th February 2008 at 06:55 AM. Reason: correct north/south error- thanks Boloboffin

12th February 2008, 12:25 PM	#13
bje Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 1,281	From my little interaction with Diane and reading her posts and comments, my feeling is that there would be a lot of "hurdles" and "conditions" attached to any possible debate with Mark or anyone else. In my opinion, she is too much of a "control person", needing to have everything just "so." She appears to be navigating a very thin line between wanting to appear objective (sometimes she is), not wanting to appear to take sides, but then happy to make unsubstantiated assertions that the 9/11 Truth Movement makes, while trying to distance herself from "that" part of the 9/11 Truth Movement. I think she is delighted to be the recent center of attention here by JREFers but has an overriding need to control everything, including endless justifications about the meaning of words and terms she had *previously* used in a post or comment but would normally be taken differently in general usage. The net effect is a deflection from the conversation at hand, a neat skirting of issues or points, and a general frustration with the course of a conversation. She is suspicious of "us", questioning our "motives", what "axes" we have to "grind", (why could we possibly spend so much time arguing with Truthers if we did not have some overriding, and hidden, "motive?") I make clear this is my opinion, a gut feeling about a personality type that requires careful handling and one who is more trouble than its worth. I could be very wrong, but that's the sense that I have gotten. In the end, I don't think there is much value in pursuing Diane for any kind of debate.
bje Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 1,281	__________________ - There is only one way to be right, but an infinite number of ways to be wrong.

12th February 2008, 01:07 PM	#14
Geedubya New Blood Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 24	Originally Posted by bje From my little interaction with Diane and reading her posts and comments, my feeling is that there would be a lot of "hurdles" and "conditions" attached to any possible debate with Mark or anyone else. In my opinion, she is too much of a "control person", needing to have everything just "so." She appears to be navigating a very thin line between wanting to appear objective (sometimes she is), not wanting to appear to take sides, but then happy to make unsubstantiated assertions that the 9/11 Truth Movement makes, while trying to distance herself from "that" part of the 9/11 Truth Movement. I think she is delighted to be the recent center of attention here by JREFers but has an overriding need to control everything, including endless justifications about the meaning of words and terms she had *previously* used in a post or comment but would normally be taken differently in general usage. The net effect is a deflection from the conversation at hand, a neat skirting of issues or points, and a general frustration with the course of a conversation. She is suspicious of "us", questioning our "motives", what "axes" we have to "grind", (why could we possibly spend so much time arguing with Truthers if we did not have some overriding, and hidden, "motive?") I make clear this is my opinion, a gut feeling about a personality type that requires careful handling and one who is more trouble than its worth. I could be very wrong, but that's the sense that I have gotten. In the end, I don't think there is much value in pursuing Diane for any kind of debate. That's an excellent and well-written summation, one that I fully agree with, but couldn't do half as good a job of putting into words. Well said!
Geedubya New Blood Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 24

12th February 2008, 01:21 PM	#15
A W Smith Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 7,032	Originally Posted by bje From my little interaction with Diane and reading her posts and comments, my feeling is that there would be a lot of "hurdles" and "conditions" attached to any possible debate with Mark or anyone else. In my opinion, she is too much of a "control person", needing to have everything just "so." She appears to be navigating a very thin line between wanting to appear objective (sometimes she is), not wanting to appear to take sides, but then happy to make unsubstantiated assertions that the 9/11 Truth Movement makes, while trying to distance herself from "that" part of the 9/11 Truth Movement. I think she is delighted to be the recent center of attention here by JREFers but has an overriding need to control everything, including endless justifications about the meaning of words and terms she had *previously* used in a post or comment but would normally be taken differently in general usage. The net effect is a deflection from the conversation at hand, a neat skirting of issues or points, and a general frustration with the course of a conversation. She is suspicious of "us", questioning our "motives", what "axes" we have to "grind", (why could we possibly spend so much time arguing with Truthers if we did not have some overriding, and hidden, "motive?") I make clear this is my opinion, a gut feeling about a personality type that requires careful handling and one who is more trouble than its worth. I could be very wrong, but that's the sense that I have gotten. In the end, I don't think there is much value in pursuing Diane for any kind of debate. I was thinking along similar lines. She is carefully assembling a construct to support a pre conceived conclusion. She does not want to fail like all the rest. She is a liar getting all her ducks in a row before she puts herself out there. Selecting pieces of a puzzle and discarding others. Putting them together. Though the puzzle piece may fit in its incorrect location.. The colors do not make a picture.
A W Smith Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 7,032	__________________ 911 resource site by Mark Roberts http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home Gravy: Christopher7; You are a Basking Shark in a sea of ignorance. Galileo:The jury said I didn't have any mental defects or diseases, they declared me 100% sane. Has a jury ever declared you sane? Don’t get me lol’n off my chesterfield dude.

15th February 2008, 02:25 PM	#16
Snide Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 3,198	Before we get into any further intense disagreements on other issues, may I just say keep up the good fight here, pomeroo.
Snide Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 3,198

15th February 2008, 03:13 PM	#17
Miragememories Banned Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Earth Posts: 4,473	Originally Posted by A W Smith I was thinking along similar lines. She is carefully assembling a construct to support a pre conceived conclusion. She does not want to fail like all the rest. She is a liar getting all her ducks in a row before she puts herself out there. Selecting pieces of a puzzle and discarding others. Putting them together. Though the puzzle piece may fit in its incorrect location.. The colors do not make a picture. Failure is a relative concept. The "all the rest" you refer to, have only failed if they didn't achieve their goals in coming here. You can only speculate as to what their expectations were. I have certainly achieved all my goals and expecting to persuade hardcore members here that there is reason to strongly doubt the Official Story was not one of them. It's a rare duck that would start posting here without having already reached some beliefs, the best ones remain open minded. It's also a favorite tactic, commonly used by the many false skeptics here, to attempt to intimidate by calling people names and label anyone who disagrees with them a liar. MM
	Last edited by Miragememories; 15th February 2008 at 03:14 PM.

15th February 2008, 03:17 PM	#18
Hokulele Deleterious Slab of Damnation Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: The Biggest Little City in the World Posts: 29,577	Originally Posted by Miragememories It's also a favorite tactic, commonly used by the many false skeptics here, to attempt to intimidate by calling people names and label anyone who disagrees with them a liar. Irony, thy name is MM.
	__________________ "Oh god...What have you done, zooterkin? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?!?!" - Cleon

15th February 2008, 03:23 PM	#19
~enigma~ Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 7,923	Originally Posted by Miragememories It's also a favorite tactic, commonly used by the many false skeptics here, to attempt to intimidate by calling people names and label anyone who disagrees with them a liar. You could always try a lawsuit...
~enigma~ Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 7,923

15th February 2008, 03:33 PM	#20
DavidJames Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Front Range, CO Posts: 10,493	Originally Posted by ~enigma~ You could always try a lawsuit... Indeed, there few things CTists can do with less impact then posting on an Internet forum. Yet, that's pretty much all they do.

15th February 2008, 03:35 PM	#21
bje Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 1,281	Originally Posted by Miragememories I have certainly achieved all my goals and expecting to persuade hardcore members here that there is reason to strongly doubt the Official Story was not one of them. The sooner 9/11 truthers get over their "official story" canard, the sooner it will dawn on them that the burden of proof is on them to either put up, bring evidence to the table, and file criminal charges, or slither away with their tails between their legs. It should be clear after six years of whining, they have no charges to file.
bje Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 1,281	__________________ - There is only one way to be right, but an infinite number of ways to be wrong.

15th February 2008, 10:09 PM	#22
pomeroo Banned Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 7,081	Originally Posted by Snide Before we get into any further intense disagreements on other issues, may I just say keep up the good fight here, pomeroo. I wouldn't describe our political disagreements as being particularly intense. Thanks for the encouragement. The profusion of vacuous dunces among the recent infestation of twoofers strongly suggests that the good guys are winning and the bad guys really have nothing to say in support of their evil movement.
pomeroo Banned Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 7,081

16th February 2008, 10:42 AM	#23
Max Photon Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 1,592	How monohypothesiseistic of you, Pomeroo...enough for two.
	Last edited by Max Photon; 16th February 2008 at 10:43 AM.

17th February 2008, 08:47 AM	#24
pomeroo Banned Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 7,081	Originally Posted by Max Photon How monohypothesiseistic of you, Pomeroo...enough for two. I expected my opinion to be confirmed, but not quite that quickly.
pomeroo Banned Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 7,081

17th February 2008, 09:26 AM	#25
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 39,049	Originally Posted by Miragememories Failure is a relative concept. The "all the rest" you refer to, have only failed if they didn't achieve their goals in coming here. You can only speculate as to what their expectations were. I have certainly achieved all my goals and expecting to persuade hardcore members here that there is reason to strongly doubt the Official Story was not one of them. It's a rare duck that would start posting here without having already reached some beliefs, the best ones remain open minded. It's also a favorite tactic, commonly used by the many false skeptics here, to attempt to intimidate by calling people names and label anyone who disagrees with them a liar. MM Failure is not a relative concept. Some win and some lose. I'll have my duck well done. Does a false skeptic believe everything?