Tony Szamboti vs. tfk Debate

tfk · Jun 11, 2016

OK, Tony & I appear to be close to addressing the issues that will allow us to have a debate.

There are several issues have yet to be decided. I'm waiting for Tony to respond to the issues that I've brought up.

I thought that it'd be a good idea to copy over into this thread the origin & development of this challenge, rather than having it buried within another thread.

I will identify the posts that originated in the "I found the missing jolt" thread, where this challenge started, and ask the mods to copy them over here.

As far as I am concerned, anyone can post whatever they want over here.

I understand as well as anyone that things can quickly get snarky.
Let's try to give this comment thread a little respite from that for as long as we can.

I am going to try to stick principally (not exclusively) to the engineering / science aspects of the issues.

I would really, Really, REALLY like this debate to be illustrative of a competent engineer (that'd be me) addressing the technical issues of the Truth Movement. I'd like it to be educational for those that are new to the debate.

I'd like it to be in the same spirit as Ryan Mackey's presentations in days of yore. That is, trying as hard as possible to address the issues & staying away from personal insults.

Let it begin...

Tony Szamboti · Jun 11, 2016

tfk said:
OK, Tony & I appear to be close to addressing the issues that will allow us to have a debate.

There are several issues have yet to be decided. I'm waiting for Tony to respond to the issues that I've brought up.

I thought that it'd be a good idea to copy over into this thread the origin & development of this challenge, rather than having it buried within another thread.

I will identify the posts that originated in the "I found the missing jolt" thread, where this challenge started, and ask the mods to copy them over here.

As far as I am concerned, anyone can post whatever they want over here.

I understand as well as anyone that things can quickly get snarky.
Let's try to give this comment thread a little respite from that for as long as we can.

I am going to try to stick principally (not exclusively) to the engineering / science aspects of the issues.

I would really, Really, REALLY like this debate to be illustrative of a competent engineer (that'd be me) addressing the technical issues of the Truth Movement. I'd like it to be educational for those that are new to the debate.

I'd like it to be in the same spirit as Ryan Mackey's presentations in days of yore. That is, trying as hard as possible to address the issues & staying away from personal insults.

Let it begin...

I am glad you started this thread as in your response to my PM here you said you just wanted to communicate on the forum, and it is less difficult to see what you are saying on a dedicated thread.

Your ban has been lifted on the 911 free forum and the debate thread is here http://the911forum.freeforums.org/tony-szamboti-tfk-debates-f71.html

Of course, this particular debate is about the collapse of WTC 7. I had said I would be available to start on June 21st. On that date you should provide an opening statement giving your position on how you believe the building collapsed and some background on why you believe that and I will also.

The next day (June 22nd) you can then go first and post a comment for that day and I will respond.

I am glad to hear you say you will try to maintain a professional demeanor similar to that of Ryan Mackey and simply stay on the technical subject.

I would ask others here to please refrain from comments on this thread to keep it clean.

I will not be responding to any technical points here and will only use it to communicate (with tfk) in a publically visible way until June 21st when all communication will be on the debate thread on the 911 free forum.

Tony Szamboti · Jun 11, 2016

Rules for the debate

1. The topic is restricted to the collapse of WTC 7, the NIST report on it, and any additional information and analyses in the public domain about it.
2. Each person should make an opening statement explaining what they believe caused the collapse and briefing saying why they believe that.
3. tfk will go first after both participants make an opening statement on June 21, 2016.
4. Each person shall make no more than one post per day and cannot make another until it is responded to.
5. If a post is not responded to within a week the person not responding is considered to have forfeited.
6. Individual posts are limited to 500 words.
7. There shall be no name calling, denigration, or defamatory language used. Only the subject material shall be discussed. If any of the above occurs the participant involved shall be considered to have forfeited the debate.
8. The debate will end after a maximum of 50 total posts, or earlier if the participants mutually agree to an earlier termination.

Tony Szamboti · Jun 11, 2016

Tony Szamboti/tfk debate thread link

The debate thread on the 911 free forum is here

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/tony-szamboti-tfk-debates-f71.html

NoahFence · Jun 11, 2016

IMO the only way to get an honest debate out of this is not just science and engineering. Common sense virtually destroys any and all controlled demolition scenario. It's that simple.

None of the aspects surrounding controlled demolition were even physically possible, given the circumstances of the day. Everything else is simply beating a dead horse.

But you kids have your fun.

pgimeno · Jun 11, 2016

I've noted that Tony's restated set of rules ignores tfk's objections.

Crazy Chainsaw · Jun 11, 2016

pgimeno said:
I've noted that Tony's restated set of rules ignores tfk's objections.

Basicly Tony has set up a can of worms, as anything in the public domains, can be virtually anything including linking the attacks to politics.

It should have been a clear cut debate, CD, or no CD.

Spanx · Jun 11, 2016

I'm not really getting this.

What is wrong with two people having a thread on this forum and asking other people not to post?

What's with the rules and regulations?

While I'm at it, what's the best way to organise a piss up in a brewery.

DGM · Jun 11, 2016

Tony Szamboti said:
The debate thread on the 911 free forum is here

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/tony-szamboti-tfk-debates-f71.html

I just joined. I thought the email message I got from OneWhiteEye was telling:

I'm a little out of practice checking this email address or the inactive user list. You're activated and good to go. You're the first new member in years.

The very least you'll drive some traffic to the site.

Georgio · Jun 11, 2016

Spanx said:
I'm not really getting this.

What is wrong with two people having a thread on this forum and asking other people not to post?

What's with the rules and regulations?

+1

I will be very surprised if what results from all these rules isn't something like 10% debate about technical issues and 90% debate about who has and hasn't followed the rules of the debate, does this or that post qualify as a 'forfeit' post and so on.

Oh well, hopefully I'm just being too pessimistic.

beachnut · Jun 11, 2016

Tony Szamboti said:
The debate thread on the 911 free forum is here

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/tony-szamboti-tfk-debates-f71.html

Why is the flashplayer at the forum malicious? What is going on at freeforums?

Why debate at a failed forum which best work is "just plain idiots"?

When will freeforums stop the malisious attacks, the fake flashplayer URL?

Who runs freeforums, Russians, or what

TJM · Jun 11, 2016

Tony Szamboti said:
1. The topic is restricted to the collapse of WTC 7, the NIST report on it, and any additional information and analyses in the public domain about it.
2. Each person should make an opening statement explaining what they believe caused the collapse and briefing saying why they believe that.
3. tfk will go first after both participants make an opening statement on June 21, 2016.
4. Each person shall make no more than one post per day and cannot make another until it is responded to. Curious. Why stifle the flow of the debate in real time?
5. If a post is not responded to within a week the person not responding is considered to have forfeited.
6. Individual posts are limited to 500 words. Stifling again. Why? A lot of the time a technical explanation will require going way beyond 500 words and point by point rebuttals will require even more. Then on top of that you impose a cap of 50 posts for the entire debate?
7. There shall be no name calling, denigration, or defamatory language used. Only the subject material shall be discussed. If any of the above occurs the participant involved shall be considered to have forfeited the debate.
8. The debate will end after a maximum of 50 total posts, or earlier if the participants mutually agree to an earlier termination.

It should end when one of you says "uncle" or otherwise walks away. There should be no constraints on posting, time or amount of words. Seems to me like you're stacking the deck, unless you have a rational explanation for these rigid and counterproductive terms, not that I expect one.

Tony Szamboti · Jun 11, 2016

The reason for the 500 word per post limit here is to allow a reasonably rapid response, to actually keep the debate moving. Having to continuously respond to something the length of a technical paper (3,000 words) would inhibit the debate.

If more space is needed, for a particular point, it can be requested and I see no reason for not allowing it if there is legitimate justification.

TJM · Jun 11, 2016

If you want to "actually keep the debate moving", why stop it at one post per day?

Tony Szamboti · Jun 11, 2016

AJM8125 said:
If you want to "actually keep the debate moving", why stop it at one post per day?

I work outside the house and am gone for 12.5 hours a day during the week. I don't know what tfk's situation is but I don't think it is reasonable to ask someone in my situation to post to the debate more than once a day.

This really should be understood and one could say you are being rude with questioning it.

The debate/discussion is also technical in nature and that is why up to a week is allowed for a response.

I am not going to keep answering inanities.

Tony Szamboti · Jun 11, 2016

Spanx said:
I'm not really getting this.

What is wrong with two people having a thread on this forum and asking other people not to post?

What's with the rules and regulations?

While I'm at it, what's the best way to organise a piss up in a brewery.

In my first post here I asked others not to post on this thread, so I could communicate cleanly with tfk while still allowing others to see any pre-debate discussion, as he did not want to use PMs, and we see the results.

tfk · Jun 11, 2016

Tony,

I certainly hope that the execution of this debate is not going to go as badly as the set-up.

Please read this post.
Don’t skim over it.
Don’t ignore it.

Please RESPOND.
__

You challenged me to a debate. Let’s go thru a little bit of history to examine why that happened.

This is a list of my posts to you, in this thread alone, prior to your challenge. And your responses:

Note: In every one of these posts, I made specific engineering points that addressed some engineering point that you had made in a previous post. (Granted, mixed in with our usual snark.)

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=307442
Your response: Silence.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11304969&postcount=134
Your response: Silence.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11314191#post11314191
Your response:

Tony Szamboti said:
tfk, I consider you one of the most bombastic, and unreasonable persons I have ever come across. A real curmudgeon. Nobody even cares what you say in the nonsensical tomes you write here.

tfk said:
I'd suggest we get right to the heart of the matter: CD or no CD.

So something on the order of, "state your 3 or 4 strongest pieces of evidence for, or against, CD" as a start.

I'd suggest that both of us be required to address each major point that the other brings up.

I'd suggest that each post be 2 part:
Part 1. addressing the points that the other person made in the previous post,

Part 2: making any new points that we wish to bring up.

I'd suggest that, after a few posts addressing the first post (3 or 4 strongest evidence for/against CD), that we keep each post to a single new point.

Your response to my suggestions: Silence.
__

In this post, http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11323335&postcount=982 , you brought up 6 point.

In this post http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11323731&postcount=997 , I addressed every one of your points.

And requested a couple of changes / clarifications:

tfk said:
“… restricted to the technical / engineering aspects of the collapse …”
No interest in the politics or philosophy.

Include any technical / engineering aspect of collapse of WTC 1, 2 & 7.

“… and any other objectively verifiable info in the public domain …”

Your response: Silence.

And in the process, I reminded you of the points that I’d made in my previous post, which you had ignored.

tfk said:
I made a suggestion about:
1. first post: 3 strongest pieces of evidence for or against CD.
2. then 3 back & forths, one each addressing each topic.
3. previous “other person’s topic” must be addressed. No ignoring points.
4. After addressing old topic, then 1 new topic per post. Alternate bringing up new topics.
5. we should try to finish with one topic before moving on to next. (say, 2 posts each on any one topic.)
6. While we should try to be complete with each topic, short embellishment on earlier comments is allowed.

Each person must address, to some degree or other, all issues brought up by the other.
Neither one can merely ignore issues.

Your response: Silence.
__

In this post, http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11323431&postcount=985 , you listed 8 points.

In this post, http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11323762&postcount=999 , I answered every single one of your points.

I agreed with 6 of your points, but brought up two changes.

tfk said:
1. I’d prefer to include WTC 1&2. For the reasons listed in my previous post.

6. 500 word limit: WAY too restrictive. Use as many words as needed to get your point across.

Your response to my objections: Silence.
__

And now, after addressing none of my issues regarding the debate, you post:

Tony Szamboti said:
Of course, this particular debate is about the collapse of WTC 7. I had said I would be available to start on June 21st. On that date you should provide an opening statement giving your position on how you believe the building collapsed and some background on why you believe that and I will also.

No, Tony, we are not ready to go over there, until YOU address MY issues in the same manner that I have addressed YOUR issues.

When negotiating with someone, a person can choose to be honest & forthright.
Or one can attempt to be sleazy & manipulative.

Addressing the other person’s concerns directly & openly is honest & forthright.
Ignoring them is … well, you get the idea.

How are you going to interact with me, Tony?
__

Tony, one issue that I will bring up in the debate is this one: The only ways that you, & Cole, & Brookman, & Gage maintain the idiotic illusions that you spread are:

by refusing to bring your theories to independent experts for review.
by constantly ignoring all comments from qualified engineers & experts.

If we are to have this debate, you MUST address every point that I bring up.
even if it is just to say, "I have no answer for this."

I will do the same. I will address every point that you bring up.

But the tactic of ignoring issues is NOT going to be acceptable to me.

tfk · Jun 11, 2016

Tony Szamboti said:
In my first post here I asked others not to post on this thread, so I could communicate cleanly with tfk while still allowing others to see it, and we see the results.

Read my OP.
I invited anyone/everyone to post here.

There will be a separate thread, with no other posters, which will mirror the debate thread.

Tony Szamboti · Jun 11, 2016

tfk said:
Tony,

No, Tony, we are not ready to go over there, until YOU address MY issues in the same manner that I have addressed YOUR issues.

When negotiating with someone, a person can choose to be honest & forthright.
Or one can attempt to be sleazy & manipulative.

Addressing the other person’s concerns directly & openly is honest & forthright.
Ignoring them is … well, you get the idea.

How are you going to interact with me, Tony?
__

Tony, one issue that I will bring up in the debate is this one: The only ways that you, & Cole, & Brookman, & Gage maintain the idiotic illusions that you spread are:

by refusing to bring your theories to independent experts for review.

by constantly ignoring all comments from qualified engineers & experts.

If we are to have this debate, you MUST address every point that I bring up.
even if it is just to say, "I have no answer for this."

I will do the same. I will address every point that you bring up.

But the tactic of ignoring issues is NOT going to be acceptable to me.

I am not going to waste time responding to posts elsewhere on this forum. You did not want to discuss the rules and set up via PM and I am not going to hunt for each of your posts on a thread with many posters. Thus this thread has to serve as our pre-debate discussion.

As far as I am concerned there are only a few simple questions remaining and they are to you.

Do you accept the terms for the debate on the 911 free forum as shown in post #3 on this thread? If not, what do you want to change and why?

Are you willing to start on June 21st?

Spanx · Jun 11, 2016

Tony Szamboti said:
In my first post here I asked others not to post on this thread, so I could communicate cleanly with tfk while still allowing others to see any pre-debate discussion, as he did not want to use PMs, and we see the results.

Unfortunately you don't have control over this thread.

You are both online now, why not just start a thread now and go for it?

I'm sure no one else will post and Mods can delete if necessary.

Tony Szamboti · Jun 11, 2016

I have temporarily put everyone who posted on this thread, besides tfk, on my ignore list, so I can communicate with him without interruption.

tfk · Jun 11, 2016

NoahFence said:
IMO the only way to get an honest debate out of this is not just science and engineering. Common sense virtually destroys any and all controlled demolition scenario. It's that simple.

To a large degree, engineering is merely "quantified common sense".

But I take your point.

TJM · Jun 11, 2016

Tony Szamboti said:
I work outside the house and am gone for 12.5 hours a day during the week. I don't know what tfk's situation is but I don't think it is reasonable to ask someone in my situation to post to the debate more than once a day.

This really should be understood and one could say you are being rude with questioning it.

Nobody's asking you to and I understand completely. I also said something about not expecting a rational explanation. Good thing you don't disappoint. Rude.

Tony Szamboti said:
The debate/discussion is also technical in nature and that is why up to a week is allowed for a response.

I am not going to keep answering inanities.

It's OK Tony, it's your world and I'm just trying to see things from your perspective because from mine, it appears you want the gloves off with someone way above your rank and when he accepts, you announce you'll be fighting from inside your tank.

Whatever though. With or without your terms, tfk makes short work of you.

MileHighMadness · Jun 11, 2016

Well we got off to an interesting start.

Tony, as I told you before, I hope Richard Gage bought your dinner in Philadelphia, because it is the only thing you will get out of the 911 truth movement.

I will give you credit, you are a true believer. Unlike Richard Gage and David Ray Griffin, who are both lying con artists. Who are in the truth movement just to make money.

tfk · Jun 11, 2016

Here's my response:

1. The topic is restricted to the collapse of ~~WTC 7~~ WTC 1, 2 & 7, the NIST report on it, and any additional information and analyses in the public domain about it.

2. Each person should make an opening statement explaining what they believe caused the collapse of WTC 7 and briefing saying why they believe that.

2b. Each person should state the (approximately) 3 strongest pieces of evidence for/against CD. "CD vs. No CD" is the heart of the debate.

3. tfk will go first after both participants make an opening statement on June 21, 2016.

4. Each person shall make no more than one post per day and cannot make another until it is responded to.

5. If a post is not responded to within a week the person not responding is considered to have forfeited his turn & the other person will proceed with his next statement.

6. Individual posts are limited to ~~500~~ approximately 1000 words. [The purpose of this debate is to inform the readers about the engineering arguments. For those who might not appreciate the technical details, extended explanations may be necessary. These explanations may be contained in a PostScript, and not count against the word count.]

7. There shall be no name calling, denigration, or defamatory language used. Only the subject material shall be discussed. If any of the above occurs the participant involved shall be considered to have forfeited the debate. Each person should bring competent engineering arguments to the debate & wear their big-boy pants. Derogatory comments will be addressed only to arguments, not to individuals.

8. The debate will end after a maximum of 50 total posts, or earlier if the participants mutually agree to an earlier termination or whenever either participant decides to stop responding.

9. Each post will discuss one principle topic. Each topic consists of 4 posts. Person A will state a topic post, Person B replies, Person A counters, then Person B counters. And that topic is closed. Move on.

Then Person B leads off the next sequence.

10. Every point that either person brings up must be addressed in some manner by the other. Both parties will do their best to stay focused on the original topic point.

__

"Are you willing to start on June 21st?"
Yes.

tfk · Jun 11, 2016

Tony Szamboti said:
I am not going to waste time responding to posts elsewhere on this forum. You did not want to discuss the rules and set up via PM and I am not going to hunt for each of your posts on a thread with many posters. Thus this thread has to serve as our pre-debate discussion.

You intentionally miss the point of that post to which you are responding.

The set-up of the debate was not the topic of that post.

The fact that you consistently fail to reply to point after point after point after point WAS the topic.

And the fact that you failed to respond in any manner to my clearly stated adjustments to your original "rules for debate" was merely an ironic, additional example of that misbehavior.

Have the common courtesy to reply to all the points that I make. Not just the ones that are convenient to your purposes.
As I have replied to all of your points.

Dave Rogers · Jun 11, 2016

tfk said:
7. There shall be no name calling, denigration, or defamatory language used. Only the subject material shall be discussed. If any of the above occurs the participant involved shall be considered to have forfeited the debate. Each person should bring competent engineering arguments to the debate & wear their big-boy pants. Derogatory comments will be addressed only to arguments, not to individuals.

You really should have left that one in. Tony can only go a few posts at best without calling someone an idiot or accusing someone of complicity in mass murder. It would be the easiest debate win you ever saw.

Dave

beachnut · Jun 11, 2016

Tony Szamboti said:
I have temporarily put everyone who posted on this thread, besides tfk, on my ignore list, so I can communicate with him without interruption.

For 14 years 9/11 truth has "fire did it", and reality on the ignore list.

GlennB · Jun 11, 2016

Why this debate is scheduled for a forum so dead that the admin expresses great surprise at a new sign-up is quite a mystery to me.

Couldn't it be held here as a moderated one-on-one debate? What's the attraction of that particular place?

Seymour Butz · Jun 11, 2016

GlennB said:
What's the attraction of that particular place?

OWE doesn't like tfk and has a perverse affinity to those truthers.

So Tony feels like he can bend the rules and get away with it. And when tfk quits the debate because of it, Tony can then declare victory.

DGM · Jun 11, 2016

Seymour Butz said:
OWE doesn't like tfk and has a perverse affinity to those truthers.

So Tony feels like he can bend the rules and get away with it. And when tfk quits the debate because of it, Tony can then declare victory.

Why do you say he doesn't like tfk specifically?

TJM · Jun 11, 2016

DGM said:
Why do you say he doesn't like tfk specifically?

It's in their pre-debate thread over there.

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/transcript-of-debate-arrangements-t767.html

You may or may not know, tfk was formerly a member but I banned him due to his toxic nature. I never wanted to see that son of a bitch here again, but your proposal has made me rethink that position.

ETA: provided link.

Georgio · Jun 11, 2016

Seymour Butz said:
So Tony feels like he can bend the rules and get away with it. And when tfk quits the debate because of it, Tony can then declare victory.

Sadly, this is my feeling also. Hopefully we're both just being unfair and will be proved wrong.

DGM · Jun 11, 2016

AJM8125 said:
It's in their pre-debate thread over there.

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/transcript-of-debate-arrangements-t767.html

ETA: provided link.

Too tell you the truth, I'm not sure I can argue against that. You can't say he doesn't have a very rigid nature to his posts. This could easily be taken as abusive to someone that holds an alternative view.

I'll look at the thread over there when I get a chance.

GlennB · Jun 11, 2016

DGM said:
Too tell you the truth, I'm not sure I can argue against that. You can't say he doesn't have a very rigid nature to his posts. This could easily be taken as abusive to someone that holds an alternative view.

I'll look at the thread over there when I get a chance.

I wouldn't say tfk is rigid at all. "Sturdy" and forthright, sure, but a million miles from "toxic". Also he laces his posts with facts.

That OneWhiteEye might object to all that is no surprise. Nobody gets banned here for coming across, however subjectively, as "toxic". I admit to having been banned several times from Truther forums despite having broken none of their forum rules but just on the whim of a mod, which seems to be the case with OWE and tfk.

DGM · Jun 11, 2016

GlennB said:
I wouldn't say tfk is rigid at all. "Sturdy" and forthright, sure, but a million miles from "toxic". Also he laces his posts with facts.

That OneWhiteEye might object to all that is no surprise. Nobody gets banned here for coming across, however subjectively, as "toxic". I admit to having been banned several times from Truther forums despite having broken none of their forum rules but just on the whim of a mod, which seems to be the case with OWE and tfk.

This depends. He can and has been personally insulting to members due to their differing views. Members here have been banned due to continued personal attacks. I'm not saying they have not applied the ban hammer with little provocation, JFK banned my in 4 post and I never did anything against the rules.

Time will tell and I'm sure everyone will be watching carefully. Maybe I'll change my mind if I looked at the posts that got him banned but, I doubt I'll make the effort.

TJM · Jun 11, 2016

GlennB said:
I wouldn't say tfk is rigid at all. "Sturdy" and forthright, sure, but a million miles from "toxic". Also he laces his posts with facts.

That's the reason why he's seen as toxic.

NoahFence · Jun 12, 2016

Tony Szamboti said:
The reason for the 500 word per post limit here is to allow a reasonably rapid response, to actually keep the debate moving. Having to continuously respond to something the length of a technical paper (3,000 words) would inhibit the debate.

If more space is needed, for a particular point, it can be requested and I see no reason for not allowing it if there is legitimate justification.

Why would keeping the debate moving be a concern if you're only allowed one post per day?

beachnut · Jun 12, 2016

GlennB said:
Why this debate is scheduled for a forum so dead that the admin expresses great surprise at a new sign-up is quite a mystery to me.

Couldn't it be held here as a moderated one-on-one debate? What's the attraction of that particular place?

The admin turned off sign up for a time. I think the admin like being in control, and is an example of, "better to reign in hell (911ff), than serve in heaven (isf)". To sign up years ago, you had to pass the BS test of some unknown set of criteria.

With the top traffic a thread titled, "just plain idiots", and the ability to post weak attacks on those at ISF in some paranoid group think celebration. Plus they fail to debunk lies and let them stand unopposed.

The CD claim is idiotic, not sure how to debate fantasy. However, I did convince my daughter "Santa" existed and kept her from spreading the "lie" he did not. But the delusion of CD is not supported with more than delusional paranoid nonsense.

"The aircraft were a ruse", by Tony, is more than enough evidence to dismiss Tony's lies of CD as failed fantasy. Not sure why OWE is unable to see Tony is full of BS, and why OWE can't say it. Wait, maybe OWE did say it... there is a thread plotting on Tony at the forum of pop-up malicious software.

Crazy Chainsaw · Jun 12, 2016

beachnut said:
The admin turned off sign up for a time. I think the admin like being in control, and is an example of, "better to reign in hell (911ff), than serve in heaven (isf)". To sign up years ago, you had to pass the BS test of some unknown set of criteria.

With the top traffic a thread titled, "just plain idiots", and the ability to post weak attacks on those at ISF in some paranoid group think celebration. Plus they fail to debunk lies and let them stand unopposed.

The CD claim is idiotic, not sure how to debate fantasy. However, I did convince my daughter "Santa" existed and kept her from spreading the "lie" he did not. But the delusion of CD is not supported with more than delusional paranoid nonsense.

"The aircraft were a ruse", by Tony, is more than enough evidence to dismiss Tony's lies of CD as failed fantasy. Not sure why OWE is unable to see Tony is full of BS, and why OWE can't say it. Wait, may OWE did say it... there is a thread plotting on Tony at the forum of pop-up malicious software.

One White Eye Knows Tony is as you say, he is just trying to be fair to the guidelines of the forum, as he promised Years ago.

An open discussion.

The Forum was basicly a replacement for physorg because trolling got to bad on physorg, and moderation did not take action.

Tony Szamboti vs. tfk Debate

Illuminator

Illuminator

Illuminator

Illuminator

Banned

Illuminator

Philosopher

Master Poster

Skeptic not Atheist

Muse

Penultimate Amazing

Potsing Whiled Runk

Illuminator

Potsing Whiled Runk

Illuminator

Illuminator

Illuminator

Illuminator

Illuminator

Master Poster

Illuminator

Illuminator

Potsing Whiled Runk

Muse

Illuminator

Illuminator

Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through

Penultimate Amazing

Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian

Muse

Skeptic not Atheist

Potsing Whiled Runk

Muse

Skeptic not Atheist

Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian

Skeptic not Atheist

Potsing Whiled Runk

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Philosopher