T Nation

The Way of the Troll

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Nothing in that link to suggest that Michael Sweeney wrote it. [/quote]

http://www.whale.to/m/disin.html

[quote]
Not sure where it is originally from, like I stated, but I have seen the tactics used quite a bit. Usually by the same groups of people, over and over as if choreographed.[/quote]

Here? By whom, exactly?

Cool, thanks. Updated the OP with author credit.

Never heard of Sweeney before. Looking up some vids now, but not having a lot of luck.

Alright. Checked out some more of his stuff. Some of it seems far-fetched but a lot of what he talks about is stuff I’ve known for years. Sonic weapons, rad weapons, directed emp’s, testing and/or surveillance on civilians without their knowledge…

I could probably list a couple of things he doesn’t touch on that are completely normal and commercially available that can be used against you.

How does this make the information at the top of the page false again?

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Alright. Checked out some more of his stuff. Some of it seems far-fetched but a lot of what he talks about is stuff I’ve known for years. Sonic weapons, rad weapons, directed emp’s, testing and/or surveillance on civilians without their knowledge…

I could probably list a couple of things he doesn’t touch on that are completely normal and commercially available that can be used against you.

How does this make the information at the top of the page false again?[/quote]

He wraps himself in the same old canards–9/11 was an inside job, the NWO, probably thinks that the academic community unanimously agrees that FDR had foreknowledge of Pearl Harbor, etc.

This means that nothing he writes can be taken seriously. Case closed.

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Alright. Checked out some more of his stuff. Some of it seems far-fetched but a lot of what he talks about is stuff I’ve known for years. Sonic weapons, rad weapons, directed emp’s, testing and/or surveillance on civilians without their knowledge…

I could probably list a couple of things he doesn’t touch on that are completely normal and commercially available that can be used against you.

How does this make the information at the top of the page false again?[/quote]

He wraps himself in the same old canards–9/11 was an inside job, the NWO, probably thinks that the academic community unanimously agrees that FDR had foreknowledge of Pearl Harbor, etc.

This means that nothing he writes can be taken seriously. Case closed.[/quote]
The fact that you believe you are the ultimate authority on who is believable and who is not is the reason I don’t take you seriously.

I don’t agree with everything the guy says, but I’m not going to discredit every single thing he says because of it. People get stuff wrong. People disagree. I have a friend that’s far left and we disagree all the time, but we’re still friends. Close friends, in fact.

It’s called being rational. It’s called being a realist. Some people just call it ‘being an adult’.

An adult can separate fact from opinion from fiction and take note of the points they don’t know so they can research them later and form a proper opinion. They can disagree with some points and agree with others. Even if it all comes from the same person during the same conversation, and all without judging the person telling it. Within reason, of course.

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Alright. Checked out some more of his stuff. Some of it seems far-fetched but a lot of what he talks about is stuff I’ve known for years. Sonic weapons, rad weapons, directed emp’s, testing and/or surveillance on civilians without their knowledge…

I could probably list a couple of things he doesn’t touch on that are completely normal and commercially available that can be used against you.

How does this make the information at the top of the page false again?[/quote]

He wraps himself in the same old canards–9/11 was an inside job, the NWO, probably thinks that the academic community unanimously agrees that FDR had foreknowledge of Pearl Harbor, etc.

This means that nothing he writes can be taken seriously. Case closed.[/quote]
The fact that you believe you are the ultimate authority on who is believable and who is not is the reason I don’t take you seriously.

I don’t agree with everything the guy says, but I’m not going to discredit every single thing he says because of it. People get stuff wrong. People disagree. I have a friend that’s far left and we disagree all the time, but we’re still friends. Close friends, in fact.

It’s called being rational. It’s called being a realist. Some people just call it ‘being an adult’.

An adult can separate fact from opinion from fiction and take note of the points they don’t know so they can research them later and form a proper opinion. They can disagree with some points and agree with others. Even if it all comes from the same person during the same conversation, and all without judging the person telling it. Within reason, of course.[/quote]

This has nothing to do with friendship or judgement.

9/11 “truthers” are simply not considered credible: a man or woman who subscribes to the theory that the United States government was behind the September 11 attacks has shown such a devastating lack of judgement and intellect on that issue that it would be a reckless mistake to treat anything he or she says or writes with anything less than iron incredulity.

In short, it’s not good to copy and paste something written by someone who has also written that George W. Bush planned the destruction of the World Trade Center.

That’s not smh23’s rule, that’s just the way of the wonderful, mostly-not-crazy world we live in.

In other words, “do you see over yonder, friend Sancho, thirty or forty hulking giants? I intend to do battle with them and slay them. With their spoils we shall begin to be rich for this is a righteous war and the removal of so foul a brood from off the face of the earth is a service God will bless.”

[quote]smh23 wrote:

This has nothing to do with friendship or judgement.

9/11 “truthers” are simply not considered credible: a man or woman who subscribes to the theory that the United States government was behind the September 11 attacks has shown such a devastating lack of judgement and intellect on that issue that it would be a reckless mistake to treat anything he or she says or writes with anything less than iron incredulity.

In short, it’s not good to copy and paste something written by someone who has also written that George W. Bush planned the destruction of the World Trade Center.

That’s not smh23’s rule, that’s just the way of the wonderful, mostly-not-crazy world we live in.[/quote]
So you base credibility on agreement or disagreement with the official 9/11 story?

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

This has nothing to do with friendship or judgement.

9/11 “truthers” are simply not considered credible: a man or woman who subscribes to the theory that the United States government was behind the September 11 attacks has shown such a devastating lack of judgement and intellect on that issue that it would be a reckless mistake to treat anything he or she says or writes with anything less than iron incredulity.

In short, it’s not good to copy and paste something written by someone who has also written that George W. Bush planned the destruction of the World Trade Center.

That’s not smh23’s rule, that’s just the way of the wonderful, mostly-not-crazy world we live in.[/quote]
So you base credibility on agreement or disagreement with the official 9/11 story?[/quote]

Jesus. It’s simple:

If a guy walks up to me and tells me that little green aliens abducted him in the 90’s and raped him repeatedly before implanting him with computer chips and dropping him back off on Earth, I’m not going to believe the next sentence out of his mouth, no matter what it is.

“Truthers” lose credibility. Sex offenders don’t get to babysit my kids. Fat people don’t get to give me training advice. Actions have consequences.

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

This has nothing to do with friendship or judgement.

9/11 “truthers” are simply not considered credible: a man or woman who subscribes to the theory that the United States government was behind the September 11 attacks has shown such a devastating lack of judgement and intellect on that issue that it would be a reckless mistake to treat anything he or she says or writes with anything less than iron incredulity.

In short, it’s not good to copy and paste something written by someone who has also written that George W. Bush planned the destruction of the World Trade Center.

That’s not smh23’s rule, that’s just the way of the wonderful, mostly-not-crazy world we live in.[/quote]
So you base credibility on agreement or disagreement with the official 9/11 story?[/quote]

Jesus. It’s simple:

If a guy walks up to me and tells me that little green aliens abducted him in the 90’s and raped him repeatedly before implanting him with computer chips and dropping him back off on Earth, I’m not going to believe the next sentence out of his mouth, no matter what it is.

“Truthers” lose credibility. Sex offenders don’t get to babysit my kids. Fat people don’t get to give me training advice. Actions have consequences.[/quote]
Wait, what? Do they ‘lose credibility’ or should they be treated with ‘iron incredulity’. Those are not the same, you know. Make up your mind.

And you seriously equate those who doubt the official 9/11 story with sex offenders and ‘abductees’?

In the realm of objective reasoning ability, you’re not doing yourself any favors.

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

This has nothing to do with friendship or judgement.

9/11 “truthers” are simply not considered credible: a man or woman who subscribes to the theory that the United States government was behind the September 11 attacks has shown such a devastating lack of judgement and intellect on that issue that it would be a reckless mistake to treat anything he or she says or writes with anything less than iron incredulity.

In short, it’s not good to copy and paste something written by someone who has also written that George W. Bush planned the destruction of the World Trade Center.

That’s not smh23’s rule, that’s just the way of the wonderful, mostly-not-crazy world we live in.[/quote]
So you base credibility on agreement or disagreement with the official 9/11 story?[/quote]

Jesus. It’s simple:

If a guy walks up to me and tells me that little green aliens abducted him in the 90’s and raped him repeatedly before implanting him with computer chips and dropping him back off on Earth, I’m not going to believe the next sentence out of his mouth, no matter what it is.

“Truthers” lose credibility. Sex offenders don’t get to babysit my kids. Fat people don’t get to give me training advice. Actions have consequences.[/quote]
Wait, what? Do they ‘lose credibility’ or should they be treated with ‘iron incredulity’. Those are not the same, you know. Make up your mind.

And you seriously equate those who doubt the official 9/11 story with sex offenders and ‘abductees’?

In the realm of objective reasoning ability, you’re not doing yourself any favors.[/quote]

An analogy is not “equating.”

Smh23 is to women between the ages of 18 and 29 as a pederast is to boys between the ages of 8 and 12.

That’s an analogy, and a perfectly reasonable one. Not an expression of equality. Understand?

Re: iron incredulity and losing credibility–what in the name of secret CIA telepathy research are you talking about? Call it what you want, they are not to be believed. They are stupid. That’s it.

No amount of hairsplitting or nitpicking is going to change the fact that you’ve been copying and pasting the writings of a 9/11 “truther”–a fact which strongly suggests that you do indeed, as TB speculated above, frequent the “tinfoil hat” corners of the internet.

Enough said, I think.

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

This has nothing to do with friendship or judgement.

9/11 “truthers” are simply not considered credible: a man or woman who subscribes to the theory that the United States government was behind the September 11 attacks has shown such a devastating lack of judgement and intellect on that issue that it would be a reckless mistake to treat anything he or she says or writes with anything less than iron incredulity.

In short, it’s not good to copy and paste something written by someone who has also written that George W. Bush planned the destruction of the World Trade Center.

That’s not smh23’s rule, that’s just the way of the wonderful, mostly-not-crazy world we live in.[/quote]
So you base credibility on agreement or disagreement with the official 9/11 story?[/quote]

Jesus. It’s simple:

If a guy walks up to me and tells me that little green aliens abducted him in the 90’s and raped him repeatedly before implanting him with computer chips and dropping him back off on Earth, I’m not going to believe the next sentence out of his mouth, no matter what it is.

“Truthers” lose credibility. Sex offenders don’t get to babysit my kids. Fat people don’t get to give me training advice. Actions have consequences.[/quote]
Wait, what? Do they ‘lose credibility’ or should they be treated with ‘iron incredulity’. Those are not the same, you know. Make up your mind.

And you seriously equate those who doubt the official 9/11 story with sex offenders and ‘abductees’?

In the realm of objective reasoning ability, you’re not doing yourself any favors.[/quote]

An analogy is not “equating.”

Smh23 is to women between the ages of 18 and 29 as a pederast is to boys between the ages of 8 and 12.

That’s an analogy, and a perfectly reasonable one. Not an expression of equality. Understand?[/quote]
I understand analogies just fine. You painted “truthers” as an analogue to sex offenders, relative to the ideas of credibility and trustworthiness, respectively.

I’m not sure why you don’t have relationships with women between the ages of 18 and 29 (if your analogy is correct, they’re not quite old enough for you), but whatever floats your boat.

Your words. Direct quotes. Above.

So then, you believe the official story about the 9/11 attacks? 100%?

[quote]No amount of hairsplitting or nitpicking is going to change the fact that you’ve been copying and pasting the writings of a 9/11 “truther”–a fact which strongly suggests that you do indeed, as TB speculated above, frequent the “tinfoil hat” corners of the internet.

Enough said, I think.[/quote]
How is it that you know more about those tinfoil hat corners than I do?

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

This has nothing to do with friendship or judgement.

9/11 “truthers” are simply not considered credible: a man or woman who subscribes to the theory that the United States government was behind the September 11 attacks has shown such a devastating lack of judgement and intellect on that issue that it would be a reckless mistake to treat anything he or she says or writes with anything less than iron incredulity.

In short, it’s not good to copy and paste something written by someone who has also written that George W. Bush planned the destruction of the World Trade Center.

That’s not smh23’s rule, that’s just the way of the wonderful, mostly-not-crazy world we live in.[/quote]
So you base credibility on agreement or disagreement with the official 9/11 story?[/quote]

Jesus. It’s simple:

If a guy walks up to me and tells me that little green aliens abducted him in the 90’s and raped him repeatedly before implanting him with computer chips and dropping him back off on Earth, I’m not going to believe the next sentence out of his mouth, no matter what it is.

“Truthers” lose credibility. Sex offenders don’t get to babysit my kids. Fat people don’t get to give me training advice. Actions have consequences.[/quote]
Wait, what? Do they ‘lose credibility’ or should they be treated with ‘iron incredulity’. Those are not the same, you know. Make up your mind.

And you seriously equate those who doubt the official 9/11 story with sex offenders and ‘abductees’?

In the realm of objective reasoning ability, you’re not doing yourself any favors.[/quote]

An analogy is not “equating.”

Smh23 is to women between the ages of 18 and 29 as a pederast is to boys between the ages of 8 and 12.

That’s an analogy, and a perfectly reasonable one. Not an expression of equality. Understand?[/quote]
I understand analogies just fine. You painted “truthers” as an analogue to sex offenders, relative to the ideas of credibility and trustworthiness, respectively.

I’m not sure why you don’t have relationships with women between the ages of 18 and 29 (if your analogy is correct, they’re not quite old enough for you), but whatever floats your boat.
[/quote]

What the fuck are you talking about?

smh23 - sex with - women between 18-29.

pederast - sex with - kids.

Anyway: where exactly did you copy and paste the “25 rules” drivel from? A link would be nice.

[quote]smh23 wrote:

What the fuck are you talking about?

smh23 - sex with - women between 18-29.

pederast - sex with - kids.

Anyway: where exactly did you copy and paste the “25 rules” drivel from? A link would be nice.[/quote]
See, I do a little thing called ‘fact checking’ when I don’t know something for sure. As it turns out, a pederast has sexual relationships with boys from 12 to 17 years old. You said 8-12, which would be too young even for a pederast.

Do you, or do you not, believe the 9/11 official story in its entirety?

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

What the fuck are you talking about?

smh23 - sex with - women between 18-29.

pederast - sex with - kids.

Anyway: where exactly did you copy and paste the “25 rules” drivel from? A link would be nice.[/quote]
See, I do a little thing called ‘fact checking’ when I don’t know something for sure. As it turns out, a pederast has sexual relationships with boys from 12 to 17 years old. You said 8-12, which would be too young even for a pederast.

Do you, or do you not, believe the 9/11 official story in its entirety?[/quote]

You are unbelievably obtuse. And almost always wrong:

Pederast: one who practices anal intercourse especially with a boy (Webster’s).

I believe that al-Qaeda planned and executed the attack. I do not believe that a single member of the Bush administration had foreknowledge of it or anything like a hand in planning it.

I believe that “truthers” are insultingly stupid.

Do you disagree?

Now, answer my question: where exactly did you copy the “25 rules” nonsense from. If it wasn’t a conspiracy website, then paste the link.

One of the most obvious tell-tales of a troll is the absolute refusal to give a yes or no answer. You seem to be pretty absolute that ‘truthers’ are stupid and have absolutely no credibility whatsoever, but when it comes to giving a concrete answer to a direct question, all of a sudden you start squirming.

Do you believe the official story of the 9/11 attacks in its entirety?

YES or NO?

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

Do you believe the official story of the 9/11 attacks in its entirety?

YES or NO?[/quote]

Holy…crap. Really?

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
One of the most obvious tell-tales of a troll is the absolute refusal to give a yes or no answer. You seem to be pretty absolute that ‘truthers’ are stupid and have absolutely no credibility whatsoever, but when it comes to giving a concrete answer to a direct question, all of a sudden you start squirming.

Do you believe the official story of the 9/11 attacks in its entirety?

YES or NO?[/quote]

Because it’s a fucking stupid question. What do you mean by official story, exactly?

I believe what I’ve said I believe. Insofar as that is the “official story,” the answer is yes.

Do you not?

Now: where did you copy the list from?

I will try again: if you don’t frequent conspiracy websites (which, by the way, it is painfully obvious to literally everyone on this board that you do), then where did the list come from?

If I had to guess, I’d say you’re stalling right now so that you can try and find that exact list on a semi-reputable website. If you don’t paste the link now, I’ll assume you don’t want to have this conversation and back away slowly, tinfoil hat in hand.

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

Do you believe the official story of the 9/11 attacks in its entirety?

YES or NO?[/quote]

Holy…crap. Really?[/quote]

Thank you for confirming to me that we are all still sane, sir. I thought I was losing my mind in here for a minute.