Superhero Gatekeepers
posted by Pat @ 4:31 PM
21 comments
As Seen in Vanity Fair's August 2006 Issue!
As Seen in US News & World Report's September 11 Fifth Anniversary Issue!
As Seen in Time Magazine's September 11, 2006 Issue!
As Seen in Phoenix New Times' August 9, 2007 Issue!
Sunday, April 01, 2007
Previous Posts
- The Crazy Canuck is Back!
- A Truther Is Born....
- Scholars Announce "Girls of 9/11 Truth" Calender
- Yet Moron Rosie
- Best Loose Change Forum Post, Ever
- Descent Into Tyranny II : Anti-Military Paranoia
- Aussie Al-Qaeda Admits Guilt
- PM Takes On Rosie
- Alex Jones: Descent into Tyranny
- Michael Savage Is An Idiot
View My Stats
Allies:
21 Comments:
Well, you were obviously busy blogging this so you couldn't respond on your other blog. I understand. I'll just post it here:
>>>Pat--BTW is it Curley or Curtiss? Or is it a big secret?--that sounds wonderfully reasonable, as if it's just this neutral source except for this:
http://www.911bloglines.com/aggregator
Why the hell would he have the same type of permanent top post? Yeah, it's on the "911Screw Loose Watch" too, but the link I just gave you was for the NEWS AGGREGATOR. You have to see that looks bizzare. Don't think so? Then I'll be back to post another bit of bizzareness--about how Nico posts copies of your blog on his site.
Sorry, Pat--this is a wacky twoofer site--or alledges to be--as a debunk, you going there for news, even links, looks dodgy. Unless you're about to tell me you spend hours--or at least minutes(hopefully)-- double checking what you've found there to be certain it's complete and unaltered.
You do know it's a Rick Seigel site, right? Course you do. I suppose the real question is, you do realize for those of us who know 911bloglines is a Rick Seigel site, that anyone who seems as with it as you'd like to believe then claims to go there for news, looks painfully naive or suspicious.
Whether it's conscious or not, that means you push Rick Seigel's propaganda.
You probably think Jenny's just beating on you because you're a debunk. But this really did start when you said the reason you are so soft on Nico at Screw Loose is because you regularly visit his news "service".
Perk up your ears Pat--Nico doesn't have a secret magic button that prevents you from viewing 911bloglines if you delete his spam. Everyone hates spam. Spam is not free speech. Spam is not an opinion. Anyone else, if their blog was spammed, would delete the spam. NOT deleting Nico Haupt's spam is beyond bizzare behavior for anyone, but particularly a debunk like you and James--unless you have an agenda.
And what the hell kind of agenda could a debunk and a shill pretending to be a "twoofer" share? Sorry, but that is the next question...
Jenny Sparks | 04.01.07 - 4:02 am | # <<<
Figured I'd give you a fair chance before posting the Nico stuff on your blog. (the above was originally posted on Brainster's Blog)
Well, I can't wait around all day. I'll check back when I have time. Until then, try to behave...
Jenny, you are not reading carefully enough; that IS our top post. I am sure that the problem lies in his RSS feed constantly showing that newer than anything else out there. I don't use that page anymore, I use his aggregator/sources page--it's a quick look at what's been posted elsewhere lately.
As for letting him spam the comments, he does not abuse the privilege, and we've allowed many others--Killtown, Bill Giltner, etc., to do the same thing. If it bothers you that much, I'll promote his spam out to the front page.
Spam is a priviledge? Wow, that's the first I've ever heard of such a thing. Spam? Privilage? WTF?
Pat, it doesn't bother me one way or the other--this is a debunk site. I only point it out because it is SOOOOOOO bizarre. You may as well say you don't mind telemarketers ringing you--and he's a "twoofer"?
Spam--by definition-is abuse of privilages. The fact you(and/or James) allow him to do it calls into question your motives. And no, I haven't noticed bg or others do this, but that could be because I'm relatively new.
As for me not reading 911bloglines clearly--it's simple--one goes there, clicks on the "news agregator" and one sees a copy of your permanent top post--with a reworked date. It's supposed to be the NEWS AGGREGATOR--he's got a separate "Screw Loose" Watch(also with your top post--so what is your top post doing at the top of his news page--with a reworked date so it stays there?)
Yeah, you click on "sources" and it gives the abreviated list which you use, fine--but that's not my point. There's nothing wrong with the feed --someone reworked the date to keep the post there, because it's not the same as your date. And if it is now, I've copied the old pages, so I know they weren't.
So I guess you're ready for the other Nico stuff---(originally posted in another SLC thread)
>>> Another odd thing is that Nico's 911Screw Loose Change Watch
each post has a separate time he, presumably, posted it. But if he's really just copying this site, he would have noticed there are a collection of daily posts--and save himself time by just waiting until Pat and James were done for the day, and copy ALL the day's posts into ONE post with ONE date. Its not like he's including the comments.
Whatever our Nico is doing, he's not just copy/pasting from looking at this blog online--he's getting his information from another source that breaks each days posts down into separate files.
Just seems really cumbersome if all you are is a guy on your own copying and pasting stuff...
31 March, 2007 19:26<<<
This really is all beside the point. The point is why go to 911Bloglines at all? Don't debunks have a better news source? Don't you mind it's all Rick Seigel propoganda? Do you double check and research what you find there before blogging it here? 911 activists don't go there for ANY kind of reliable news--we go there only occasionaly to watch the disinfo trainwreck.
I know you're smart enough to know Nico Haupt is not the most stable individual, much less 911activist, and I think you're cleverer than James gives you credit for. So--do YOU really believe James has NEVER visited 911Bloglines as he told me not too long ago?
You don't have to answer chum--just think about how unlikely that is...along with Jimbo's "I don't care what the Chinese think about 911" statment of philistinism.
So why is James concerned about debunking the "twoof" if he doesn't care what people think?
Spam is a privilage...
Rick Seigel...
James Bennet...
Patrick--sorry love, I don't know which surname to use--you've never clairified...
Nico Haupt...
Screw Loose Change...
911Bloglines...
If there is a connection, it can be found.
I'll be a gentlewoman and let it go...for now.
Geez woman, whatever medicine you are on, I would change the dosage.
If there is a connection, it can be found.
The proud motto of all the coincidence theorists! I eagerly look forward to whatever tosh you might make up on this issue, Jenny.
[Jenny]
Must... prattle... incessantly... about... Nico... Haupt... can't... let... on... real... feelings... for... him...
[/Jenny]
For someone who claims to hate spam, Jenny hasn't been shy about promoting her own blog here.
Nice Jenny! Don't expect too many up front answers. And you know very well they don't care what people think, silly question dear.
BTW, Superman wouldn't even let Jimmy Olson prove WTC 7.
I think that says it all about a debunks line of logic. Call 'em crazy, throw them in the slammer for even raising questions and trying to prove something correct! Kind of like Bill O'Riley and free speech, eh.
Don't expect too many up front answers.
Oh, for Pete's sake.
Swing Dangler, I know your retrograde amnesia has to work overtime to keep any contrary evidence from seeping into your Twoof-soaked skull, but this thread, in which a structural engineer posted lengthy, polite answers to your multiple, impolite questions, was only four freaking days ago. In fact, you just posted to it.
Not to mention this thread from only a few days before that, which saw multiple attempts to explain things to Spoonfed.
I can recall many, many attempts over the months to civilly explain to Truthers why the "OCT" is the correct explanation for the events we discuss here. Maybe I'll go through the archive and compile a list, just to illustrate how obstinate you people are.
It you want to ignore contrary evidence and cling to your belief in conspiracy, fine. But could you at least have the decency to acknowledge when people are trying to help you?
Trite, I did exactly that with Newton. He has been the one person on this blog who has remained civil when answering my questions, especially from a person who works in the engineering field.
I was referring to the vast number of posters on here who are exactly the opposite of Newton.
If the OCT is OCF, why are there so many issues with the OCT? If it were an open and shut case, there WOULD BE NO TRUTH MOVEMENT. It is really that simple.
"If it were an open and shut case, there WOULD BE NO TRUTH MOVEMENT. It is really that simple."
"If it was so obvious that the world was round, there WOULD BE NO FLAT EARTH SOCIETY. It's the scientist's fault for making us ask these ridiculous questions."
He has been the one person on this blog who has remained civil when answering my questions
Typical Twoofer retreat:
"Don't expect too many up front answers."
"What about that guy last week?"
"Okay, one person's been civil."
You know full well plenty of people have been reasonable with you here. I've even managed it once or twice. You're free to disagree with these people on the facts if you wish, but it's revealing that the basic courtesy of appreciating the efforts of others is beyond you.
why is James concerned about debunking the "twoof" if he doesn't care what people think?
He cares what people in the relevant fields think, asking everyone you meet about it just makes you look like a nut, especially in a foriegn country.
Nice Jenny! Don't expect too many up front answers. And you know very well they don't care what people think, silly question dear.
Yeah, well, hope springs eternal...;-)
I think that says it all about a debunks line of logic. Call 'em crazy, throw them in the slammer for even raising questions and trying to prove something correct! Kind of like Bill O'Riley and free speech, eh.
They do not seem to be much with the logic. Or, rather, there is a double standard:
If Pat and James quote something from 911bloglines--a Rick Seigel disinfo factory--all these alledged "debunkers" don't think to question it just because it's Pat and James--if a debunker says it, it must be reliable, reguardless of the source.
But if I quoted something from Nico's news aggregator, debunks would act as if I got it from the "Weekly World News", next to Elvis' alien love child.
For all you debunks who still don't get Jenny's "obsession", it is really that bad--Pat and James taking ANYTHING from Nico's news aggregator is the online equivalent of taking "news" from a supermarket tabloid. Even if it's true, the published source calls into question their credability.
Now, it could be Pat double checks and does his own research too, but he hasn't clairified...
[So/Twoof]some vague semi witty put down of Jenny, with mucho COURAGE.COM, while privately scared shitless Jenny will call him a coward again if he censors her on his non-blog [/So/Twoof]
He cares what people in the relevant fields think, asking everyone you meet about it just makes you look like a nut, especially in a foriegn country.
Right. And there was NO WAY POSSIBLE, before or after arriving, Jimbo could have looked up any 911groups, or more broadly, Chinese activist groups who might have an opinion. Or individual activists. Like Wang Yi, for instance.
If you claim your purpose is educating the public, getting a feel for the "man on the street" is always worth while.
But that would be real research, not glorified internet stenography...
Don't worry, my little debunks; just keep ignoring the inconsistancies as they add up. Repeat after Pat: Spam is a privilage, spam is a privilage...
I think everyone could use lessons in civility. Myself included. Dialoge resolves differences, it is necessary to remain civil, even when one thinks the others mind has been poisoned.
But that would be real research, not glorified internet stenography...
The irony of a Truther saying this to someone else is mind-boggling. If you've 'researched' anything, Jenny, you're keeping it under your hat; likewise swing has only just managed to Google the phrase "engineering firms"! In five years! And even then someone else had to do it for him!
And there was NO WAY POSSIBLE, before or after arriving, Jimbo could have looked up any 911groups, or more broadly, Chinese activist groups who might have an opinion.
I tell you what: how about we take up a collection and send you to China, and you can go around Tianemen Square asking people if they think the government is involved in a coverup.
The irony of a Truther saying this to someone else is mind-boggling.
No kidding.
To them Google is the Library of Alexandria.
No kidding.
To them Google is the Library of Alexandria.
Funny thing is Jimbo has a simular view.
Not too long ago he posted something about how, because the internet is censored in China, the Chinese aren't as informed.
So just add James Bennet to those who consider the Net --and, presumably, the search engines used--the source of the informed.
Hey, maybe he's REALLY a twoofer...
;-)
It's not just the internet that's censored you dolt.
Post a Comment
<< Home