Sunday, November 06, 2011

Occupy Envy?

There are, in my opinion, two buffoonish movements in this country that are bound to fail. But one of them is young, vibrant, growing and has captured the imagination of the media. The other one is the Truth Movement. No surprise, the Truthers are a little envious of the Occupy Wall Street crowd. "We are the 99%" has proven a more effective rallying cry than "9-11 was an inside job!" Well, if you can't beat them, join them.
Occupy Building 7 November 19 and 20
I have to give them a little credit. Usually the Truthers come up with these grandiose plans that have no chance of succeeding, like getting Steve Alten's cruddy book on the bestseller list, or getting 10,000 architects and engineers to sign Box Boy's petition. This time they have actually come up with a plan that could conceivably work:
March from Liberty Plaza to WTC 7 at noon each day. Occupy the park in front of WTC 7 until nightfall.
I haven't looked at Google Maps, but I'd guess that the march is maybe a half mile. November 19th and 20th are the Saturday and Sunday after next. Nightfall in New York City can't be much after 5:00 PM this time of year. It certainly seems doable. Could this be the first successful action by the 9-11 Truthers?

76 Comments:

At 06 November, 2011 17:48, Blogger Ian said...

It's not even a half mile. Zuccotti Park to WTC 7 is basically 5 blocks, or 1/3 of a mile.

Could this be the first successful action by the 9-11 Truthers?

It could be, I suppose. But it could also be another abject embarrassment, if the march has 7 people and the rest of the OWS crowd remains in Zuccotti Park. I'm betting on the latter happening.

 
At 06 November, 2011 17:54, Blogger Ian said...

Another difference between OWS and 9/11 Truth is that OWS is a reaction to real events and real facts on the ground. One can disagree over what, if anything, should be done about the unemployment problem, or the growing level of income inequality in this country, but they're both real issues.

9/11 truth is based on fantasies about magic thermite and holographic planes and death-ray beams from space and modified attack baboons. It has no basis in reality.

 
At 06 November, 2011 18:01, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, 9/11 truth is based on perceptions that were commonplace in the days after 9/11--the resemblance of the collapses to controlled demolition, the mysterious collapse of WTC7, NORAD's inaction on 9/11 and shifting stories after that. Then the information started trickling in about the intelligence failures.

9/11 Truth is based on the perception, shared by 85% of the US population, that the government is not telling us everything and may be lying to us. It's based on the need for honesty, transparency, and accountability in government.

 
At 06 November, 2011 18:21, Blogger Ian said...

Thanks for proving my point, Brian. 9/11 truth is based on fantasies.

 
At 06 November, 2011 18:25, Blogger snug.bug said...

No, it's based on observations and research and critical thinking.

 
At 06 November, 2011 18:26, Blogger Ian said...

No, it's based on observations and research and critical thinking.

Now THAT's a fantasy!

 
At 06 November, 2011 18:28, Blogger Ian said...

I mean, if it were based on "observations and research and critical thinking", one would expect a lot of professionals and academics in various science fields to be on board. Instead, the movement attracts unemployed janitors who wear women's underwear and call people "girls" when they get upset.

 
At 06 November, 2011 18:40, Blogger Ian said...

Brian, I'll save you the work:

"There are 1600 professionals and academics who disagree with the official story".

Right, which just proves my point. That's nobody.

 
At 06 November, 2011 18:51, Blogger Pat said...

Brian, something like 56% of that 85% (which was really 84%) thought the government was mostly telling the truth but lying about something. Those people have an argument, unlike the CD fantasists.

 
At 06 November, 2011 21:34, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

The OWS folks are consolidating so I don't think the 9/11 nutjobs will go over well. OWS got a black eye from those idiots in Oakland, so side actions are being watched more closely by those in the leadership (such as it is).

 
At 06 November, 2011 22:26, Blogger snug.bug said...

Pat, if they're lying about anything then we need 9/11 Truth. If we give them a pass by assuming they're just covering up incompetence, then incompetence can be used to cover up all kinds of mischief.

I can't go around running people over with my car, and then just say "Never mind, shit happens, maybe I was drunk, what business s it of yours, it's ancient history, let's move on."

I think if you look at the list of signatories to the 911truth statement you'll find some pretty serious people and very few CD theorists among them.

 
At 07 November, 2011 02:14, Blogger Pat said...

Start chanting, "We are the 84%," Brian. It's bound to work!

 
At 07 November, 2011 05:12, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

The troofaction boys have spent this entire thread agonizing about 9/11 Truth's role in OWS (or the other way around, they're not sure). It's a good read. They're aware that OWS has connected with people in ways that 9/11 Truth has not, but they cannot comprehend why.

 
At 07 November, 2011 05:41, Blogger Ian said...

Pat, if they're lying about anything then we need 9/11 Truth. If we give them a pass by assuming they're just covering up incompetence, then incompetence can be used to cover up all kinds of mischief.

Um, no. If they're covering up incompetence, they're covering up incompetence. It doesn't change the reality of what happened on 9/11. Magic thermite elves don't suddenly become plausible when some bureaucrat is trying to protect his job.

I can't go around running people over with my car, and then just say "Never mind, shit happens, maybe I was drunk, what business s it of yours, it's ancient history, let's move on."

Brian, since when do you have a car? You're an unemployed janitor who can't afford one.

I think if you look at the list of signatories to the 911truth statement you'll find some pretty serious people and very few CD theorists among them.

Nobody cares. But at least you admit that people who believe in controlled demolition (which includes you, last time I checked) are not serious people.

 
At 07 November, 2011 10:27, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 07 November, 2011 10:29, Blogger snug.bug said...

RGT, the truthaction guys understand just fine why 9/11 Truth doesn't get much traction. The whole issue is scary and repulsive, and the media have provided lying easy answers for everything. Take a look at the five-minute youtubes "Incendiary Experiments" and "The 9/11 Deep Mystery and the Crazy Engineers" to see about the media propaganda campaigns where experts lie and tell us that thermite can't cut steel and they lie and tell us that jet fuel can.

Ian, what you're not getting is that if incompetence is OK, then incompetence becomes a useful cover for crime. One could, for instance, go and shoot a politician and claim it was an accident and you were just cleaning your gun. I'm not an embezzler, I'm just a bad accountant! See where all that leads?

Ian, I never said I believe in controlled demolition. I am really sorry that you don't understand the reasoning process. If you did, your ideas about 9/11 might not be so peculiar. I sure as hell hope you never sit on a jury or have any actual responsibility in the workplace.

 
At 07 November, 2011 11:16, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, what you're not getting is that if incompetence is OK, then incompetence becomes a useful cover for crime. One could, for instance, go and shoot a politician and claim it was an accident and you were just cleaning your gun. I'm not an embezzler, I'm just a bad accountant! See where all that leads?

No, I don't see where that leads. I'm not an insane glue-sniffing failed janitor like you, so I like my analogies to make sense instead of just being a pile of nonsense.

Ian, I never said I believe in controlled demolition.

So you babble about thermite and explosions and "symmetrical" collapses and "molten steel" because you want us to think you're an insane, ignorant liar? Is it some sort of performance art?

I am really sorry that you don't understand the reasoning process. If you did, your ideas about 9/11 might not be so peculiar. I sure as hell hope you never sit on a jury or have any actual responsibility in the workplace.

My, such squealing!

Brian, I do feel sorry for you sometimes. I know it must be hard to be mocked by me given that I'm far more successful and intelligent than you, not to mention that I don't look like an insane homeless person. Still, your attitude needs to improve if you want to be my friend.

 
At 07 November, 2011 12:10, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

The Truthers are definantly on the envious side with the Occupy Wall St. nuts.

They're so desprite now that they'll do anything to get attention. Of course Truthers have been living under bridges for over 10 yrs.

 
At 07 November, 2011 12:59, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

LMAO go figure, I was commenting on:

http://www.facebook.com/OccupyBuilding7?sk=wall

And you know what those cowards did? They deleted my comments and blocked me from their facebook page.

Apparently communism through ignorance & censorship is alive & well over there.

 
At 07 November, 2011 15:24, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

The whole issue is scary and repulsive, and the media have provided lying easy answers for everything.

Blaming the media is a silly excuse in 2011.

The key difference is that OWS is a populist movement. Everybody is welcome. 9/11 Truth more resembles a bunch of factions insulting each other, each claiming greater intelligence and insight.

 
At 07 November, 2011 15:49, Blogger Ian said...

Take a look at the five-minute youtubes "Incendiary Experiments" and "The 9/11 Deep Mystery and the Crazy Engineers" to see about the media propaganda campaigns where experts lie and tell us that thermite can't cut steel and they lie and tell us that jet fuel can.

Brian, if you think someone claimed that jet fuel cut steel, you're even more confused and stupid than we thought. No wonder you couldn't even hold down a job mopping floors!

Also, nobody says thermite can't cut steel. We just want evidence that it did cut steel in the WTC towers. Babbling about what you think you saw in the towers' collapses is not evidence.

 
At 07 November, 2011 15:50, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"RGT, the truthaction guys understand just fine why 9/11 Truth doesn't get much traction. The whole issue is scary and repulsive..."

...because troofers are delusional morons.

"(T)he media have provided lying easy answers for everything."

Those sneaky bastards insist on facts. Worse they insist on the same level of factual information from the troof movement. How can troofers compete when they insist on facts? Dang it all.

"see about the media propaganda campaigns where experts lie and tell us that thermite can't cut steel and they lie and tell us that jet fuel can."

A lie. The video shows that thermite applied the way that the troofer claim it was applied (painted on, what kind of fucking jackass retard thinks that anyway?) couldn't cut a steel beam.

Nobody has ever claimed jet fuel cut steel, only weakened it causing the structure to buckle...which Dr. Sunder says it did..so neener neener neener...

"if incompetence is OK, then incompetence becomes a useful cover for crime. One could, for instance, go and shoot a politician and claim it was an accident and you were just cleaning your gun. I'm not an embezzler, I'm just a bad accountant! See where all that leads?"

No we don't. Neither do you. Why? Because all of the incompetence happened during the last six years of the Clinton Administration...yet you always let them off the hook. So it's okay when your guys hide their corruption behind institutional buffoonery, but when Bush's people (most of whom were also Clinton's people) are involved it suddenly warrents a sea of pointless investigations.

"
I never said I believe in controlled demolition. "

And yet you defend the theory every day. What kind of person does that? Mentally ill? I susect so.

 
At 07 November, 2011 18:23, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 07 November, 2011 18:24, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

Don't you love how Brian tries to seamlessly weave together 85% think not everyone told the truth in regards to 9/11 with hush boom explosives planted by ninjaneers?


Anyone notice that if these morons were right that would mean 3,000,000 people were involved in 9/11?

 
At 07 November, 2011 18:28, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Don't you love how Brian tries to seamlessly weave together 85% think not everyone told the in regards to 9/11 with hush boom explosives planted by ninjaneers?

I'm still trying to figure out how the news media coverup squares with 85% of the population knowing the secret.

 
At 07 November, 2011 18:33, Blogger snug.bug said...

RGT, when the media lie to us, I blame them.


Ian, if you would bother to watch the 5-minute video "Incendiary Experiments" you would see that National Geographic concluded from their expert's experiments that thermite can not cut steel. And the "MythBusters" clowns put 1000 pounds of thermite on the roof of a car and couldn't even cut the window frames.

MGF, the media lie--as the videos "Incendiary Experiments" and "The 9/11 Deep Mystery and the Crazy Engineers" show.

The media told us that the jet fuel melted the steel. Eduardo Kausel of MIT, Professor Block at Stanford, Scientific American, BBC, NBC, Matthys Levy on NOVA, and New Scientist all said it happened or that it was possible. It's not possible.

I don't let Clinton off the hook. Clinton is a scumbag, Hillary and Bill both. But Clinton was not the one who ignored warnings from 13 foreign countries, 4 FBI offices, and the CIA.

Of course I defend the controlled demolition theory. Your attacks on it are stooopid, counterfactual, and irrational.

 
At 07 November, 2011 18:36, Blogger snug.bug said...

RGT, 85% of the population knows the government is lying to us because it's obvious. The media won't report it because if they hurt consumer confidence they won't get as much ad revenue from automobile manufacturers who want people to go into debt to buy new cars they don't need.

 
At 07 November, 2011 19:08, Blogger James B. said...

That is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. And you say some pretty stupid things.

 
At 07 November, 2011 19:24, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, if you would bother to watch the 5-minute video "Incendiary Experiments" you would see that National Geographic concluded from their expert's experiments that thermite can not cut steel. And the "MythBusters" clowns put 1000 pounds of thermite on the roof of a car and couldn't even cut the window frames.

I thought we were talking about 9/11? I was asking for evidence that thermite was used to destroy the towers. You've provided none. Babbling about thermite on cars is pointless.

The media told us that the jet fuel melted the steel. Eduardo Kausel of MIT, Professor Block at Stanford, Scientific American, BBC, NBC, Matthys Levy on NOVA, and New Scientist all said it happened or that it was possible. It's not possible.

Hey, if a failed janitor and liar and lunatic says it's not possible, we'd better listen to him.

The steel was not melted by jet fuel. Learn to Google.

Of course I defend the controlled demolition theory.

Of course you do. You're an ignorant half-wit liar and lunatic who calls people "girls". I wouldn't expect anything less.

 
At 07 November, 2011 19:27, Blogger Ian said...

RGT, 85% of the population knows the government is lying to us because it's obvious. The media won't report it because if they hurt consumer confidence they won't get as much ad revenue from automobile manufacturers who want people to go into debt to buy new cars they don't need.

And now he's in full meltdown mode, babbling insanely about things he doesn't understand in the least!

OF COURSE 85% of the people agree with me! It's just the massive TV-General Motors-Bank of America complex is trying to stop me! One day I'll prove it and you girls will be sorry! Meatballs! Forks! Spray-on invisible magic thermite! Willie Rodriguez! AAAAAAHHHH!!!fn$&^$%$

 
At 07 November, 2011 19:28, Blogger Ian said...

Hey Brian, have the widows had their questions answered yet?

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!

 
At 07 November, 2011 19:53, Blogger snug.bug said...

So James doesn't get it that in the game to deliver consumer eyeballs to the ads, ensuring that they're confident consumer eyeballs is part of the game.

Ian, I showed that the media not only don't report the truth about 9/11, they lie about 9/11.

 
At 07 November, 2011 19:56, Blogger Ian said...

Poor Brian, he's so insane that he's babbling about advertising now. That's how thoroughly pwn3d he's been on everything related to 9/11.

 
At 07 November, 2011 21:21, Blogger Ian said...

Hey Brian, the news media isn't reporting on East Timor either (I remember you babbling about that not long ago). Is that also because the robber barons at Kia don't want to upset the American Consumer?

 
At 07 November, 2011 21:46, Blogger snug.bug said...

Martini, you're only fooling people who actually are dumber than you pretend to be. Quite a constituency you've got there: GutterBall, MGF, and WAQo. You're quite the leader!

 
At 08 November, 2011 06:12, Blogger Ian said...

Martini, you're only fooling people who actually are dumber than you pretend to be. Quite a constituency you've got there: GutterBall, MGF, and WAQo. You're quite the leader!

And there it is, the squealing we've come to expect from a lunatic failed janitor who gets laughed at for everything he posts: "meatball on a fork", "spray-on thermite", "smoldering carpets", etc. etc.

Brian, have you contacts the University of Michigan to explain to them that their measure of consumer confidence is artificially inflated because the media won't report on spray-on nanothermite?

I'd hate to see what real consumer confidence levels are, since they're in the toilet right now, as the media keeps reporting on things like unemployment, the Eurozone crisis, and (back in the summer) the debt ceiling standoff.

 
At 08 November, 2011 06:20, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

Brian, I think we would all agree that elements either directly or indirectly involved in the Bush Administration weren't entirely honest. That doesn't mean we need some mindless cult to parade around baseless fantasies of CD's, DEW's, & mini-nukes.

 
At 08 November, 2011 08:29, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"I think we would all agree that elements either directly or indirectly involved in the Bush Administration weren't entirely honest."

Agreed.

The problem is that witch-hunts in the form of mindless investigations are what - in large part - lead to the intelligence failures which allowed the attacks to happen. Both the CIA and the FBI use internal investigations as pograms to eliminate mavericks and free-thinkers and anyone else who won't toe the party line. This left both agencies with butt-sniffing yes-men/women, and everyone else ducking for cover.

It really is as simple as that.

 
At 08 November, 2011 08:36, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 08 November, 2011 09:03, Blogger snug.bug said...

Butt-sniffing--I knew if I was patient I would figure out MGF's area of expertise.

 
At 08 November, 2011 09:10, Blogger GuitarBill said...

As opposed to what, goat fucker? Your specialty, thread hijacking?

 
At 08 November, 2011 11:44, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Martini, you're only fooling people who actually are dumber than you pretend to be. Quite a constituency you've got there: GutterBall, MGF, and WAQo. You're quite the leader!

For someone claiming to be (what he isn't) on the A&E for 9/11 Truth petition sure knows how to tell tall tales for a living on the internet.

 
At 08 November, 2011 15:39, Blogger snug.bug said...

I don't tell any tall tales.

 
At 08 November, 2011 18:00, Blogger Ian said...

I don't tell any tall tales.

Yes you do. You claim that you'll debate Willie Rodriguez, and yet when he challenged you to a debate, you ran away squealing and crying. The same is true for Craig Ranke.

You lie constantly, Brian.

 
At 08 November, 2011 18:26, Blogger snug.bug said...

I didn't run away from either one of those girls.

 
At 08 November, 2011 18:30, Blogger Ian said...

I didn't run away from either one of those girls.

Well, for one, they're not girls, Brian. I know you have the mind of a seven-year-old with a learning disability, but just because they've both pwn3d you doesn't mean you should call them names.

And you didn't literally run away, you just refused their challenges to debate, squealing and crying and babbling about how mean they had been to you.

 
At 08 November, 2011 18:39, Blogger snug.bug said...

I didn't refuse the challenge of either one. I refused an audio debate with Ranke because he's a liar. I wanted time to promote the text debate with Ranke and he 3was in a big hurry to get it over with, furtively, because I'd already kicked his scrawny ass so thoroughly in five different venues that I was getting repetitive stress injuries in my leg.

Since SLC had shown itself untrustworthy in terms of its ethical obligations to innocent third parties, I tried to find a neutral venue for a conversation with Willie and he refused to cooperate. I guess that means he ran away from me.

 
At 08 November, 2011 18:44, Blogger Ian said...

See what I mean? Even now you're squealing and crying about your cowardly refusal to debate either of them?

Brian, if you piss your pants in terror when confronted by guys like Ranke and Rodriguez, how do you ever expect to get the widows questions answered or a new investigation launched? It takes a strong person unafraid of confrontation to take on the US government.

Laurie Van Auken is really disappointed in you, Brian.

 
At 08 November, 2011 22:12, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 08 November, 2011 22:13, Blogger snug.bug said...

I didn't refuse to debate either of them. I've kicked their asses in every encounter.

Martini, you live in a fantasy world.
"What's thum other things all over the board?"

 
At 09 November, 2011 05:54, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

Brian every regular here knows you ran from Wil Rod like a coward. He came to play and immediately you came up with all sorts of excuses. You're no Jedi. Waving your hand in front of the screen will not make us forget how much an intellectual coward you are.

 
At 09 November, 2011 07:05, Blogger Ian said...

I didn't refuse to debate either of them. I've kicked their asses in every encounter.

Brian, you've never had an "encounter" with them. You've just posted dumbspam all over the internet about them, and then when they challenged you, you ran away squealing and crying.

I showed Laurie Van Auken your interactions with Rodriguez here and with Ranke elsewhere and when I reminder her that you're her best hope to get her questions answered, a tear slowly welled up in her eye.

She has no faith in your ability to get questions answered so long as you're too terrified to debate Ranke or Rodriguez.

 
At 09 November, 2011 09:53, Blogger snug.bug said...

GMS, when SLC showed its willingness to indulge unprofessional and unethical gossip about innocent third parties, it disqualified itself as a host of a debate. I tried to find an alternate venue. I got no coopersation. I didn't run from anything.

Ian, I've had many encounters with them. I have kicked Ranke's scrawny ass at OpED News, at 911Oz, at a French blog, in a witnessed email exchange, and at the artists' forum.

You're a liar.

 
At 09 November, 2011 10:19, Blogger Ian said...

GMS, when SLC showed its willingness to indulge unprofessional and unethical gossip about innocent third parties, it disqualified itself as a host of a debate. I tried to find an alternate venue. I got no coopersation. I didn't run from anything.

I'd love to know who these "innocent third parties" are...

Also, Brian, you said you'd debate Rodriguez "any time, any place". He challenged you here. You ran away squealing and crying and you're still squealing and crying about it above.

Ian, I've had many encounters with them. I have kicked Ranke's scrawny ass at OpED News, at 911Oz, at a French blog, in a witnessed email exchange, and at the artists' forum.

No, you ran away squealing and crying.

 
At 09 November, 2011 15:26, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I said years ago that I would debate Rodriguez any time any place. He refused. Years later he wants to set up a SLC-a-palooza with no ethical considerations. And he refuses to set up a discussion in a neutral setting.

Craig Ranke is a liar, I've shown it many times.

 
At 09 November, 2011 17:24, Blogger J Rebori said...

"Ian, I said years ago that I would debate Rodriguez any time any place. He refused. Years later he wants to set up a SLC-a-palooza with no ethical considerations. And he refuses to set up a discussion in a neutral setting. "

So you will debate him any time, any place, except for the time and place he chose.

That's called running away everywhere else.

 
At 09 November, 2011 23:14, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 09 November, 2011 23:49, Blogger snug.bug said...

It's not running away when I proposed alternatives. Willie deliberately set up an unacceptable challenge so he could make the claim that I refused to debate. I did not refuse to debate. I proposed several alternative venues and he would not cooperate to make any of those possible. Also, I had more important things to do than debate Willie.

 
At 10 November, 2011 07:20, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, I said years ago that I would debate Rodriguez any time any place. He refused. Years later he wants to set up a SLC-a-palooza with no ethical considerations. And he refuses to set up a discussion in a neutral setting.

So in other words, you were lying when you said you'd debate Rodriguez "any time, any place". And then you ran away.

Brian, posting endless dumbspam trying to rationalize why you ran away squealing and crying doesn't change the fact that you ran away.

Also, I had more important things to do than debate Willie.

So you were lying when you said you'd debate Rodriguez.

And I'll leave aside the question of what, exactly, these "more important things" are given that you're an unemployed janitor with no friends or family who posts dumbspam all over the internet 24/7.

 
At 10 November, 2011 08:16, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 10 November, 2011 08:18, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

it disqualified itself as a host of a debate.

Yes Brian, the excuse you conjured after Wil Rod accepted the challenge.

I tried to find an alternate venue. I got no coopersation.

Maybe because your reputation as a liar, coward, & sociopath precedes you?

I have kicked Ranke's scrawny ass at OpED News, at 911Oz, at a French blog, in a witnessed email exchange, and at the artists' forum.

Brian I have seen & experienced what you consider: owning, kicking ass, etc. And as usual your perceptions tend to not be in line with what most people refer to as reality.

 
At 10 November, 2011 13:24, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, maybe I said years ago (frankly I don't remember) that I would debate Willie any time any place. He was the darling of the truth movement then, and could get 2 hours on C-Span. Things change, and things changed. He's no longer worth my time.

GMS, I could get no cooperation from Willie in arranging an alternative venue. SLC's behavior in threatening to publish what Willie claimed to be the text of private emails showed poor ethical standards, so considered it inappropriate to do business with them.

The only reason you fail to perceive it when I kick people's asses is because you don't check the facts. If you'd check the facts you would see that indeed their asses are kicked.

 
At 10 November, 2011 14:24, Blogger Ian said...

Thanks for proving my point. You ran away squealing and crying when challenged to debate by Ranke and Rodriguez.

 
At 11 November, 2011 10:29, Blogger snug.bug said...

Nope, you're wrong. Ranke withdrew the offer to debate. Willie refused to pursue alternative venues. They ran away from me.

 
At 11 November, 2011 12:06, Blogger J Rebori said...

You gave Rodriguez the choice of time and place, and you then refused his choice.

You ran away.

You simply prove again your lack of respect for actual truth.

 
At 11 November, 2011 13:39, Blogger snug.bug said...

Obviously I never offered to fly to Beijing to debate him, so no, I never gave him his choice.

I didn't run away. I proposed alternative venues. Willie would not cooperate. Obviously he had some kind of sweetheart deal with his JREF buddies Pat and James, and nothing else would do for him.

 
At 11 November, 2011 13:43, Blogger J Rebori said...

1) by your own admission, you said "any time, any place"

2) he chose a location and time you were obiously already present at, not one you could not easily and reasonably access.

3) You refused the debate

Ergo, you ran away. QED

 
At 12 November, 2011 09:43, Blogger snug.bug said...

Actually, no, I don't remember saying that, and as usual Ian provides no documentation to support his assertions.

Obviously I never offered to journey to Tierra del Fuego to meet Willie at dawn with drawn sabers. Obviously Willie never intended to debate. He deliberately imposed unacceptable conditions so that he could claim that I refused to debate. He has refused to cooperate in obtaining alternate venues.

He's a non-issue now.

 
At 12 November, 2011 10:42, Blogger J Rebori said...

"Actually, no, I don't remember saying that, and as usual Ian provides no documentation to support his assertions."

Who relies on Ian? I took your own words as proof.

"Ian, I said years ago that I would debate Rodriguez any time any place."

That's a quote from you on Nov 9 at 15:26

Are you now saying, less than three days later, you've already forgotten?

"Obviously I never offered to journey to Tierra del Fuego to meet Willie at dawn with drawn sabers."

And just as obviously, you weren't asked to. He came to a place you frequent at a time you were there. But you rafused to debate him.

"Obviously Willie never intended to debate. He deliberately imposed unacceptable conditions so that he could claim that I refused to debate."

The only condition he imposed was that you live up to your challenge. "any time, any place". If it was unacceptable, why did you issue it?

"He has refused to cooperate in obtaining alternate venues."

He was under no obligation to cooperate in choice of venue, you gave that choice to him. That's what "any time, any place" means.

He took you at face value, went to a location you use routinely, and offered to debate. You, after having offered to debate "any time, any place" refused the time and place he chose.

Ergo, you ran away.

 
At 12 November, 2011 10:47, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker dissembles, "...He deliberately imposed unacceptable conditions so that he could claim that I refused to debate. He has refused to cooperate in obtaining alternate venues."

No, the exact opposite is the truth.

YOU "deliberately imposed unacceptable conditions" when you insisted that Carol Brouillet should moderate the debate. The truth, however, is that you know very well that she (not to mention her husband) won't allow you near her. YOU did all of this "so that [YOU] could claim that [Willie] refused to debate."

Thus, your claims are 180 degrees out of phase with reality, and as a result, it remains a given that you have no respect for the truth.

 
At 12 November, 2011 12:16, Blogger J Rebori said...

"your claims are 180 degrees out of phase with reality"

In truth, GB, I think a lot more than his claims are 180 out from reality. He really does live in a world all his own.

 
At 12 November, 2011 13:10, Blogger Ian said...

So to sum up, Brian is a coward and liar who ran away squealing and crying from a debate challenge from both Rodriguez and Ranke.

 
At 13 November, 2011 08:38, Blogger snug.bug said...

JR, I spoke thoughtlessly in assuming that what Ian said was true. Later I came to realize I had no independent recollection of actually saying that. I see no reason to allow Ian to invent the parameters of reality.

You're just trying to play gotcha on top of another gotcha. The issue has nothing to do with the topic post. I believe Willie deliberately created a bad faith challenge that no ethical person could accept. He did so in order that he might make a bogus claim that I was afraid to debate him. The thing is, nobody cares.

GB, there's nothing unacceptable about having Ms. Brouillet moderate the debate, and I did not insist that she should. It was only one proposal among many. You don't know what you're talking about and you make stuff up.

Ian, I didn't run away from either one of those girls. As usual, you lie.

 
At 13 November, 2011 09:16, Blogger John said...

I didn't run away from either one of those girls. As usual, you lie.

Well, anyone who gives a rat's ass can judge for themselves here:

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2011/05/brian-good-chickens-out-on-debate-with.html

 
At 13 November, 2011 09:19, Blogger Ian said...

JR, I spoke thoughtlessly in assuming that what Ian said was true.

It was true. You said you would debate Rodriguez "any time, any place", and then when he accepted, you ran away squealing and crying.

Later I came to realize I had no independent recollection of actually saying that.

Brian, you can't recall things you wrote 10 minutes ago because your mind is so damaged. Luckily, we have the ability to look back at things you've written. This is also how we know that you've taken credit for being "petgoat".

Ian, I didn't run away from either one of those girls. As usual, you lie.

And there it is. Brian's frustration boils over and he calls people "girls", all because he can't deny the reality of the situation. He ran away squealing and crying from debate challenges from Rodriguez and Ranke, and he's still squealing and crying about it now.

 
At 13 November, 2011 14:35, Blogger GuitarBill said...

In reply to Petgoat's historical revision.

For the record:

Pat wrote, "...It was only two weeks ago that Brian Good issued this challenge:

"'Willie doesn't have the guts to debate me--not here, not in person, not anywhere on the internet, and not on Carol's program. That's because he knows better than anyone that he's a liar and a fraud.'

"...Brian's most disgusting trick has been to request that the debate take place on Carol Brouillet's radio show. Brian wrote:

"'I offered a debate taking place on Carol's radio program. The reason for this is that Willie lies, and he hides behind Carol's skirts, and he would surely raise untrue ad hominem attacks on me with no regard for the potential damage to Carol. So she needs to have edit power over the debate.'

"Of course, Carol wants nothing to do with Brian, who exhibited typical stalker behavior by claiming that she was having sex with everybody but him."


Brian Good Chickens Out On Debate With Willie Rodriguez.

Pat wrote, "...Brian wrote in the post on Steven Jones' earthquake machines:

"'Willie doesn't have the guts to debate me--not here, not in person, not anywhere on the internet, and not on Carol's program. That's because he knows better than anyone that he's a liar and a fraud.'

"Somebody must have informed W-Rod of Brian's challenge because today I received an email from Willie offering to debate Brian live, right here on Screw Loose Change. Obviously we have to work out the details, but I am sure that Brian will agree to the debate in principle, given what he wrote on that thread."


Screw Loose Change to Host Debate Between Brian Good and Willie Rodriguez.

Steven Jones' Latest Research.

"...Willie doesn't have the guts to debate me--not here, not in person, not anywhere on the internet, and not on Carol's program. That's because he knows better than anyone that he's a liar and a fraud." -- The goat fucker, 10 May 2011, 13:15.

Direct quote from 'Steven Jones' Latest Research.'

QED.

:)

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home