To be honest this is a football forum, so the likelihood of a massive debate about theories in history seems improbable. I'm sure there are many websites/forums (I have no doubt you're a member, and fair play if that's your thing) that would satisfy the need for these debates you clearly have I think you'll find about 9 out of 10 posters come on here for a little lighthearted football discussion and banter. In that sense you can hardly blame us for not going to the library and becoming experts on stuff that we didn't even expect to discuss here!! People simply answer your posts with their views, they don't claim to be experts - but for some reason you get pleasure in trying to shoot everyone down with quotations and cites from various academia sources etc etc. that suits your argument. Mate, if I were you I wouldn't bother wasting your time - you could be talking to people that actually sign up to debate such stuff I do enjoy it though, so keep it up
Well, on the climate change issue, you had intelligent things to say, I will agree, and it made me look into it more, though I still disagree with your view. The 9/11 stuff is ****ing ridiculous mate, everything posited about the melting temperature of steel, and planes not fitting etc. Again, ask yourself why the US government would add planes into the equation. If I wanted to bomb a building and blame its destruction on someone else, why on ****ing earth would I not just say "They bombed it", Why would I say "Yeah they erm...crashed some planes into it, thats it...yeah planes....and then invent two planes and passenger manifests that didn't exist, make up official doucments for all these fake people, hire actors to act as their loved ones on TV, digitially add planes into every single piece of footage, make sure that it looked plausible, then pay off every single one of the million eye witnesses who saw the whole thing with their own eyes whilst standing right there on the streets of New York? The only other possibility is that the two planes DID exist and WERE real, but the US government shot them down, murdering ALL the passengers, then lied and said they had been hijacked and flown into the WTC. This would need the backing of the airlines without question, since they can track all their planes, especially when flying over a City like New York. And as dodgy as the US government is, why opt to needlessly kill hundreds of innocent US civilians just so you can say a plane did it? I mean you are already killing the people in the Towers, why the extra deaths for no reason....just say a ****ing bomb did it. An investigation into the logistics of how a bomb was smuggled into the WTC would be far easier to fabricate, especially with the WTC no longer existing, than it would be to do all the aforementioned **** I just said above. So either 9/11 was a US conspiracy, carried out by total and utter ******s.....or it was destroyed by two planes hijacked by Middle Eastern terrorists, financed by Saudi Arabia.....I know which sounds more plausible.
It is a football forum yes but that should't mean i should not point out the truth re people's reactions to stuff they don't agree with, reactions not informed opinions Going onto the internet to learn something to back you up AFTER forming your opinion is pretty ****ing sad
9\11 is whatever it was I actually don't know what happened, I never claimed I did know Bo. I only ever claim to be certain the official story is a lie because that can be proven. Climate change is a proven fraud. I prove it with data on the Dark matter threat, used official data to bust the following Melting Arctic Melting Greenland Melting Antarctic Severe rising sea levels Snowfall decline Extreme weather Drought Why just today I posted how the IPCC has been misleading people on the antarctic for 8 years, with a chart from their own AR4 report which shows the Antarctic is actually lowering sea levels by taking on more ice every year. The IPCC science said it was losing ice every year. Yet this chart from their own report shows it is gaining ice 8 ****ing years they knew it was a lie Contribution to sea level chart. please log in to view this image For 2 decades the clima tards have been saying the antarctic is melting It's been cooling for 30 years
There's really no point, because a mountain of evidence wouldn't stop you seeing what you want to see. Merely slagging off people who disagree with you doesn't win an argument for you, I'm afraid. However, just for you... Ignoring the condescending attitude for the moment; my definition of an expert is correct whether you agree or not. Someone with extensive knowledge of a subject is considered expert, regardless of whether that knowledge is gained empirically or academically. Your last sentence, claiming to use the work of experts is ironic considering how easily you dismiss the conclusions of experts who don't happen to share your opinion, as in climate change for instance. Anyway, I've said enough on this for now- I don't enjoy going round in circles for long.
'Informed'? I can't let that go without comment. At the risk of starting yet another pointless exchange of insults, your 'facts' regarding WWII, for instance, have been absolutely riddled with so many accuracies over the years as to make them comical. You didn't even know which war the Lusitania was in, for instance. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you have to have a university education to be right or to join the argument (mine has taught me just how easy it is to base any argument you like by using the 'facts'), but for you to claim you always have unarguable facts is either chutzpah or delusion. Or both.
In India women born as Mangliks (an astrological combination when Mars and Saturn are both under the 7th house) are thought to be cursed and likely to cause their husband an early death. In order to ward of this curse they must be married first…to a tree. The tree is then destroyed and the curse is broken. Poor tree. please log in to view this image
"There's really no point, because a mountain of evidence wouldn't stop you seeing what you want to see. Merely slagging off people who disagree with you doesn't win an argument for you, I'm afraid."" Seeing as you were going to reply, this emotionally driven comment was not needed. No one has ever shown me any source to disprove any of the main arguments I have been making, ever. There are details I have got wrong that everyone jumps on that actually does not effect the central claims, and they focus on those, cos by that logic, if one aspect is incorrect then it all must be, it's how trolls work. "Ignoring the condescending attitude for the moment; my definition of an expert is correct whether you agree or not. Someone with extensive knowledge of a subject is considered expert, regardless of whether that knowledge is gained empirically or academically. Your last sentence, claiming to use the work of experts is ironic considering how easily you dismiss the conclusions of experts who don't happen to share your opinion, as in climate change for instance. Anyway, I've said enough on this for now- I don't enjoy going round in circles for long" The "condescending" attitude comes from your derisory unsubstanciated comments. \Cause and effect is lost on you No, an expert is an expert in subject matter in this context, I am not an expert because how can you be an expert by reading the work of experts in a field. There is a big difference between knowing information and being able to apply it, to use it to create something new. Expert is a relative term, it means nothing. It denotes authority and it is true that the rational logical humble opinion of 1 individual is more important than the authority of 1000 experts. So see what ALL the "experts" say as well as opinions and works of non experts and make up your own mind, not just "make up your mind" "Your last sentence, claiming to use the work of experts is ironic considering how easily you dismiss the conclusions of experts who don't happen to share your opinion, as in climate change for instance." This is where you fall down, lets take Climate change, who are these experts? Do you know? if not then how can you claim that? because the media said they all agree? Do you not see the disconnect there? I really do study this climate change, have read all reports, and the work of many other credible people, just cos they dont agree with a perceived majority it doesn't mean they are wrong. Now some chronology to shut you up. From 1985 to 2010 I believed in man mad global warming 100% Then I started researching. So I strongly disagree. When you say I disagree with the experts, you are using language there to muddy the waters, because you don't actually say who are the experts whislt relegating the "experts" that don;t agree, off the top of my head, Richard Lindzen, MIT Climate scientist who has publidhed hundreds of climate science papers. Judith Curry, another well known climate scientist. Very disginguished people who say it is actually not true. They are hardly alone either. I only provide the data on everything from sea levels to temp records and show how NASA have alterted the data several times. So you are saying the "experts" are the ones who you agree with? hmmm? There is no science to date that shows 2 degrees warming is bad, yet look at the hysteria created. Built on lies. I could post a million pages on here documenting the lies from the climatards Apparently using the actual data collected from measurements is "not agreeing with the experts" is it?
Rejected Dog Returned To Animal Shelter Is Now So Sad She Refuses To Go On Walk Lana, who was the runt of a large litter in Mexico, sat alone and depressed in her kennel in Toronto after the family she had been housed with decided they didn’t want her please log in to view this image
There is a famous early internet meme from the late 1990's/early aughties that comes to mind that I won't quote because it's not PC and a little offensive. However it's pretty accurate in its subject matter (arguing on the internet). That's why I don't usually do the link harvesting required for that kind of crap. Its a little nutty investing so much time in an argument ... Especially when the guy on the other end probably doesn't believe what he's saying in the first place and just doing it for some weird PR boost for his side.
Shame that, love dogs, great buddies to have. I'd love to get on for the kids but herself is allergic to the hair.
This was the post and reply that kicked all of this off How you found that offensive or annoying Milk beyond me You seemed to forget you actually did the same thing in your post, you get hypocrisy right?
1) Terms like "clima-tards" gives away the political and emotional element you have. That's why you form opinions and then filter out facts to just find the ones that agree with you instead of looking at the big picture. Its not about science to you. Its a politico-emotional subject which is why you won't look at it from an unbiased perspective. Politics should be left out of science. 2) Google the word "global" and look up the word "regional". Once you've done that Google "global warming". See if you can spot your obvious fallacy.
Actually lad clima tards is a reference to people who kep spouting the medai nonsense, like your list of climate change examples which I completely destroyed with DATA
I didn't find any of the above offensive. My comment was a joke (if poorly timed). I don't think Putin was responsible. I merely fact-checked you. Found it false and you got pissy.
So was mine, it was just a bit of ribbing, and it went from there. I said as much in a following post that I was not serious but did that stop the loons jumping all over it? Nope
No. Climatards is an attempt to place an emotive and derisatory term on people who disagree with you because your fact don't check out.
