oh, boy.
just had these thoughts rattling around in my head a few days, so wanted to get your takes.
my college son and i were talking and he said a fellow worker in his 50's said he had been aware his mother was sick and dying in another town , but had not died yet.
Although I am sceptical, I don't know for sure if our personalities cease to exist as seems logically likely given the evidence.
I do know people like Sylvia Browne are nasty little charlatans parasitising the bereaved.
http://www.randi.org/jr/012805opinions.html
http://www.stopsylviabrowne.com/articles/interview_dufresnes.shtml
she made a few salient points regarding child-molestation, why many reject the claims, should they?, and the two witness rule that jw's use.. i thought i would post them for open discussion:.
many jws defend the wt's approach to child abuse accusations requiring two witnesses to the act of molestation because it is thought that most accusations are not true.
this argument came up when i was in bethel.
I agree the majority of child abuse claims are true; ritual abuse is another kettle of fish as any research into the subject will reveal.
I would however advise caution in assuming the fact the large percentage of people admitting to abuse as part of the trial process is indicative of a similar percentage of accusations being true. In a legal system where plea-bargins are everyday and mundane it is not an assumption one can make.
You got me ninja; my eyeballs rolled clean round inside my skull and I am typing this on a braille keyboard...
mine was an old fiat 127, i bought it 1983 and it was at least fifteen years old then!
the seats were vinyl and there were no rear seatbelts so i could send my girlfriend and her sister flying with each bend in the road!
it wouldn't go above 55mph and was rattling like rollercoaster when it finally got there.. the rear window fell out and it finally croaked in puff of blue/black smoke.
One of these, but it was painted in grey Hammerite and had a baby-seat rivitted to the floor in the back;
... I got it handed on to me by my brother. Wonderful little piece-of-shit, easy to work on although you needed hands like an 8 year-old to get at the distributor easily... got stolen eventually... 80mph flat-out, but so close to the ground it alway felt fast.
Then it was Audi 80 (stolen and written off), Ford Grenada (MkII) 2.6l V6 (bought it off my dad, gave to ex-wife when we split-up, it died of old age). That actually almost had something you could call 'performance'. Then a Ford Grenada (MkIII) 2.0l (another one I bought off my dad, it got scrapped), which was horrid. And now a Skoda Fabia, the only thing I have had from new.
It's a company car so basically I drive it like a bumper car. Got it up to almost 190kph (120mph) a few weeks ago on an autobahn in Germany (on a steep hill, jumping up and down and blowing at the windscreen) which isn't bad for an engine with less power than a SUV's AC unit...
Looking forward to being in SF this weekend and driving an American car. I've got a Chevy Impala, what are they like? From my experience driving American cars (a half dozen and a few thousand miles) you guys seem to like softer springs, soggier steering and bigger engines than we normally have over here but the cars are great for driving in the US.
What's the speed limit in CA nowadays?
berten
You say too soon so you can cling to claims of 'freefall', although you know you can't explain how the explosives got there, you know that firemen reported increasing signs of strutural instability, you can see the collapse was asymetrical. Those three facts alone would make a reasonable person conclude that if video evidence is inconclusive then there is little chance of it being an explosion because of those thre simple facts.
I looked below the video (nice and vauge) and saw a link to a fireman saying it was bound to collapse due to its structural integrity being gone; just another peice of evidenec you;ll ignore because it doesn;t fit your desired conclusion.
Don't get bent out of shape because you have beliefs that don't hold up to examiniation.
I know believing in a conspiracy involving the demoltion of the WTC is meant to make you cool, intellectual and edgey, not a self-made object of fun who shows themselves up by poor research, and the reaction being different to that you expect must be disoriontating. I think that's why you leave 'the playground'; you know you are wrong (you certainly can't even prove hat you believe is possible) but just can't let go and your inability to prove something bugs you, although you'd never admit it.
Why is it so neccesary to believe that Bush or people other than the terrorists were directly responsible for the attacks (i.e. didn't just let it happen/be incompetent) when you can't prove this?
We both probably think Bush is a corrupt clown who engineered an invasion using pretexts such as 911. You have to add to that invisable fairies planting invisible explosives in buildings (how else did it happen, eh?) that we know collapsed due to impact/debris damage and fire and even when you can see a video of a fireman saying 'it's gonna fall down it's lost structural integrity' or words to that effect you ignore it.
I don't get it....
i don't have much time to post as i'm headed back to the hospital, but my father collapsed this morning and had to be rushed to the hospital.
in a nutshell: he needs a blood transfusion as his hemoglobin is dropping (bleeding internally), but thanks to this fucking cult, that's not an option...........he'll accept the fractions but those bastards from the blood liaison committee have already shown up to ensure he doesn't cave............... for those of you who still believe, i'm asking you to say a prayer for my dad........and if anyone from crooklyn is reading this: you better hope my father doesn't die due to your fucked up rules, .
Mary, my thoughts are with you; things sound better for your father. I'm so sorry for your trouble.
Don't jump to medical conclusions you're not qualified to make Mary; and even if the medication turned out to be causative, it was a mistake. Don't be too hard on yourself.
berten
Once again you're busted for inaccurate claims (nice one Leolalia). At what point do you get bored with being wrong and start doing some better research?
ninj
Now, if you want a proper discussion about the build-up to 911 and the arguably suspicious inter-relationships between various people, I think a new thread is a good idea.
First of all this one is so full of refuted conspiracist bullshit you could use it on your roses. Putting what might be valid or interesting claims alongside the rot in this thread won't be doing the new claims any favours.
Second, doing what you are doing now just makes it look like you are changing the subject and flinging every bit of 911 minutiae you can come up with at the screen rather than admit all claims you've made regarding demolition have been shown to be junk.
berten
LOL. Errrr... you don't notice the difference between what we do is that you make a claim, and it is refutted you ignore it's been refutted.
No comment on the misleading way the website you quoted regarding interception of the flights presents a quote from an article which actually supports the official story? Just like the WT does over evolution? No, of course not, you knew you were right at the beginning, what difference does being shown to use misleading claims and inaccurate data make when you have already decided you are right?
You also seem to ignore what you allege happen is, until proven otherwise is physically impossible. It was not possible to plant the explosives required to take those buildings down without people noticing.
As YOU are the one making the extraordinary claim YOU need to provide the evidence YOUR claim is even possible... and as all the numb nuts running conspiracy websites can't prove planting demolition charges was possible without detection, it is not surprising you are in the same boat.
So, me saying your behaviour has cultic aspects (ignoring inconvenient facts, holding things you cannot prove as possible as factual, utlilizing misleading quotations), is reasonable and supported by your behaviour, and you doing the same to me is sour grapes.
Now, let's see; the photo of the cut beams is a good illustration of your credulity and low standards of evidence. You assume that it is evidence of the use of thermite without;
Here's a more comprehensive rubbishing of this particular piece of Conspiracist stupidity or deception;
The other link shows you have had the arrogance or laziness not to read material already posted that show;
zeroday
Abaddon, I have been following these threads as they appear and have resisted commenting on them. I applaud your effort but I believe even you know it is fruitless to try and reason with these people. There is nothing you or anyone can say to reason with them. It is laughable to believe this could have been pulled off by what hundreds if not thousands of people and NOT ONE PERSON would spill the beans. I just shake my head and laugh at them...
Oh, you're quite right, in fact I predicted their behaviour at the outset. I suppose I am curious about exactly how foolish they are willing to make themselves appear, I also enjoy a good discussion and live in the hope one day a conspiracist will give me a good discussion and presnt an argument that doesn't require me to believe something impossible without evidence, ignore contrary evidence or use fallacies.
Other than personal enjoyment I adopt this approach to maybe sometime accurately inform those on the edge; the people who are not psychologically predisposed towards this rot but who might put credit in ridiculous claims - be they about the Flood, Evolution or 911 because they have busy lives and might not have the time to research the subject independently. The volume of noise generated by 911ers and ID-ots is such it can mislead people into thinking they have an argument that is credible.
I also find the psychology of belief very interesting and seeing its pathology at work in these threads is instructive.
Gill
1/ What you say has nothing to do with the bunch of bullshit paraded by us by the conspiracists in this thread. Start another thread about communication privacy by all means.
2/ Retaining details of number dialled, time and length of call and (if a mobile) what cell the call is made in has been extended to one year. There have been a mismash of laws applying previously and this is not the big change one can make it out to be on a slow news Monday if your are a Journo with space to fill.
You say "what you were... saying what etc!"
That's simply not true; the calls are LOGGED, not RECORDED.
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=68143&in_page_id=34
i wrote something that i'm certain jehovah's witnesses (and x too) would like and wanted to find out what everyone thinks about it.
looks like this is the almost the only place, but right place.. .
one of the last things we might consider to be divinely inspired is something scientific.
Science101
I have to say that your sermon was excellent! I'm not sure if it helped give anyone something to believe in, but I liked it! Thanks for writng the piece.
It was fun to write; the reason it didn't give anyone anything to believe in was *chortle* me using my creative force. Making someone believe in something was not my *wink*goal.
It would be predictable if we knew how to study it in that level of detail. Or in other words, just because someone does not know where a road is going, does not mean that it's impossible for someone else to predict where it ends.
Outside of controlled environments and populations it would seem the prediction of evolution would be subject to the same limitations as predicting weather. Because of the high number of variables anything beyond short range is inaccurate. And just because the weatherman says it'll rain Tuesday doesn't mean it is the weather's goal to rain Tuesday.
I'm not sure if I can agree. The colorful tail of the peacock does exist in the mind of the females. They have a goal when selecting a mate that in a sense makes their evolution predictable.
Their goal is not causing evolution to make large tails. They do not have that in mind. They don't have anything in mind. They have instincts which make them more likely to submit to the mating displays of the most magnificently endowed male (and human's ain't so different, LOL); that is as far as it goes.
Our schools are not doing a very good job of teaching evolution. Are even schools, home schools, and universities, that only teach Creationism.
In the USA this is a major issue. I live in the Netherlands, although I am English. Creationism does not have 1/10th of the support it has in the USA, and any University that taught Creationism would be denied accreditation, any school would have to be private, and the educational standards you must have yourself in order to home school are higher; it's not viewed as a parents right to educate their child as they wish but a child's right to be educated decently.
The term "present continuous" is not even explained in any I know of.
It's English grammar; "I am writing to you" is a use of the present continuous.
Yes, everyone knows what creates means. And simply google "moleculay self-assembly" and the related links and you'll find that it is very real. No tooth fairy required.
You are treating 'creative force' and 'molecular self-assembly' as synonymous. They are not. Just ignoring my point that 'creative force' carries implications 'molecular self-assembly' does not, and that a new term isn't needed doesn't work.
Likewise, capitalising GENESIS in abiogenesis doesn't make the GENESIS bit suddenly refer to the Bible; the two instances (following convention for coining scientific terms and using Greek or Latin and using a modern English word replete with religious connotations when a neutral term already exists) are not comparable.
And to say subject A should become meaningful to belief structure B just because there is a debate about subject A and belief B is putting the horse before the cart. If the believers in the Invisible Pink Unicorn start a debate about how their beliefs intersect with scientific understanding, should science become meaningful to believers in the Invisible Pink Unicorn.
If modern Christianity requires science to become meaningful to it, what of Islam, Hinduism, Wicca, Scientology, Mormonism, etc? Science is meaningful in the real world. It doesn;t have to be meaningful in a church. Church goers just have to learn science is a good guide for how the physical world works even if the bronze-age goatherd (or 19th Century American con artist, or 20th Century Science-fiction writer) of their choice contradicts it.
The aim of my 'sermon' was to show acceptance of modern scientific fact is possible even if the source text of your religion is incompatible with modern science as regards human origins. To show modern scientific fact and ancient religious traditions can co-exist is far more important for me than trying to dumb down science so it's accepted by people who had poor educations.
