General Poker Discussion Poker Forums

Some of the most amusing 'debate' tactics I have ever seen anywhere, internet included, have come from this thread.

to put things in context (which you physically can't or something), all those quotes came after i publicly stated that i was going to just make fun of you cause you're a tool. the quotes are in reverse order. but you framed the evidence to support your views, as usual. did you think we were still debating when... omg he's sucked me back in! http://nooooooooooooooo.com/

Acomb are you still sticking to the: if someone profits from a situation then it's "strong evidence" they were involved in that situation?

to put things in context (which you can't, obviously), all those quotes came after i publicly stated that i was going to just make fun of you cause you're a tool. the quotes are in reverse order. but you framed the evidence to support your views, as usual. did you think we were still debating when... omg he's sucked me back in! arggggh!!!

Sorry about that, I was just going from page (whereever we are) backwards and copy pasting. As for pointing out your very constructive comments. No worries

Acomb are you still sticking to the: if someone profits from a situation then it's "strong evidence" they were involved in that situation?

Not in every case. Just because someone made money it doesn't mean they were involved. However, if a lot of the same groups made a lot of money.. and those same groups are unwilling to answer basic family member questions.. Then perhaps it is a case to raise suspicion. It is not conclusive by any means. But the only reasonable resolution is to have an enquiry which, ahem, follows the money, and further, answers said victims family members questions. Anything else can only be considered as a white wash. *National Security* is one excuse, but really since people are led to believe that, 19 guys with box cutters can overcome the US government successfully on one day. Why would that [national security] really matter? It's farcical.

Strong evidence only exists if a number of factors are fulfilled. 1) Motive 2) Means 3) Cui Bono 4) Evidence 5) Outcome

Ask yourself, who had the most prepared five from the above list, Al-Qaeda or the PNAC neocons?

EDIT: Anyway, speculation is not helpful and I hate being dragged into it. I am too easily responsive to these posts, because it's almost as if you feel I am responsible for these theories. I am not. I just happen to agree with them having looked at them with open eyes. The main point is this. Let's follow the fucking money, who benefited, who had the means, who was responsible. none of those questions are answered by the official investigation. That is a travesty.

Sorry about that, I was just going from page (whereever we are) backwards and copy pasting.

an admission of commission? what is this madness?! is that still you Acomb? who r u?! what have you done with Acombfosho!

an admission of commission? what is this madness?! is that still you Acomb? who r u?! what have you done with Acombfosho!

I feel I've been fairly consistent in that regard throughout.

Just because we disagree on this issue doesn't mean I'm going to play rough, I may be a little comical for effect but I'd hope to keep the conversation civil. It's a valid discussion and one worth having considering how deeply it has changed our philosophy in the west with regards to what is and isn't appropriate behaviour towards other human beings, domestically and overseas.. Cui Bono

just for that admission, i'll give you some more bait.

But the only reasonable resolution is to have an enquiry which, ahem, follows the money, and further, answers said victims family members questions. Anything else can only be considered as a white wash.

no conspiracy (X) and white wash (Y) are not mutually exclusive events.

and concluding that no investigation must mean a white wash is begging the question, counselor.

Anyway, speculation is not helpful and I hate being dragged into it. I am too easily responsive to these posts, because it's almost as if you feel I am responsible for these theories. I am not. I just happen to agree with them having looked at them with open eyes.

Oh no no it's just earlier in the thread you said "-Some people had motive. (Namely government higher ups)" should be considered as strong evidence and was wondering if you'd revised this thought which it seems that you somewhat have.

Of course not, however that's a reasonable correlation to make. People have been put to death for less. Nonetheless

Socratic debate time:

Do you think it is unreasonable to find the answers to the following questions?

1) who funded the hi-jackers

Actually, that's it. Who benefited?

Have the Al-Qaeda won this war, a war so elaborately planned that they conned the US military 4 times in one day, or have the military industrial complex sold us a different story?

You know what I think. What do you think?

Oh no no it's just earlier in the thread you said "-Some people had motive. (Namely government higher ups)" should be considered as strong evidence and was wondering if you'd revised this thought which it seems that you somewhat have.

Mitch, I was responding to nawhead in previous post, not you. I was unaware of your post.

Anyway, with regards to your post. To clarify, please read my latest blog.

A lot of the things I have said in this topic is purely speculation. I would rather not go down this route as it goes around in (to my count, 10 pages of ) circles.

The basic premise is that there are two sides to the discussion.

1) 100% government account is correct, no need for more discussion, case closed
2) There is enough problems with their account that more thorough investigation needs to be had

Anything else will end up in getting lost, not seeing the forest for the trees.

Of course not, however that's a reasonable correlation to make.

iow, "not true, but on second thought, reasonably true."

i love it!

more! more!

Have the Al-Qaeda won this war, a war so elaborately planned that they conned the US military 4 times in one day, or have the military industrial complex sold us a different story?

You know what I think. What do you think?

begging the question is fun, isn't it? ahh... i remember the good ole' days of just wanting to sound so smart and confident without actually knowing what i was saying. times were simpler back then... sigh... good times...

Anyway, speculation is not helpful and I hate being dragged into it.

I lol'ed

re-reading that it is pretty ironic and hilarious in some regard. Whoops!

Also, I love how you guys are endlessly nit picking my forum posts for either grammatical errors or sentences you can quote, edit and then poke fun at, rather than actually taking a critical look.

The full structure was this:

Anyway, speculation is not helpful and I hate being dragged into it. I am too easily responsive to these posts, because it's almost as if you feel I am responsible for these theories. I am not. I just happen to agree with them having looked at them with open eyes. The main point is this. Let's follow the fucking money, who benefited, who had the means, who was responsible. None of those questions are answered by the official investigation. That is a travesty.