The Skeptics Society Forum Promoting SCIENCE and CRITICAL THINKING http://www.skepticforum.com/smartfeed.php?feed_type=ATOM1.0&limit=1_DAY&sort_by=standard&feed_style=HTML& 2012-05-17T19:12:41+00:00 FeedCreator 1.8.0-dev (info@mypapit.net) Skepticism and Critical Thinking :: Re: Athene's Theory of Everything :: Reply by Face_Palm 2012-05-16T19:07:02+00:00 2012-05-16T19:07:02+00:00 http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=18087&p=281311#p281311 Face_Palm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRH8McTn2r8&feature=relmfu]]>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRH8McTn2r8&feature=relmfu]]> UFOs, Cryptozoology, and The Paranormal :: is there anything called paranormal: a critical review :: Author arnab 2012-05-17T12:11:13+00:00 2012-05-17T12:11:13+00:00 http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=18108&p=281361#p281361 arnab
Argument # 1: "It is irrational to believe in anything that hasn't been proven."

just because something hasn't been proven and established in mainstream science doesn't mean it doesn't exist or isn't true. If it did, then nothing would exist until proven or discovered. Bacteria and germs would never have caused illnesses until they were proven and discovered, smoking would not cause cancer until it was proven, the planet Pluto would not have existed until it was discovered, etc.

many research experiments and studies conducted under the scientific method HAVE passed with positive results. For example, experiments in micro-psychokinesis done by Dr. Robert Jahn and Brenda Dunn at the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research labs (PEAR) using random generator machines to measure subjects‚ PK influence on them, obtained positive consistent results for over 20 years. These were done under proper controls and scientific procedures, even according to prominent skeptic Ray Hyman, who investigated the Prince experiments in person and conceded that he could find no flaws in the methodology.


Argument # 2: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

what the skeptics accept as extraordinary evidence?


Argument # 3: The Occam‚s Razor rule.

Typical usage: "When there are two competing explanations for an event, the simpler one is more likely."

The principle of simplicity works as a heuristic rule-of-thumb but some people quote it as if it is an axiom of physics. It is not.Perhaps a quote from Shakespeare would be more appropriate than Occam's razor: "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

Even Isaac Newton didn‚t use Occam‚s Razor like the skeptics of today do.


Argument # 4: The "invisible pink unicorn / dragon in the garage" false comparison tactic.

Typical Usage: "Of course I can't prove that God, spirits, UFO‚s, paranormal phenomena or metaphysical realities don't exist, but you can't prove to me that invisible pink unicorns don't exist either."

the samething can be said about any scientific discovery. think about this; if somebody before markni( the inventor of wireless) said that you can send message without wire and you can't disprove it.a skeptic will say but you can't prove to me that invisible pink unicorns don't exist either. this pink unicorn argument can be
given to every scientific discovery like bacteria, germs, planets etc. before their discovery. thank god scientists did not listen to the pink unicorn argument.


Argument # 5: The "anecdotal evidence is invalid" argument.

Typical usage: "All that we have to support paranormal claims is anecdotal evidence, which is unreliable and not valid evidence for paranormal claims."
Corollary: "Anecdotal evidence is worthless as scientific evidence."

but what is anecdotal evidence? This is evidence presented second hand. Someone sees something, reports it and some action is taken in response to it. Let's say your house is on fire. You call the fire department and report and they send out a truck toot sweet to put it out.so see in our real life anecdotal evidence works.

the police hearing that you are in danger sends it force there. they trust anecdotal evdence and often be able to save your life. so anecdotal evidence is trustworthy one.


Argument # 6: The memory malleability argument to dismiss anecdotal evidence.

Typical Usage: "Memory is malleable and unreliable. People can remember a highly edited version of what occurred, making anecdotal evidence unreliable."

The main problem with this is that although memory isn‚t perfect and doesn‚t work like a tape recorder, the majority of what sane people remember IS reliable and can be checked out and verified. i told about it arg.5


Argument # 7: "The burden of proof is on the claimant"

Typical Usage: "Skeptics don't have to disprove anything because they're not the ones making a claim. The burden of proof is on the claimant."

the skeptics has already made a claim that paranormal does not exist. they also cannot prove their claim. so this argument can be made to them too. if paranormal does not exist how so many people around the world are experiencing these things? just look at the statistics of people having paranormal experience.


Argument # 8: "There is no hard evidence to support any paranormal phenomena."

there are many picture of UFOs.Even if all the photographs and video footage of UFO‚s were hoaxed, there are still many cases of sightings that were observed by whole cities or towns, such as the Mexico City mass sighting of January 1995. This indicates that there‚s "something" there causing these mass sightings.skeptics may say that it is secret aircraft of govt. but how do you know it and why these aircrafts are flying over the town?


Argument # 9: Science is the only reliable method.

Typical Usage: "The only reliable way to know about anything is through the scientific method. All other methods are unreliable."

and what is scientific method? the method of induction says that first you observe something particular then you form universal rule. many people have seen UFOs taken photos thereof and then formulate the theory that UFO may exist. it is totally based on inductive method. no skeptic has ever seen a living UFO is a matter of coincidence.


Argument # 10: "Paranormal and supernatural phenomena aren‚t possible because they contradict all known natural laws gained from science."

first of all science has not discovered ALL THE NATUAL LAWS. there are many natural laws that are not discovered yet. science has just discovered a few of them.
science itself says that it would change each time gaining new knowledge. this claim of science is not possible if ALL NATURAL LAWS are discovered.


Argument # 11: "Unexplainable does not mean inexplicable."

This argument means that just because something is unexplainable does not mean that paranormal forces must have been involved, only that we haven‚t found the explanation for it yet.However, skeptic who use this should also remember that the following converses are true as well:

1) Just because something happens that they think isn‚t possible doesn‚t mean that it didn‚t happen. To do so would be to deny reality.

2) Just because something happens that they think isn‚t possible doesn‚t mean that it must be due to misperception, fraud, or hallucination.

3) Just because a natural explanation hasn‚t been found for something unexplainable doesn‚t mean that only a natural explanation could exist.

4) If a natural explanation doesn‚t explain all the facts, that doesn‚t mean that you should insist on it anyway just to protect your belief system.


Argument # 12: "Skeptics don‚t have beliefs. They/I base our views and judgments on the degree of evidence."

really? then why you deny scientific experiment on paranormal capability conducted by parapsychologists and why do you reject evidence about UFOs?


Argument # 13: "A common myth is that Skepticism is cynicism. It is not. Skepticism is a method of inquiry."

Argument # 14: "Believers in the paranormal are thinking in primitive, irrational, childish and uninformed ways."

Argument #15: "Skeptics are defending science and reason from a rising tide of irrationality."

all the 3 arguments mentioned above are opinion and not fact. so nothing more to say.

so i think that skepticks has to broden their thinking horizon to accept some evidence of paranormal we already have.]]>
Argument # 1: "It is irrational to believe in anything that hasn't been proven."

just because something hasn't been proven and established in mainstream science doesn't mean it doesn't exist or isn't true. If it did, then nothing would exist until proven or discovered. Bacteria and germs would never have caused illnesses until they were proven and discovered, smoking would not cause cancer until it was proven, the planet Pluto would not have existed until it was discovered, etc.

many research experiments and studies conducted under the scientific method HAVE passed with positive results. For example, experiments in micro-psychokinesis done by Dr. Robert Jahn and Brenda Dunn at the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research labs (PEAR) using random generator machines to measure subjects‚ PK influence on them, obtained positive consistent results for over 20 years. These were done under proper controls and scientific procedures, even according to prominent skeptic Ray Hyman, who investigated the Prince experiments in person and conceded that he could find no flaws in the methodology.


Argument # 2: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

what the skeptics accept as extraordinary evidence?


Argument # 3: The Occam‚s Razor rule.

Typical usage: "When there are two competing explanations for an event, the simpler one is more likely."

The principle of simplicity works as a heuristic rule-of-thumb but some people quote it as if it is an axiom of physics. It is not.Perhaps a quote from Shakespeare would be more appropriate than Occam's razor: "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

Even Isaac Newton didn‚t use Occam‚s Razor like the skeptics of today do.


Argument # 4: The "invisible pink unicorn / dragon in the garage" false comparison tactic.

Typical Usage: "Of course I can't prove that God, spirits, UFO‚s, paranormal phenomena or metaphysical realities don't exist, but you can't prove to me that invisible pink unicorns don't exist either."

the samething can be said about any scientific discovery. think about this; if somebody before markni( the inventor of wireless) said that you can send message without wire and you can't disprove it.a skeptic will say but you can't prove to me that invisible pink unicorns don't exist either. this pink unicorn argument can be
given to every scientific discovery like bacteria, germs, planets etc. before their discovery. thank god scientists did not listen to the pink unicorn argument.


Argument # 5: The "anecdotal evidence is invalid" argument.

Typical usage: "All that we have to support paranormal claims is anecdotal evidence, which is unreliable and not valid evidence for paranormal claims."
Corollary: "Anecdotal evidence is worthless as scientific evidence."

but what is anecdotal evidence? This is evidence presented second hand. Someone sees something, reports it and some action is taken in response to it. Let's say your house is on fire. You call the fire department and report and they send out a truck toot sweet to put it out.so see in our real life anecdotal evidence works.

the police hearing that you are in danger sends it force there. they trust anecdotal evdence and often be able to save your life. so anecdotal evidence is trustworthy one.


Argument # 6: The memory malleability argument to dismiss anecdotal evidence.

Typical Usage: "Memory is malleable and unreliable. People can remember a highly edited version of what occurred, making anecdotal evidence unreliable."

The main problem with this is that although memory isn‚t perfect and doesn‚t work like a tape recorder, the majority of what sane people remember IS reliable and can be checked out and verified. i told about it arg.5


Argument # 7: "The burden of proof is on the claimant"

Typical Usage: "Skeptics don't have to disprove anything because they're not the ones making a claim. The burden of proof is on the claimant."

the skeptics has already made a claim that paranormal does not exist. they also cannot prove their claim. so this argument can be made to them too. if paranormal does not exist how so many people around the world are experiencing these things? just look at the statistics of people having paranormal experience.


Argument # 8: "There is no hard evidence to support any paranormal phenomena."

there are many picture of UFOs.Even if all the photographs and video footage of UFO‚s were hoaxed, there are still many cases of sightings that were observed by whole cities or towns, such as the Mexico City mass sighting of January 1995. This indicates that there‚s "something" there causing these mass sightings.skeptics may say that it is secret aircraft of govt. but how do you know it and why these aircrafts are flying over the town?


Argument # 9: Science is the only reliable method.

Typical Usage: "The only reliable way to know about anything is through the scientific method. All other methods are unreliable."

and what is scientific method? the method of induction says that first you observe something particular then you form universal rule. many people have seen UFOs taken photos thereof and then formulate the theory that UFO may exist. it is totally based on inductive method. no skeptic has ever seen a living UFO is a matter of coincidence.


Argument # 10: "Paranormal and supernatural phenomena aren‚t possible because they contradict all known natural laws gained from science."

first of all science has not discovered ALL THE NATUAL LAWS. there are many natural laws that are not discovered yet. science has just discovered a few of them.
science itself says that it would change each time gaining new knowledge. this claim of science is not possible if ALL NATURAL LAWS are discovered.


Argument # 11: "Unexplainable does not mean inexplicable."

This argument means that just because something is unexplainable does not mean that paranormal forces must have been involved, only that we haven‚t found the explanation for it yet.However, skeptic who use this should also remember that the following converses are true as well:

1) Just because something happens that they think isn‚t possible doesn‚t mean that it didn‚t happen. To do so would be to deny reality.

2) Just because something happens that they think isn‚t possible doesn‚t mean that it must be due to misperception, fraud, or hallucination.

3) Just because a natural explanation hasn‚t been found for something unexplainable doesn‚t mean that only a natural explanation could exist.

4) If a natural explanation doesn‚t explain all the facts, that doesn‚t mean that you should insist on it anyway just to protect your belief system.


Argument # 12: "Skeptics don‚t have beliefs. They/I base our views and judgments on the degree of evidence."

really? then why you deny scientific experiment on paranormal capability conducted by parapsychologists and why do you reject evidence about UFOs?


Argument # 13: "A common myth is that Skepticism is cynicism. It is not. Skepticism is a method of inquiry."

Argument # 14: "Believers in the paranormal are thinking in primitive, irrational, childish and uninformed ways."

Argument #15: "Skeptics are defending science and reason from a rising tide of irrationality."

all the 3 arguments mentioned above are opinion and not fact. so nothing more to say.

so i think that skepticks has to broden their thinking horizon to accept some evidence of paranormal we already have.]]> UFOs, Cryptozoology, and The Paranormal :: Re: is there anything called paranormal: a critical review :: Reply by Tom-Palven 2012-05-17T12:30:19+00:00 2012-05-17T12:30:19+00:00 http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=18108&p=281363#p281363 Tom-Palven normal, not paranormal. Bacteria were undiscovered, but were not paranormal until they were proven to exist, they were simply unproven. If the Holy Ghost exists, or ESP exists, fine and dandy. Like the man from Missouri said, just show me.

There are lots of things which are speculative and unproven in the universe including black holes, "strings", and so on, so why don't we refer to them as paranormal, or supernatural? What's the difference? Please tell me.]]> normal, not paranormal. Bacteria were undiscovered, but were not paranormal until they were proven to exist, they were simply unproven. If the Holy Ghost exists, or ESP exists, fine and dandy. Like the man from Missouri said, just show me.

There are lots of things which are speculative and unproven in the universe including black holes, "strings", and so on, so why don't we refer to them as paranormal, or supernatural? What's the difference? Please tell me.]]> UFOs, Cryptozoology, and The Paranormal :: Re: is there anything called paranormal: a critical review :: Reply by Monster 2012-05-17T14:11:12+00:00 2012-05-17T14:11:12+00:00 http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=18108&p=281381#p281381 Monster UFOs, Cryptozoology, and The Paranormal :: Re: is there anything called paranormal: a critical review :: Reply by arnab 2012-05-17T14:29:17+00:00 2012-05-17T14:29:17+00:00 http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=18108&p=281384#p281384 arnab
If the Holy Ghost exists, or ESP exists, fine and dandy. Like the man from Missouri said, just show me.


in near future science will show you that ESP, holy ghosts exist. they are just unproven but exists.]]>
If the Holy Ghost exists, or ESP exists, fine and dandy. Like the man from Missouri said, just show me.


in near future science will show you that ESP, holy ghosts exist. they are just unproven but exists.]]> UFOs, Cryptozoology, and The Paranormal :: Re: is there anything called paranormal: a critical review :: Reply by arnab 2012-05-17T14:32:20+00:00 2012-05-17T14:32:20+00:00 http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=18108&p=281385#p281385 arnab
Monster wrote:If something's real, it's natural. There is no such thing as the paranormal. If clairvoyance is real, it's natural, not paranormal.


the definition of paranormal is something beyond the normal experience. in clairvoyance you can see future which normally you cannot see. how could this be natural? it is by definition paranormal.]]>
Monster wrote:If something's real, it's natural. There is no such thing as the paranormal. If clairvoyance is real, it's natural, not paranormal.


the definition of paranormal is something beyond the normal experience. in clairvoyance you can see future which normally you cannot see. how could this be natural? it is by definition paranormal.]]> Origins :: Re: 13 :: Reply by jannette 2012-05-16T15:27:18+00:00 2012-05-16T15:27:18+00:00 http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=18035&p=281297#p281297 jannette Origins :: Re: 13 :: Reply by Face_Palm 2012-05-16T15:31:23+00:00 2012-05-16T15:31:23+00:00 http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=18035&p=281298#p281298 Face_Palm Origins :: Re: 13 :: Reply by Face_Palm 2012-05-16T19:26:43+00:00 2012-05-16T19:26:43+00:00 http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=18035&p=281313#p281313 Face_Palm ]]> ]]> Origins :: Re: 13 :: Reply by Lance Kennedy 2012-05-16T20:17:47+00:00 2012-05-16T20:17:47+00:00 http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=18035&p=281316#p281316 Lance Kennedy
Many of us have things to say, which we consider important. However, because we are not celebrities, we have a real problem getting our thoughts out there.

Take me for example. I know damn well that I have the solutions to all the problems of the world, if only people would listen and do everything I tell them. The reality, though, is.....]]>
Many of us have things to say, which we consider important. However, because we are not celebrities, we have a real problem getting our thoughts out there.

Take me for example. I know damn well that I have the solutions to all the problems of the world, if only people would listen and do everything I tell them. The reality, though, is.....]]> Origins :: Re: 13 :: Reply by Face_Palm 2012-05-16T21:18:10+00:00 2012-05-16T21:18:10+00:00 http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=18035&p=281320#p281320 Face_Palm
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0393049914/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=skepticcom-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0393049914

I'll take issue with this,

“A profound shift in thinking that in magnitude can only be compared with those that followed upon the works of Darwin and Einstein.” (Robert E. Ulanowicz, author of A Third Window: Natural Life beyond Newton and Darwin )


because the only profundity of that magnitude is deposited in the top two threads in this sub-section of the virtually unknown Skeptics forum, for which even the Skeptics Society honchos probably couldn't care less (a touch of vanity?), but that's not why I'm bringing the Amazon page for this book up:

As physicists work toward completing a theory of the universe and biologists unravel the molecular complexity of life, a glaring incompleteness in this scientific vision becomes apparent. The "Theory of Everything" that appears to be emerging includes everything but us: the feelings, meanings, consciousness, and purposes that make us (and many of our animal cousins) what we are. These most immediate and incontrovertible phenomena are left unexplained by the natural sciences because they lack the physical properties—such as mass, momentum, charge, and location—that are assumed to be necessary for something to have physical consequences in the world. This is an unacceptable omission. We need a "theory of everything" that does not leave it absurd that we exist.


We're even talking about Martin's valued Information Theory in relation to this book. Note how our pursuits for real knowledge seem to be converging to a culmination. I certainly don't provide that "theory of everything" but I do provide the most important piece of it if only because people in general are too caught up in their peculiar conceptions of reality to bother taking science to heart. This is also the reason why as brilliant and more capable than me this guy may be he is no Darwin or Einstein (who weren't necessarily the sharpest tools in the shed; they had a few other virtues and sets of circumstances that set them apart) and he is not ushering the twenty-first century in by any stretch of Kalevi Kull's wishful imagination. Wasn't in the cards for him.

It is in the cards for you though to have the privilege of a first reading of the real deal, circumstances having more to do with its conception than anything else, as has always been the case. So, o devotees of reason, science, and skepticism, try me again. I promise you won't regret it. You'll be kicking yourselves if you don't, as I imagine most if not all 5 & 1/2 of you won't. But perhaps I'm overestimating your presumption and underestimating your critical thinking. Perhaps not.]]>
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0393049914/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=skepticcom-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0393049914

I'll take issue with this,

“A profound shift in thinking that in magnitude can only be compared with those that followed upon the works of Darwin and Einstein.” (Robert E. Ulanowicz, author of A Third Window: Natural Life beyond Newton and Darwin )


because the only profundity of that magnitude is deposited in the top two threads in this sub-section of the virtually unknown Skeptics forum, for which even the Skeptics Society honchos probably couldn't care less (a touch of vanity?), but that's not why I'm bringing the Amazon page for this book up:

As physicists work toward completing a theory of the universe and biologists unravel the molecular complexity of life, a glaring incompleteness in this scientific vision becomes apparent. The "Theory of Everything" that appears to be emerging includes everything but us: the feelings, meanings, consciousness, and purposes that make us (and many of our animal cousins) what we are. These most immediate and incontrovertible phenomena are left unexplained by the natural sciences because they lack the physical properties—such as mass, momentum, charge, and location—that are assumed to be necessary for something to have physical consequences in the world. This is an unacceptable omission. We need a "theory of everything" that does not leave it absurd that we exist.


We're even talking about Martin's valued Information Theory in relation to this book. Note how our pursuits for real knowledge seem to be converging to a culmination. I certainly don't provide that "theory of everything" but I do provide the most important piece of it if only because people in general are too caught up in their peculiar conceptions of reality to bother taking science to heart. This is also the reason why as brilliant and more capable than me this guy may be he is no Darwin or Einstein (who weren't necessarily the sharpest tools in the shed; they had a few other virtues and sets of circumstances that set them apart) and he is not ushering the twenty-first century in by any stretch of Kalevi Kull's wishful imagination. Wasn't in the cards for him.

It is in the cards for you though to have the privilege of a first reading of the real deal, circumstances having more to do with its conception than anything else, as has always been the case. So, o devotees of reason, science, and skepticism, try me again. I promise you won't regret it. You'll be kicking yourselves if you don't, as I imagine most if not all 5 & 1/2 of you won't. But perhaps I'm overestimating your presumption and underestimating your critical thinking. Perhaps not.]]> MonsterTalk Suggestions :: Re: Fairies and Trolls :: Reply by Gord 2012-05-17T12:22:45+00:00 2012-05-17T12:22:45+00:00 http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=82&t=18104&p=281362#p281362 Gord
Fairy lore is fascinating. I've been rereading Katharine Briggs' The Anatomy of Puck. Awesome stuff. I love figuring out where things come from.]]>
Fairy lore is fascinating. I've been rereading Katharine Briggs' The Anatomy of Puck. Awesome stuff. I love figuring out where things come from.]]> MonsterTalk Suggestions :: Re: Unicorns...with or without rainbow poop :: Reply by Face_Palm 2012-05-16T22:50:11+00:00 2012-05-16T22:50:11+00:00 http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=82&t=14548&p=281324#p281324 Face_Palm MonsterTalk Suggestions :: Re: Unicorns...with or without rainbow poop :: Reply by Gord 2012-05-17T12:31:30+00:00 2012-05-17T12:31:30+00:00 http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=82&t=14548&p=281364#p281364 Gord
munsterspeek wrote:There is a lot of joking around, but actually there is a set of people who have decided the King James translation of the Bible, specifically, is inerrant who therefore absolutely require the Unicorn to be a real animal, as it's in there more than once as a translation from the latin and greek, although it's definitely a poor translation from the Hebrew. Since some of these believers are also creationists who don't believe species or "kinds" go extinct, it's not impossible to find people who are seriously committed to unicorns still wandering around, although it is rare and they are often pretty shy about admitting so.

Yes, but these are the same people who think the non-English versions are poor translations from the original English that Jesus spoke. They think "Aramaic" means "American."]]>
munsterspeek wrote:There is a lot of joking around, but actually there is a set of people who have decided the King James translation of the Bible, specifically, is inerrant who therefore absolutely require the Unicorn to be a real animal, as it's in there more than once as a translation from the latin and greek, although it's definitely a poor translation from the Hebrew. Since some of these believers are also creationists who don't believe species or "kinds" go extinct, it's not impossible to find people who are seriously committed to unicorns still wandering around, although it is rare and they are often pretty shy about admitting so.

Yes, but these are the same people who think the non-English versions are poor translations from the original English that Jesus spoke. They think "Aramaic" means "American."]]> The Letting Go of God Forum :: Re: Invited to the Prom.... :: Reply by Lausten 2012-05-17T02:05:30+00:00 2012-05-17T02:05:30+00:00 http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=83&t=18088&p=281334#p281334 Lausten
I haven't listened to the whole thing, but interesting idea. Don't define ourselves as against theism generally, since they are not all equal. Advocate for reason and apply those tools when you come against something that is unreasonable.

Problem with Atheism]]>
I haven't listened to the whole thing, but interesting idea. Don't define ourselves as against theism generally, since they are not all equal. Advocate for reason and apply those tools when you come against something that is unreasonable.

Problem with Atheism]]> The Letting Go of God Forum :: Re: Invited to the Prom.... :: Reply by nmblum 2012-05-17T03:31:45+00:00 2012-05-17T03:31:45+00:00 http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=83&t=18088&p=281341#p281341 nmblum
Lausten wrote:Just came across this one by Sam Harris, with an intro by Julia.

I haven't listened to the whole thing, but interesting idea. Don't define ourselves as against theism generally, since they are not all equal. Advocate for reason and apply those tools when you come against something that is unreasonable.

Problem with Atheism

Wait!!
Are you telling me that Sam Harris wants me to LIE?
Golly!
Jesus Christ!!
Holy Moses!!
(But not under any circumstances, according to Sam Harris......Allah be Praised.)
No one can be defined by one aspect of either character or conviction, but speaking only for myself , I would be hard pressed to disavow my considered belief that religion is....is EVIL too strong?... and I'm agin it!!
I do not ask you agree, but simply to be aware that although an atheist is an atheist - a non believer in a god or gods of any stripe of color - there are many varieties of atheist...at the simplest level some are simply more vocal than others.

That explains, more than I can myself, why I think organized atheism is a contradiction in both the term and the possibilities: atheism as alter-religion, much as some of our faith-ridden guests in this forum are always quick to suggest.

Atheism simply describes one's ability to accept the supernatural in the existence of our universe.
Anything other than that simple avowal requires other adjectives: faith-phobic comes to mind.
But so many atheists, surprisingly, are more or less live and let live when it comes to other people's pew occupancy.
They are indifferent to religion outside of their own lack of any belief.... but are not particularly convinced of the toxic influence of faith over reason, but particularly of the power of organized religion in secular society.
And beyond that I do think the possible suggestion by Harris that one deliberately disguise one's convictions in order to make nice with the people who want "Origin of Species," and "When Johnny Rode his Dinosaur to School" to share not only library shelf space, but room in your kid's cerebral cortex.... is not only feckless but dishonest to the core.
One might as well be a Christian.
Or any one of the other heinous choices.


NMB]]>
Lausten wrote:Just came across this one by Sam Harris, with an intro by Julia.

I haven't listened to the whole thing, but interesting idea. Don't define ourselves as against theism generally, since they are not all equal. Advocate for reason and apply those tools when you come against something that is unreasonable.

Problem with Atheism

Wait!!
Are you telling me that Sam Harris wants me to LIE?
Golly!
Jesus Christ!!
Holy Moses!!
(But not under any circumstances, according to Sam Harris......Allah be Praised.)
No one can be defined by one aspect of either character or conviction, but speaking only for myself , I would be hard pressed to disavow my considered belief that religion is....is EVIL too strong?... and I'm agin it!!
I do not ask you agree, but simply to be aware that although an atheist is an atheist - a non believer in a god or gods of any stripe of color - there are many varieties of atheist...at the simplest level some are simply more vocal than others.

That explains, more than I can myself, why I think organized atheism is a contradiction in both the term and the possibilities: atheism as alter-religion, much as some of our faith-ridden guests in this forum are always quick to suggest.

Atheism simply describes one's ability to accept the supernatural in the existence of our universe.
Anything other than that simple avowal requires other adjectives: faith-phobic comes to mind.
But so many atheists, surprisingly, are more or less live and let live when it comes to other people's pew occupancy.
They are indifferent to religion outside of their own lack of any belief.... but are not particularly convinced of the toxic influence of faith over reason, but particularly of the power of organized religion in secular society.
And beyond that I do think the possible suggestion by Harris that one deliberately disguise one's convictions in order to make nice with the people who want "Origin of Species," and "When Johnny Rode his Dinosaur to School" to share not only library shelf space, but room in your kid's cerebral cortex.... is not only feckless but dishonest to the core.
One might as well be a Christian.
Or any one of the other heinous choices.


NMB]]> The Letting Go of God Forum :: Re: Invited to the Prom.... :: Reply by Tom-Palven 2012-05-17T10:52:15+00:00 2012-05-17T10:52:15+00:00 http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=83&t=18088&p=281359#p281359 Tom-Palven
nmblum wrote:
Lausten wrote:Just came across this one by Sam Harris, with an intro by Julia.

I haven't listened to the whole thing, but interesting idea. Don't define ourselves as against theism generally, since they are not all equal. Advocate for reason and apply those tools when you come against something that is unreasonable.

Problem with Atheism

Wait!!
Are you telling me that Sam Harris wants me to LIE?
Golly!
Jesus Christ!!
Holy Moses!!
(But not under any circumstances, according to Sam Harris......Allah be Praised.)
No one can be defined by one aspect of either character or conviction, but speaking only for myself , I would be hard pressed to disavow my considered belief that religion is....is EVIL too strong?... and I'm agin it!!
I do not ask you agree, but simply to be aware that although an atheist is an atheist - a non believer in a god or gods of any stripe of color - there are many varieties of atheist...at the simplest level some are simply more vocal than others.

That explains, more than I can myself, why I think organized atheism is a contradiction in both the term and the possibilities: atheism as alter-religion, much as some of our faith-ridden guests in this forum are always quick to suggest.

Atheism simply describes one's ability to accept the supernatural in the existence of our universe.Anything other than that simple avowal requires other adjectives: faith-phobic comes to mind.
But so many atheists, surprisingly, are more or less live and let live when it comes to other people's pew occupancy.
They are indifferent to religion outside of their own lack of any belief.... but are not particularly convinced of the toxic influence of faith over reason, but particularly of the power of organized religion in secular society.
And beyond that I do think the possible suggestion by Harris that one deliberately disguise one's convictions in order to make nice with the people who want "Origin of Species," and "When Johnny Rode his Dinosaur to School" to share not only library shelf space, but room in your kid's cerebral cortex.... is not only feckless but dishonest to the core.
One might as well be a Christian.
Or any one of the other heinous choices.


NMB


In think you meant to say "inability" to accept the supernatural. BTW, it's been pointed out that "supernatural" is an oxymoron. If something, say a holy ghost, acutally exists, then it is natural, isn't it? If a Creator in the sky, with a long white beard or whatever, exists, then he is part of the natural order of things and is natural, but there seems to be little good evidence that He exists]]>
nmblum wrote:
Lausten wrote:Just came across this one by Sam Harris, with an intro by Julia.

I haven't listened to the whole thing, but interesting idea. Don't define ourselves as against theism generally, since they are not all equal. Advocate for reason and apply those tools when you come against something that is unreasonable.

Problem with Atheism

Wait!!
Are you telling me that Sam Harris wants me to LIE?
Golly!
Jesus Christ!!
Holy Moses!!
(But not under any circumstances, according to Sam Harris......Allah be Praised.)
No one can be defined by one aspect of either character or conviction, but speaking only for myself , I would be hard pressed to disavow my considered belief that religion is....is EVIL too strong?... and I'm agin it!!
I do not ask you agree, but simply to be aware that although an atheist is an atheist - a non believer in a god or gods of any stripe of color - there are many varieties of atheist...at the simplest level some are simply more vocal than others.

That explains, more than I can myself, why I think organized atheism is a contradiction in both the term and the possibilities: atheism as alter-religion, much as some of our faith-ridden guests in this forum are always quick to suggest.

Atheism simply describes one's ability to accept the supernatural in the existence of our universe.Anything other than that simple avowal requires other adjectives: faith-phobic comes to mind.
But so many atheists, surprisingly, are more or less live and let live when it comes to other people's pew occupancy.
They are indifferent to religion outside of their own lack of any belief.... but are not particularly convinced of the toxic influence of faith over reason, but particularly of the power of organized religion in secular society.
And beyond that I do think the possible suggestion by Harris that one deliberately disguise one's convictions in order to make nice with the people who want "Origin of Species," and "When Johnny Rode his Dinosaur to School" to share not only library shelf space, but room in your kid's cerebral cortex.... is not only feckless but dishonest to the core.
One might as well be a Christian.
Or any one of the other heinous choices.


NMB


In think you meant to say "inability" to accept the supernatural. BTW, it's been pointed out that "supernatural" is an oxymoron. If something, say a holy ghost, acutally exists, then it is natural, isn't it? If a Creator in the sky, with a long white beard or whatever, exists, then he is part of the natural order of things and is natural, but there seems to be little good evidence that He exists]]> The Letting Go of God Forum :: Re: Invited to the Prom.... :: Reply by Lausten 2012-05-17T12:41:18+00:00 2012-05-17T12:41:18+00:00 http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=83&t=18088&p=281367#p281367 Lausten
Tom wrote:If something, say a holy ghost, acutally exists, then it is natural, isn't it? If a Creator in the sky, with a long white beard or whatever, exists, then he is part of the natural order of things and is natural, but there seems to be little good evidence that He exists

Well, you could play with those words all day. Michael Shermer makes a case for a "natural" god by extrapolating our understanding of where the universe came from, to how we might figure out how to make one someday. But if we met that god, there would still be religion, there would still be someone saying that there is something beyond that.

What does god need with a starship?

We need to not only define ourselves, what "natural" means, what "evidence" means, what "reason" is, but we need to use "god" in the only way it should be. It is the gap between what we know now and what we don't know yet. It's mystery and wonder, but it ain't some guy with a beard.]]>
Tom wrote:If something, say a holy ghost, acutally exists, then it is natural, isn't it? If a Creator in the sky, with a long white beard or whatever, exists, then he is part of the natural order of things and is natural, but there seems to be little good evidence that He exists

Well, you could play with those words all day. Michael Shermer makes a case for a "natural" god by extrapolating our understanding of where the universe came from, to how we might figure out how to make one someday. But if we met that god, there would still be religion, there would still be someone saying that there is something beyond that.

What does god need with a starship?

We need to not only define ourselves, what "natural" means, what "evidence" means, what "reason" is, but we need to use "god" in the only way it should be. It is the gap between what we know now and what we don't know yet. It's mystery and wonder, but it ain't some guy with a beard.]]> The Letting Go of God Forum :: Re: Invited to the Prom.... :: Reply by Tom-Palven 2012-05-17T12:46:11+00:00 2012-05-17T12:46:11+00:00 http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=83&t=18088&p=281368#p281368 Tom-Palven
Lausten wrote:
Tom wrote:If something, say a holy ghost, acutally exists, then it is natural, isn't it? If a Creator in the sky, with a long white beard or whatever, exists, then he is part of the natural order of things and is natural, but there seems to be little good evidence that He exists

Well, you could play with those words all day. Michael Shermer makes a case for a "natural" god by extrapolating our understanding of where the universe came from, to how we might figure out how to make one someday. But if we met that god, there would still be religion, there would still be someone saying that there is something beyond that.

What does god need with a starship?

We need to not only define ourselves, what "natural" means, what "evidence" means, what "reason" is, but we need to use "god" in the only way it should be. It is the gap between what we know now and what we don't know yet. It's mystery and wonder, but it ain't some guy with a beard.


We could join those who play with the definition of god all day, too, but at least it's good to know now, definitively, that He doesn't have a beard.]]>
Lausten wrote:
Tom wrote:If something, say a holy ghost, acutally exists, then it is natural, isn't it? If a Creator in the sky, with a long white beard or whatever, exists, then he is part of the natural order of things and is natural, but there seems to be little good evidence that He exists

Well, you could play with those words all day. Michael Shermer makes a case for a "natural" god by extrapolating our understanding of where the universe came from, to how we might figure out how to make one someday. But if we met that god, there would still be religion, there would still be someone saying that there is something beyond that.

What does god need with a starship?

We need to not only define ourselves, what "natural" means, what "evidence" means, what "reason" is, but we need to use "god" in the only way it should be. It is the gap between what we know now and what we don't know yet. It's mystery and wonder, but it ain't some guy with a beard.


We could join those who play with the definition of god all day, too, but at least it's good to know now, definitively, that He doesn't have a beard.]]> The Letting Go of God Forum :: Re: Invited to the Prom.... :: Reply by fromthehills 2012-05-17T13:44:27+00:00 2012-05-17T13:44:27+00:00 http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=83&t=18088&p=281373#p281373 fromthehills
Lausten wrote:Just came across this one by Sam Harris, with an intro by Julia.

I haven't listened to the whole thing, but interesting idea. Don't define ourselves as against theism generally, since they are not all equal. Advocate for reason and apply those tools when you come against something that is unreasonable.

Problem with Atheism


Harris is seeing himself as a leader in the atheist movement, as my Border Collie sees herself as herding the cats. He's proclaiming what he thinks will work, and the direction he thinks is best for atheists to go. I don't disagree with him, but as "atheist" isn't a religious group, isn't a herd of believers in no-god with a chosen leader, it's a personal position. I simply don't believe in God, or spirits, or afterlife. I'm against religion for other reasons.

I live in a community rampant with all kinds of nonsensical beliefs. Example: Me at the pub. Two pints in, gave the bartender a $100. Guy walks up with copper wire wrapped around his head, and some sort of robe on. He is explaining something about life energy and so on to a distracted bartender as my change is being counted. I say, " Yeah, yeah, can this wait? My money is being counted in reality." I didn't have time to debate the guy on reason and rationality, and doubt that it would have done much good, given he was wearing an electrician's clippings on his head. And no, he probably passes for sane. It's part of a small religious sect around here.]]>
Lausten wrote:Just came across this one by Sam Harris, with an intro by Julia.

I haven't listened to the whole thing, but interesting idea. Don't define ourselves as against theism generally, since they are not all equal. Advocate for reason and apply those tools when you come against something that is unreasonable.

Problem with Atheism


Harris is seeing himself as a leader in the atheist movement, as my Border Collie sees herself as herding the cats. He's proclaiming what he thinks will work, and the direction he thinks is best for atheists to go. I don't disagree with him, but as "atheist" isn't a religious group, isn't a herd of believers in no-god with a chosen leader, it's a personal position. I simply don't believe in God, or spirits, or afterlife. I'm against religion for other reasons.

I live in a community rampant with all kinds of nonsensical beliefs. Example: Me at the pub. Two pints in, gave the bartender a $100. Guy walks up with copper wire wrapped around his head, and some sort of robe on. He is explaining something about life energy and so on to a distracted bartender as my change is being counted. I say, " Yeah, yeah, can this wait? My money is being counted in reality." I didn't have time to debate the guy on reason and rationality, and doubt that it would have done much good, given he was wearing an electrician's clippings on his head. And no, he probably passes for sane. It's part of a small religious sect around here.]]> Film/Theater/TV/Video/Radio/Podcasts :: Re: American Idol :: Reply by Tom-Palven 2012-05-17T10:28:59+00:00 2012-05-17T10:28:59+00:00 http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=85&t=12746&p=281355#p281355 Tom-Palven
2. Joshua has amazing natural singing ability, but I'm still missing that "connection" with the lyrics and the audience.

3. Phillip gets points for looks and style, but not for singing ability.

And, BTW, Joshua sang a cleansed version of Imagine. He did sing "Imagine there's no Heaven, no Hell below us, above us only sky," but he left "Imagine there's no countries, and no religion, too," so he was basically imagining the status quo...
Joshua's version:
http://www.americanidol.com/videos/seas ... formances/
(Note: this comes up Etta James' I'd Rather Go Blind, and you have to click below to get Imagine.)

John Lennon's original version:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iu5S68RimPk]]>
2. Joshua has amazing natural singing ability, but I'm still missing that "connection" with the lyrics and the audience.

3. Phillip gets points for looks and style, but not for singing ability.

And, BTW, Joshua sang a cleansed version of Imagine. He did sing "Imagine there's no Heaven, no Hell below us, above us only sky," but he left "Imagine there's no countries, and no religion, too," so he was basically imagining the status quo...
Joshua's version:
http://www.americanidol.com/videos/seas ... formances/
(Note: this comes up Etta James' I'd Rather Go Blind, and you have to click below to get Imagine.)

John Lennon's original version:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iu5S68RimPk]]> Climate Change :: Re: At what point can we say there is no more global warming :: Reply by xouper 2012-05-16T15:17:01+00:00 2012-05-16T15:17:01+00:00 http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=17663&p=281294#p281294 xouper http://www.skepticalscience.com/crutem4_a_detailed_look.html

A confusion of conventions

How have the global land temperature estimates been affected by the new dataset? Unfortunately at this point we run into a problem. There are several ways of calculating a land temperature estimate. First there is a choice of how to calculate the average . . . Then, there is a choice of how to treat coastal map cells . . .

This seems to be a more realistic portrayal of how the science is done in the trenches. Once you look under the covers and see what's really going on, there is no scientific consensus about the details, or the models, or anything else.

Also, how much of arctic warming is caused by CO2 and how much is caused by carbon soot?

Oh wait -- they are still studying the problem and no one really knows.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110418_blackcarbon.html

No scientific consensus there either.]]> http://www.skepticalscience.com/crutem4_a_detailed_look.html

A confusion of conventions

How have the global land temperature estimates been affected by the new dataset? Unfortunately at this point we run into a problem. There are several ways of calculating a land temperature estimate. First there is a choice of how to calculate the average . . . Then, there is a choice of how to treat coastal map cells . . .

This seems to be a more realistic portrayal of how the science is done in the trenches. Once you look under the covers and see what's really going on, there is no scientific consensus about the details, or the models, or anything else.

Also, how much of arctic warming is caused by CO2 and how much is caused by carbon soot?

Oh wait -- they are still studying the problem and no one really knows.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110418_blackcarbon.html

No scientific consensus there either.]]> Climate Change :: Re: At what point can we say there is no more global warming :: Reply by Face_Palm 2012-05-16T15:34:59+00:00 2012-05-16T15:34:59+00:00 http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=17663&p=281300#p281300 Face_Palm Climate Change :: Re: Analysis of Speed of Greenland Glaciers Gives New Insigh :: Reply by Martin Brock 2012-05-16T23:58:28+00:00 2012-05-16T23:58:28+00:00 http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=18106&p=281328#p281328 Martin Brock Climate Change :: Re: Analysis of Speed of Greenland Glaciers Gives New Insigh :: Reply by Face_Palm 2012-05-17T00:09:38+00:00 2012-05-17T00:09:38+00:00 http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=18106&p=281329#p281329 Face_Palm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FYTc55nGEI]]>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FYTc55nGEI]]> Climate Change :: Re: WSJ claims there’s “No Need to Panic About Global Warmin :: Reply by xouper 2012-05-16T15:27:01+00:00 2012-05-16T15:27:01+00:00 http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=17641&p=281296#p281296 xouper
Face_Palm wrote:By the way, what IQ score did you get in Mensa with? Just curious.

Eat cowpie, troll_face.

Your question is not sincere and does not deserve an answer. I could tell you my IQ score, but there is no way you can verify it, so what's the point?
.]]>
Face_Palm wrote:By the way, what IQ score did you get in Mensa with? Just curious.

Eat cowpie, troll_face.

Your question is not sincere and does not deserve an answer. I could tell you my IQ score, but there is no way you can verify it, so what's the point?
.]]> Climate Change :: Re: WSJ claims there’s “No Need to Panic About Global Warmin :: Reply by Face_Palm 2012-05-16T15:33:09+00:00 2012-05-16T15:33:09+00:00 http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=17641&p=281299#p281299 Face_Palm Climate Change :: Re: WSJ claims there’s “No Need to Panic About Global Warmin :: Reply by xouper 2012-05-16T16:47:20+00:00 2012-05-16T16:47:20+00:00 http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=17641&p=281303#p281303 xouper :laff:]]> :laff:]]> Climate Change :: Re: WSJ claims there’s “No Need to Panic About Global Warmin :: Reply by Face_Palm 2012-05-16T19:16:16+00:00 2012-05-16T19:16:16+00:00 http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=17641&p=281312#p281312 Face_Palm Climate Change :: Re: ??? :: Reply by citizenschallenge 2012-05-17T02:30:50+00:00 2012-05-17T02:30:50+00:00 http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=17641&p=281338#p281338 citizenschallenge
xouper wrote:
Face_Palm wrote:There's quite a bit of irony involved in there considering he's the last person to indulge in mental masturbation on this topic and that he would just as well excise most of this exchange from this thread because it's largely irrelevant.

Then you agree it backfired on him.

As for his mental masturbation, have you already forgotten he made several factually incorrect claims about Einstein and Newton and then engaged in page after page of mental masturbation trying avoid having to concede he erred? If he had just said in the beginning, "Oh, you're right I was mistaken", that would have been the end of it. But instead he dragged it on for several pages trying to deny his error. In the end that tactic did not work.


Face_Palm, I appreciate your spirited defense.

But, don’t let X rile you up too much. Consider how much time he spends either feeling insulted or attacked, or claiming victory - as if the learning process is a battle.
Though, I can’t say he never brings anything worthwhile to the table... though come to think of it, it has been a long time, instead he seems wrapped up in some vendetta thing or whatever it is.


xouper wrote:...have you already forgotten he made several factually incorrect claims about Einstein and Newton and then engaged in page after page of mental masturbation trying avoid having to concede he erred?

Let’s see if X can come up with a concise list of those errors and why they are errors. I’ll be happy to explain myself in light of his argument.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In the meantime let me approach it from another direction.
Back not too many years ago, when building was booming and such, I was working a lot of production carpentry. Given the hardon everyone had for “Great Rooms” and ± twenty foot high ceilings, there was plenty of time for folks to Walk Walls, sans safety harness, there was work that needed to be done up there. . . for those who didn’t mind doing so, and I didn’t, kinda fun in fact.

Now let me try this analogy ....... , put me on a 3.5 inch wall a few feet high and I will dance on it, joke around and all. Put me on an eight foot wall and I may dance a little, but no more joking, I’m paying attention. Put me on a sixteen foot wall and no more dancing, even though that TOW (top of wall) is now 5.5 inches wide. It’s time to be dead serious and focused. Put me on a twenty-four foot high wall, and I’ve been there, and it’s a complete focus, no buzzing bug or pretty lady walking will distract my focus.

So what’s the different?
The freak’n width of what I’m walking on hasn’t changed.

Some one of the head {!#%@} persuasion could spend hours debating that there shouldn’t be any difference. And with all due respect that’s what I see going on around here a lot. They’ll huff and they'll puff, but they will never mount a learned point by point defense, because none of it matters to them. {and they f'n don't have a serious defense for their contrarian consensus crazy-making.}

It’s like what I digested from some of Pyrrho’s posts were that of an Olympian Perspective.
God's on high looking down on them foolish humans and yes there will be more war and hardship, but ah what can we do, please do pass the wine, thank you very much. You kids run along now and do your fretting somewhere else.]]>
xouper wrote:
Face_Palm wrote:There's quite a bit of irony involved in there considering he's the last person to indulge in mental masturbation on this topic and that he would just as well excise most of this exchange from this thread because it's largely irrelevant.

Then you agree it backfired on him.

As for his mental masturbation, have you already forgotten he made several factually incorrect claims about Einstein and Newton and then engaged in page after page of mental masturbation trying avoid having to concede he erred? If he had just said in the beginning, "Oh, you're right I was mistaken", that would have been the end of it. But instead he dragged it on for several pages trying to deny his error. In the end that tactic did not work.


Face_Palm, I appreciate your spirited defense.

But, don’t let X rile you up too much. Consider how much time he spends either feeling insulted or attacked, or claiming victory - as if the learning process is a battle.
Though, I can’t say he never brings anything worthwhile to the table... though come to think of it, it has been a long time, instead he seems wrapped up in some vendetta thing or whatever it is.


xouper wrote:...have you already forgotten he made several factually incorrect claims about Einstein and Newton and then engaged in page after page of mental masturbation trying avoid having to concede he erred?

Let’s see if X can come up with a concise list of those errors and why they are errors. I’ll be happy to explain myself in light of his argument.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In the meantime let me approach it from another direction.
Back not too many years ago, when building was booming and such, I was working a lot of production carpentry. Given the hardon everyone had for “Great Rooms” and ± twenty foot high ceilings, there was plenty of time for folks to Walk Walls, sans safety harness, there was work that needed to be done up there. . . for those who didn’t mind doing so, and I didn’t, kinda fun in fact.

Now let me try this analogy ....... , put me on a 3.5 inch wall a few feet high and I will dance on it, joke around and all. Put me on an eight foot wall and I may dance a little, but no more joking, I’m paying attention. Put me on a sixteen foot wall and no more dancing, even though that TOW (top of wall) is now 5.5 inches wide. It’s time to be dead serious and focused. Put me on a twenty-four foot high wall, and I’ve been there, and it’s a complete focus, no buzzing bug or pretty lady walking will distract my focus.

So what’s the different?
The freak’n width of what I’m walking on hasn’t changed.

Some one of the head {!#%@} persuasion could spend hours debating that there shouldn’t be any difference. And with all due respect that’s what I see going on around here a lot. They’ll huff and they'll puff, but they will never mount a learned point by point defense, because none of it matters to them. {and they f'n don't have a serious defense for their contrarian consensus crazy-making.}

It’s like what I digested from some of Pyrrho’s posts were that of an Olympian Perspective.
God's on high looking down on them foolish humans and yes there will be more war and hardship, but ah what can we do, please do pass the wine, thank you very much. You kids run along now and do your fretting somewhere else.]]> Climate Change :: Re: ??? :: Reply by xouper 2012-05-17T14:07:48+00:00 2012-05-17T14:07:48+00:00 http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=17641&p=281379#p281379 xouper
citizenschallenge wrote:
xouper wrote:...have you already forgotten he made several factually incorrect claims about Einstein and Newton and then engaged in page after page of mental masturbation trying avoid having to concede he erred?

Let’s see if X can come up with a concise list of those errors and why they are errors. I’ll be happy to explain myself in light of his argument.

I have already done that. What the {!#%@} is the matter with your memory?

OK, here again for the brain-dead who can't even remember what was posted earlier in this thread, here are two of your claims that are factually incorrect.

citizenschallenge wrote:. . . the take away point is that engineers . . . use Newton's formulas, not Einstein's.

The real world we live in operates by Newton's laws, Nothing Einstein did changes that reality.

That is factually incorrect. The engineers who built GPS -- which is very much a part of the every-day real world we live in -- did indeed use Einstein to make it work. You are wrong when you say that GPS can be made to work using only Newton.

citizenschallenge wrote:. . . Our biosphere's many components and interactions can be, and are, describable within the mathematical framework figured out by Newton. Einstein's equations belong off in the cosmic fringes, they don't impact everyday natural phenomena ~ for that Newton does plenty good to describe all the physical phenomena under the sun.

That is factually incorrect. Radiation from radon fission is a common natural process "under the sun". You are wrong that Newton does plenty good to describe that physical phenomenon.

There is no way in hell you can legitimately argue that your claims -- as written -- are not wrong.]]>
citizenschallenge wrote:
xouper wrote:...have you already forgotten he made several factually incorrect claims about Einstein and Newton and then engaged in page after page of mental masturbation trying avoid having to concede he erred?

Let’s see if X can come up with a concise list of those errors and why they are errors. I’ll be happy to explain myself in light of his argument.

I have already done that. What the {!#%@} is the matter with your memory?

OK, here again for the brain-dead who can't even remember what was posted earlier in this thread, here are two of your claims that are factually incorrect.

citizenschallenge wrote:. . . the take away point is that engineers . . . use Newton's formulas, not Einstein's.

The real world we live in operates by Newton's laws, Nothing Einstein did changes that reality.

That is factually incorrect. The engineers who built GPS -- which is very much a part of the every-day real world we live in -- did indeed use Einstein to make it work. You are wrong when you say that GPS can be made to work using only Newton.

citizenschallenge wrote:. . . Our biosphere's many components and interactions can be, and are, describable within the mathematical framework figured out by Newton. Einstein's equations belong off in the cosmic fringes, they don't impact everyday natural phenomena ~ for that Newton does plenty good to describe all the physical phenomena under the sun.

That is factually incorrect. Radiation from radon fission is a common natural process "under the sun". You are wrong that Newton does plenty good to describe that physical phenomenon.

There is no way in hell you can legitimately argue that your claims -- as written -- are not wrong.]]> Climate Change :: Re: How to respond to an eSkeptic response :: Reply by citizenschallenge 2012-05-17T02:21:38+00:00 2012-05-17T02:21:38+00:00 http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=18080&p=281336#p281336 citizenschallenge
xouper wrote:
Face_Palm wrote:
xouper wrote:
Face_Palm wrote:I'll take your word for it.

By doing that, you concede there is a problem with your previous remark about consensus.

No, it's just that at some point spoon-feeding you becomes an exceptionally annoying prospect.

You might have a point if you had something to feed me. But you don't. There is no scientific consensus on what political action to take in response to global warming.

Why must you Willfully Ignore that I'm constantly going on about learning about climatology and what the scientists are discovering regarding what's happening in our atmosphere?
Regarding the reality of AGW, there is much consensus but you'd rather not deal with that :cry:

Why you got to distract from that with a Red Herring??? :?]]>
xouper wrote:
Face_Palm wrote:
xouper wrote:
Face_Palm wrote:I'll take your word for it.

By doing that, you concede there is a problem with your previous remark about consensus.

No, it's just that at some point spoon-feeding you becomes an exceptionally annoying prospect.

You might have a point if you had something to feed me. But you don't. There is no scientific consensus on what political action to take in response to global warming.

Why must you Willfully Ignore that I'm constantly going on about learning about climatology and what the scientists are discovering regarding what's happening in our atmosphere?
Regarding the reality of AGW, there is much consensus but you'd rather not deal with that :cry:

Why you got to distract from that with a Red Herring??? :?]]> Climate Change :: Re: How to respond to an eSkeptic response :: Reply by Face_Palm 2012-05-17T02:25:52+00:00 2012-05-17T02:25:52+00:00 http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=18080&p=281337#p281337 Face_Palm Climate Change :: Re: How to respond to an eSkeptic response :: Reply by xouper 2012-05-17T13:36:30+00:00 2012-05-17T13:36:30+00:00 http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=18080&p=281372#p281372 xouper
citizenschallenge wrote:
xouper wrote:
Face_Palm wrote:
xouper wrote:
Face_Palm wrote:I'll take your word for it.

By doing that, you concede there is a problem with your previous remark about consensus.

No, it's just that at some point spoon-feeding you becomes an exceptionally annoying prospect.

You might have a point if you had something to feed me. But you don't. There is no scientific consensus on what political action to take in response to global warming.

Why must you Willfully Ignore that I'm constantly going on about learning about climatology and what the scientists are discovering regarding what's happening in our atmosphere?

Regarding the reality of AGW, there is much consensus but you'd rather not deal with that :cry:

Why you got to distract from that with a Red Herring??? :?

You really should learn to read better before running your mouth like that.

I was addressing Face_Palm's comment about political action in response to global warming. Your accusations about my character are not only false, they are not even relevant to point being discussed.]]>
citizenschallenge wrote:
xouper wrote:
Face_Palm wrote:
xouper wrote:
Face_Palm wrote:I'll take your word for it.

By doing that, you concede there is a problem with your previous remark about consensus.

No, it's just that at some point spoon-feeding you becomes an exceptionally annoying prospect.

You might have a point if you had something to feed me. But you don't. There is no scientific consensus on what political action to take in response to global warming.

Why must you Willfully Ignore that I'm constantly going on about learning about climatology and what the scientists are discovering regarding what's happening in our atmosphere?

Regarding the reality of AGW, there is much consensus but you'd rather not deal with that :cry:

Why you got to distract from that with a Red Herring??? :?

You really should learn to read better before running your mouth like that.

I was addressing Face_Palm's comment about political action in response to global warming. Your accusations about my character are not only false, they are not even relevant to point being discussed.]]> Climate Change :: Re: How to respond to an eSkeptic response :: Reply by citizenschallenge 2012-05-17T14:12:05+00:00 2012-05-17T14:12:05+00:00 http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=18080&p=281382#p281382 citizenschallenge



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sad thing though,
people gotta come to grips with what the science is telling us,
before we can hope for folks getting serious about taking substantive action,
and the clock running out . . . . . . .

{sort of like the Pearl Harbor Attack taking care of most the pacifists, and pretty near everyone jumping into the war effort.
Instead we just watch as the drumbeat of small, [but increasingly impact rich] 'natural pearl harbors' continues being steadfastly ignored.}



'Predicting and Managing Extreme Events'
American Geophysical Union 
Union Agency Lecture

San Francisco, CA


Jane Lubchenco, Ph.D.,
Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans & Atmosphere and NOAA Administrator
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories201 ... h_agu.html

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
2011: Fourteen Billion-Dollar Weather Disasters, Most in U.S. history
http://www.wunderground.com/resources/severe/severe.asp
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
2011 Billion-Dollar Disaster Tally Continues to Climb
by Chris Dolce, weather.com Meteorologist
http://www.weather.com/outlook/weather- ... 2011-12-07
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Billion-Dollar Disasters 'Harbinger' of Future Extreme Weather: NOAA
http://www.livescience.com/17410-billio ... hange.html
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
With Climate Change, Expect More Monster Winter Storms
http://www.livescience.com/11703-climat ... torms.html
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Climate Change Threatens Health: Extreme Weather
http://www.nrdc.org/health/climate/extreme-weather.asp
http://www.nrdc.org/health/climate/




gotta run, cheers]]>



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sad thing though,
people gotta come to grips with what the science is telling us,
before we can hope for folks getting serious about taking substantive action,
and the clock running out . . . . . . .

{sort of like the Pearl Harbor Attack taking care of most the pacifists, and pretty near everyone jumping into the war effort.
Instead we just watch as the drumbeat of small, [but increasingly impact rich] 'natural pearl harbors' continues being steadfastly ignored.}



'Predicting and Managing Extreme Events'
American Geophysical Union 
Union Agency Lecture

San Francisco, CA


Jane Lubchenco, Ph.D.,
Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans & Atmosphere and NOAA Administrator
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories201 ... h_agu.html

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
2011: Fourteen Billion-Dollar Weather Disasters, Most in U.S. history
http://www.wunderground.com/resources/severe/severe.asp
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
2011 Billion-Dollar Disaster Tally Continues to Climb
by Chris Dolce, weather.com Meteorologist
http://www.weather.com/outlook/weather- ... 2011-12-07
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Billion-Dollar Disasters 'Harbinger' of Future Extreme Weather: NOAA
http://www.livescience.com/17410-billio ... hange.html
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
With Climate Change, Expect More Monster Winter Storms
http://www.livescience.com/11703-climat ... torms.html
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Climate Change Threatens Health: Extreme Weather
http://www.nrdc.org/health/climate/extreme-weather.asp
http://www.nrdc.org/health/climate/




gotta run, cheers]]> Climate Change :: Re: How to respond to an eSkeptic response :: Reply by xouper 2012-05-17T14:25:14+00:00 2012-05-17T14:25:14+00:00 http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=18080&p=281383#p281383 xouper
citizenschallenge wrote:Sad thing though, people gotta come to grips with what the science is telling us, before we can hope for folks getting serious about taking substantive action,

Even if we all "come to grips with what the science is telling us", there is no scientific consensus on what political action to take.]]>
citizenschallenge wrote:Sad thing though, people gotta come to grips with what the science is telling us, before we can hope for folks getting serious about taking substantive action,

Even if we all "come to grips with what the science is telling us", there is no scientific consensus on what political action to take.]]> Climate Change :: Re: How to respond to an eSkeptic response :: Reply by citizenschallenge 2012-05-17T14:45:55+00:00 2012-05-17T14:45:55+00:00 http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=18080&p=281386#p281386 citizenschallenge {rhythms with Eaarth }

http://newanthropocene.wordpress.com/about/

I got the feeling you may find it interesting.
About New Anthropocene:

Over the previous two centuries, the human race has proven itself a force of nature. So radical are the impacts that it only remains logical to state that we have moved out of the Holocene and into a new geological era; the Anthropocene.

We seem to relish in the notion that we are a force of nature, but deny the necessary responsibility that should go with it. We must face the fact that we are now the true custodians of the world around us and have great potential to both destroy and more interestingly produce. The sooner we acknowledge this, the greater the remaining gene pool and remnant biota and easy energy supply. In other words, the sooner we admit to our new role, the easier we can provide guidelines for something we can truly be proud to hand on to future generations.

The limited conversations desperately required and flat out rejection of all things unpleasant will only make us look foolish in the history books and that’s something many of us simply cannot accept.

Welcome to the New Anthropocene; the next step for the age of the human storm. Here is a collection of work, produced by people ready to face our responsibly and discuss the often uncomfortable topics. . .
]]> {rhythms with Eaarth }

http://newanthropocene.wordpress.com/about/

I got the feeling you may find it interesting.
About New Anthropocene:

Over the previous two centuries, the human race has proven itself a force of nature. So radical are the impacts that it only remains logical to state that we have moved out of the Holocene and into a new geological era; the Anthropocene.

We seem to relish in the notion that we are a force of nature, but deny the necessary responsibility that should go with it. We must face the fact that we are now the true custodians of the world around us and have great potential to both destroy and more interestingly produce. The sooner we acknowledge this, the greater the remaining gene pool and remnant biota and easy energy supply. In other words, the sooner we admit to our new role, the easier we can provide guidelines for something we can truly be proud to hand on to future generations.

The limited conversations desperately required and flat out rejection of all things unpleasant will only make us look foolish in the history books and that’s something many of us simply cannot accept.

Welcome to the New Anthropocene; the next step for the age of the human storm. Here is a collection of work, produced by people ready to face our responsibly and discuss the often uncomfortable topics. . .
]]> Economics :: Jamie Dimon/Peter Gibbons :: Author JO 753 2012-05-17T02:56:47+00:00 2012-05-17T02:56:47+00:00 http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=18107&p=281339#p281339 JO 753 Mr. Dimon in a few interviewz about JP Morgan loozing 2gigabuks in 6 weeks.

Remember Peter, the main karaktr in Office Space after hiz hypnosis? Thats wut Jamie iz like!

I'v probably named him in other posts critical uv the way our financial system works, but really only bekuz I happened to know hiz name. Any other hed honcho name uv a big bank or Wall Street money shuffling firm woud hav dun just az well.

But after seeing the interviewz, I am thinking exactly like the 2 Bobz! (except I still hate Micheal Bolton assclown myoozak) He just told wut happened without making the slitest effort to defend himself or the bank. He told good or bad facts with an equal lack uv emfisis.

Yes, the system iz still a stinking pile uv krap and the management, including Jamie, are insanely overpaid, but he iz a 'strate shooter' in stark cantrast to all the Mazulloz & Lumbergz infesting the management uv corporate America.]]> Mr. Dimon in a few interviewz about JP Morgan loozing 2gigabuks in 6 weeks.

Remember Peter, the main karaktr in Office Space after hiz hypnosis? Thats wut Jamie iz like!

I'v probably named him in other posts critical uv the way our financial system works, but really only bekuz I happened to know hiz name. Any other hed honcho name uv a big bank or Wall Street money shuffling firm woud hav dun just az well.

But after seeing the interviewz, I am thinking exactly like the 2 Bobz! (except I still hate Micheal Bolton assclown myoozak) He just told wut happened without making the slitest effort to defend himself or the bank. He told good or bad facts with an equal lack uv emfisis.

Yes, the system iz still a stinking pile uv krap and the management, including Jamie, are insanely overpaid, but he iz a 'strate shooter' in stark cantrast to all the Mazulloz & Lumbergz infesting the management uv corporate America.]]> Economics :: Re: Jamie Dimon/Peter Gibbons :: Reply by Face_Palm 2012-05-17T03:16:02+00:00 2012-05-17T03:16:02+00:00 http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=18107&p=281340#p281340 Face_Palm Economics :: Re: Jamie Dimon/Peter Gibbons :: Reply by JO 753 2012-05-17T09:55:21+00:00 2012-05-17T09:55:21+00:00 http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=18107&p=281354#p281354 JO 753
Thats the feeling uv the cement in your hed cracking. You need this to happen. In order to bild sumthing better, sumtimez decrepet old structurez must be cleard away first.

You'll thank me later. You may hav been on your way to fossil headizm!]]>
Thats the feeling uv the cement in your hed cracking. You need this to happen. In order to bild sumthing better, sumtimez decrepet old structurez must be cleard away first.

You'll thank me later. You may hav been on your way to fossil headizm!]]> Economics :: Re: Jamie Dimon/Peter Gibbons :: Reply by Face_Palm 2012-05-17T13:53:20+00:00 2012-05-17T13:53:20+00:00 http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=18107&p=281376#p281376 Face_Palm Holocaust Denial :: Re: The cutting of fresh flesh from executed pris. in Auschw :: Reply by Chester 2012-05-16T19:06:37+00:00 2012-05-16T19:06:37+00:00 http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=18101&p=281310#p281310 Chester ]]> ]]> Holocaust Denial :: Re: A Radio Challenge :: Reply by Chester 2012-05-16T21:34:52+00:00 2012-05-16T21:34:52+00:00 http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=18091&p=281321#p281321 Chester I'd bet a buck a beer and a cigarette that Roberto is a no-show.
He's a KbKommando but Mr. Berg is sonder.

I can just see Roberto spouting Yankiel's Theorem. :lol:]]> I'd bet a buck a beer and a cigarette that Roberto is a no-show.
He's a KbKommando but Mr. Berg is sonder.

I can just see Roberto spouting Yankiel's Theorem. :lol:]]> Holocaust Denial :: Re: A Radio Challenge :: Reply by Lemmy Caution 2012-05-16T23:00:50+00:00 2012-05-16T23:00:50+00:00 http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=18091&p=281325#p281325 Lemmy Caution Holocaust Denial :: Re: Rudolf Vrba prime crime witness :: Reply by Chester 2012-05-16T17:44:28+00:00 2012-05-16T17:44:28+00:00 http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=18089&p=281306#p281306 Chester
Hans says:
Chester, your knowledge about Rudolf Vrba is flawed and rudimentary, which is in principle okay since we are all here to learn something, but which is - I think - quite unfortunate and problematic for somebody who wants to write something like a review of his accounts.


Sometimes, Hans, it is necessary to dig little holes to get to the bottom of things. In your zeal to announce that my knowledge about Vrba is ' flawed and rudimentary' you stepped in the proverbial hole. The second hole you missed completely (or you would have mentioned it.) Let me explain.

Vrba was a clerkish type, a jumping bean (counter). You and I both know that. How about those with less knowledge such as the general public at large and most of the readers here. Let's assume anybody in this forum searched the term Vrba sonderkommando ( with the purpose to verify what I wrote.) Guess what comes up?

Rudolf Vrba, 81; Auschwitz Escapee Gave 1st Details of Nazi Atrocities
Obituaries
April 11, 2006, Jon Thurber | Los Angles Times Staff Writer

"Vrba's experience as a Sonderkommando was key to the report having the authority that it did," said Bernie M. Farber, chief executive officer of the Canadian Jewish Congress. "Rudy had a picture-perfect mind, and he remembered the languages that [the prisoners] spoke and he knew how many could be crammed into a railroad car."
-----------

SMH.com.au
April 15, 2006

Part of the "Sonderkommando", the special unit assigned to dispose of the bodies of those killed in the mass extermination, Vrba had first-hand knowledge of the brutality at Auschwitz, where more than 1.5 million people were killed.
------------------------------

My next question is this. If you, a skeptic reader, read these obits would you believe me or would you dig deeper? Would you advise Hans? Would you stand mute?

Here is my statement to readers. Don't believe a thing I say. Seek out the truth for yourself. Use the brain you were born with and don't let anyone lead you around by the nose. Reject all forms of social engineering.

Here's the one you missed, Hans. Did you really let this one get by you or is this NEW to you?
ID #44070 was the number issued to a Joseph Israel Rosenberg.

Hans says:
b) Vrba cannot be considered "a cornerstone of the gas chamber wing of the Holocaust Haus". Rudolf Vrba did not work at the extermination sites in Birkenau. He only observed the pouring of the gas into a basement from some considerable distance. His actual knowledge on the inside of the extermination sites in Birkenau is based on hearsay, probably from Sonderkommando Filip Müller. Accordingly, there are numerous witnesses who had a much better access to the extermination sites.


You are correct! He is not a cornerstone of anything truthful. He's a prevaricator of the first water and has zero credibility. He is, however, considered a cornerstone of the gas chamber wing of the Holocaust Haus by the general public. The holocaust haus is a rickety structure built on shifting sands with very little truth.

I agree with you that:
1 He only 'observed' the pouring of the gas into a basement from some considerable distance.
2. His actual knowledge on the inside of the extermination sites in Birkenau is based on hearsay
3. There are numerous witnesses who had a much better access to the extermination sites.
4. Rudolf Vrba did not work at the extermination sites in Birkenau.

Thank you for the reference and your candor when you stated:

Their report on the gas chamber is by the way clearly more detailed and reliable then Wetzler and Vrba's report (possibly because they actually had access to the site in contrast to Vrba and Wetzler).


Thank you. The WRB Report sure carried much weight for many years, didn't it? The WRB didn't really deserve all that weight, did it? Vrba claims his friend was a reliable source. That friend? Filip Mueller.
"What a tangled web they weave . . . "]]>
Hans says:
Chester, your knowledge about Rudolf Vrba is flawed and rudimentary, which is in principle okay since we are all here to learn something, but which is - I think - quite unfortunate and problematic for somebody who wants to write something like a review of his accounts.


Sometimes, Hans, it is necessary to dig little holes to get to the bottom of things. In your zeal to announce that my knowledge about Vrba is ' flawed and rudimentary' you stepped in the proverbial hole. The second hole you missed completely (or you would have mentioned it.) Let me explain.

Vrba was a clerkish type, a jumping bean (counter). You and I both know that. How about those with less knowledge such as the general public at large and most of the readers here. Let's assume anybody in this forum searched the term Vrba sonderkommando ( with the purpose to verify what I wrote.) Guess what comes up?

Rudolf Vrba, 81; Auschwitz Escapee Gave 1st Details of Nazi Atrocities
Obituaries
April 11, 2006, Jon Thurber | Los Angles Times Staff Writer

"Vrba's experience as a Sonderkommando was key to the report having the authority that it did," said Bernie M. Farber, chief executive officer of the Canadian Jewish Congress. "Rudy had a picture-perfect mind, and he remembered the languages that [the prisoners] spoke and he knew how many could be crammed into a railroad car."
-----------

SMH.com.au
April 15, 2006

Part of the "Sonderkommando", the special unit assigned to dispose of the bodies of those killed in the mass extermination, Vrba had first-hand knowledge of the brutality at Auschwitz, where more than 1.5 million people were killed.
------------------------------

My next question is this. If you, a skeptic reader, read these obits would you believe me or would you dig deeper? Would you advise Hans? Would you stand mute?

Here is my statement to readers. Don't believe a thing I say. Seek out the truth for yourself. Use the brain you were born with and don't let anyone lead you around by the nose. Reject all forms of social engineering.

Here's the one you missed, Hans. Did you really let this one get by you or is this NEW to you?
ID #44070 was the number issued to a Joseph Israel Rosenberg.

Hans says:
b) Vrba cannot be considered "a cornerstone of the gas chamber wing of the Holocaust Haus". Rudolf Vrba did not work at the extermination sites in Birkenau. He only observed the pouring of the gas into a basement from some considerable distance. His actual knowledge on the inside of the extermination sites in Birkenau is based on hearsay, probably from Sonderkommando Filip Müller. Accordingly, there are numerous witnesses who had a much better access to the extermination sites.


You are correct! He is not a cornerstone of anything truthful. He's a prevaricator of the first water and has zero credibility. He is, however, considered a cornerstone of the gas chamber wing of the Holocaust Haus by the general public. The holocaust haus is a rickety structure built on shifting sands with very little truth.

I agree with you that:
1 He only 'observed' the pouring of the gas into a basement from some considerable distance.
2. His actual knowledge on the inside of the extermination sites in Birkenau is based on hearsay
3. There are numerous witnesses who had a much better access to the extermination sites.
4. Rudolf Vrba did not work at the extermination sites in Birkenau.

Thank you for the reference and your candor when you stated:

Their report on the gas chamber is by the way clearly more detailed and reliable then Wetzler and Vrba's report (possibly because they actually had access to the site in contrast to Vrba and Wetzler).


Thank you. The WRB Report sure carried much weight for many years, didn't it? The WRB didn't really deserve all that weight, did it? Vrba claims his friend was a reliable source. That friend? Filip Mueller.
"What a tangled web they weave . . . "]]> Holocaust Denial :: Re: Rudolf Vrba prime crime witness :: Reply by Hans 2012-05-16T18:59:46+00:00 2012-05-16T18:59:46+00:00 http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=18089&p=281309#p281309 Hans
Chester wrote:Vrba was a clerkish type, a jumping bean (counter). You and I both know that. How about those with less knowledge such as the general public at large and most of the readers here. Let's assume anybody in this forum searched the term Vrba sonderkommando ( with the purpose to verify what I wrote.) Guess what comes up?



If he actually reads the description of Vrba's work, he would notice that you were talking without clue.

Care to explain what your point is? Some LA Times journalist may have only flawed and rudimentary knowledge of what Vrba was doing in Auschwitz. And he was writing about it even though he should not - just like you by the way. Chester is just like the LA Times journalist? Not interesting, but irrelevant and off topic here.

Here is my statement to readers. Don't believe a thing I say. Seek out the truth for yourself. Use the brain you were born with and don't let anyone lead you around by the nose. Reject all forms of social engineering.

Sure, you only wanted to boost the readers cognitive defense system. I do believe you (I am not sure that anybody else will, but we two guys hold together) and in any case cudos for the creative explanation of the failure.

Here's the one you missed, Hans. Did you really let this one get by you or is this NEW to you?
ID #44070 was the number issued to a Joseph Israel Rosenberg.


I am afraid to say (in my zeal and so) that this is also not correct. Registration number 44070 was issued to Walter [Israel, additive from the Germans] Rosenberg, check the Auschwitz State Museum registration database or his escape notification by the Auschwitz SS.

From the data contained in the Digital Repository: Rosenberg, Walter b.1924-09-11, camp serial number:44070

From the escape notification: "Rosenberg Walter Israel, geb. 11.9.24 aus Topocany, eingeliefert am 30.6.42 vom RSHA"

The "Joseph Israel Rosenberg" from the transcript of the Zündel trial - if you are having this in mind - is either a transcript mistake or Vrba's own slip of the tongue, but not authorative here. The camp records are authorative and show that Vrba was kept as Walter Rosenberg in Auschwitz (as Vrba also confirmed for instance at the Frankfurt Auschwitz trial).

The WRB didn't really deserve all that weight, did it? Vrba claims his friend was a reliable source. That friend? Filip Mueller.


The WRB report did deserve the weight because Wetzler and Vrba did provide a lot of reliable and detailed information about the Auschwitz complex at a time when this was not available. Also their description of the extermination site is good for a hearsay account, but naturally inaccurate on several details (no surprise for hearsay again). The Soviet escapees report is somewhat stronger on the specific point of the gas chamber description. Of course, today with numerous Sonderkommando and SS testimonies available from the extermination sites the report does not has the evidentiary significance it had in 1944.

Just to get things straight, in this thread you won't analyze the War Refugee Board report and Vrba's testimony at the Frankfurt Auschwitz trial (which are clearly his evidentiary most significant accounts)? But instead rambling about Vrba's reception in the mass media? Then I'm out.]]>
Chester wrote:Vrba was a clerkish type, a jumping bean (counter). You and I both know that. How about those with less knowledge such as the general public at large and most of the readers here. Let's assume anybody in this forum searched the term Vrba sonderkommando ( with the purpose to verify what I wrote.) Guess what comes up?



If he actually reads the description of Vrba's work, he would notice that you were talking without clue.

Care to explain what your point is? Some LA Times journalist may have only flawed and rudimentary knowledge of what Vrba was doing in Auschwitz. And he was writing about it even though he should not - just like you by the way. Chester is just like the LA Times journalist? Not interesting, but irrelevant and off topic here.

Here is my statement to readers. Don't believe a thing I say. Seek out the truth for yourself. Use the brain you were born with and don't let anyone lead you around by the nose. Reject all forms of social engineering.

Sure, you only wanted to boost the readers cognitive defense system. I do believe you (I am not sure that anybody else will, but we two guys hold together) and in any case cudos for the creative explanation of the failure.

Here's the one you missed, Hans. Did you really let this one get by you or is this NEW to you?
ID #44070 was the number issued to a Joseph Israel Rosenberg.


I am afraid to say (in my zeal and so) that this is also not correct. Registration number 44070 was issued to Walter [Israel, additive from the Germans] Rosenberg, check the Auschwitz State Museum registration database or his escape notification by the Auschwitz SS.

From the data contained in the Digital Repository: Rosenberg, Walter b.1924-09-11, camp serial number:44070

From the escape notification: "Rosenberg Walter Israel, geb. 11.9.24 aus Topocany, eingeliefert am 30.6.42 vom RSHA"

The "Joseph Israel Rosenberg" from the transcript of the Zündel trial - if you are having this in mind - is either a transcript mistake or Vrba's own slip of the tongue, but not authorative here. The camp records are authorative and show that Vrba was kept as Walter Rosenberg in Auschwitz (as Vrba also confirmed for instance at the Frankfurt Auschwitz trial).

The WRB didn't really deserve all that weight, did it? Vrba claims his friend was a reliable source. That friend? Filip Mueller.


The WRB report did deserve the weight because Wetzler and Vrba did provide a lot of reliable and detailed information about the Auschwitz complex at a time when this was not available. Also their description of the extermination site is good for a hearsay account, but naturally inaccurate on several details (no surprise for hearsay again). The Soviet escapees report is somewhat stronger on the specific point of the gas chamber description. Of course, today with numerous Sonderkommando and SS testimonies available from the extermination sites the report does not has the evidentiary significance it had in 1944.

Just to get things straight, in this thread you won't analyze the War Refugee Board report and Vrba's testimony at the Frankfurt Auschwitz trial (which are clearly his evidentiary most significant accounts)? But instead rambling about Vrba's reception in the mass media? Then I'm out.]]> Holocaust Denial :: Re: Rudolf Vrba prime crime witness :: Reply by Chester 2012-05-16T20:56:36+00:00 2012-05-16T20:56:36+00:00 http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=18089&p=281318#p281318 Chester
Hans wrote:If he actually reads the description of Vrba's work, he would notice that you were talking without clue.


Don't worry, I can hold my own.

Care to explain what your point is? Some LA Times journalist may have only flawed and rudimentary knowledge of what Vrba was doing in Auschwitz. And he was writing about it even though he should not - just like you by the way. Chester is just like the LA Times journalist? Not interesting, but irrelevant and off topic here.


My ability to focus is laser like. Here's my point. Where did the LA Times guy get the info? From the news feed. Who said it originaly? Bernie Farber. Who is Farber? CEO of the Canadian Jewish Congress, disseminator of FALSE NEWS. Guess what other papers told the same story? Atlanta Journal, Chicago Times, Miami Hearld, USA Today, The Philadelphia Inquirer, Washington Post, etc, etc, etc. Don't believe me! Search the archives yourself - second week of April 2006. FYI, I will be introducing a series of posts which prove, beyond any shadow of a doubt, where the false news begins, how it spreads, who is behind it and why.

"irrelevant and off topic here" you say? I disagree.

Here is my statement to readers. Don't believe a thing I say. Seek out the truth for yourself. Use the brain you were born with and don't let anyone lead you around by the nose. Reject all forms of social engineering.


Sure, you only wanted to boost the readers cognitive defense system. I do believe you (I am not sure that anybody else will, but we two guys hold together) and in any case cudos for the creative explanation of the failure.


Thank you. However, it's easy to get people to tell the truth when you know how. I, in turn, thank you for your admissions. Some hardcore believers are tearing out their hair at your capitulation.

Here's the one you missed, Hans. Did you really let this one get by you or is this NEW to you?
ID #44070 was the number issued to a Joseph Israel Rosenberg.


Hans' retort:
I am afraid to say (in my zeal and so) that this is also not correct. Registration number 44070 was issued to Walter [Israel, additive from the Germans] Rosenberg, check the Auschwitz State Museum registration database or his escape notification by the Auschwitz SS.

From the data contained in the Digital Repository: Rosenberg, Walter b.1924-09-11, camp serial number:44070

From the escape notification: "Rosenberg Walter Israel, geb. 11.9.24 aus Topocany, eingeliefert am 30.6.42 vom RSHA"

The "Joseph Israel Rosenberg" from the transcript of the Zündel trial - if you are having this in mind - is either a transcript mistake or Vrba's own slip of the tongue, but not authorative here. The camp records are authorative and show that Vrba was kept as Walter Rosenberg in Auschwitz (as Vrba also confirmed for instance at the Frankfurt Auschwitz trial).

See? I told you it is easy to get people to speak the truth
Thank you for the 'compliment,' ;)
You call it "either a transcript mistake or Vrba's own slip of the tongue." How about this? Vrba was a liar. Unable to keep his stories straight. Do you know the sign of a truthteller? Consistency.

Chester says:
The WRB didn't really deserve all that weight, did it? Vrba claims his friend was a reliable source. That friend? Filip Mueller

Hans replies:
The WRB report did deserve the weight because Wetzler and Vrba did provide a lot of reliable and detailed information about the Auschwitz complex at a time when this was not available.


Well, they got the details wrong. Didn't they? Shall I demonstrate? Shall I post what sincere believers say about Vrba. Are you going to stick with your story about their reliability? Let me caution you on that one.


Hans admits that hearsay is BS:
Also their description of the extermination site is good for a hearsay account, but naturally inaccurate on several details (no surprise for hearsay again). Of course, today with numerous Sonderkommando and SS testimonies available from the extermination sites the report does not has the evidentiary significance it had in 1944.


Thank you for your candor. Revisionism is alive and well.

Just to get things straight, in this thread you won't analyze the War Refugee Board report and Vrba's testimony at the Frankfurt Auschwitz trial (which are clearly his evidentiary most significant accounts)? But instead rambling about Vrba's reception in the mass media? Then I'm out.


This is a series of posts in which I outlined what I was going to discuss. Media is a driver of public opinion and I listed newspaper articles as sources in the thread starter. I will be addressing the WRB and the Frankfurt trial at length, so please don't dash away. You're the only one here with any depth of knowledge.
Nessie is a brave soldier too. I have respect for him. ]]>
Hans wrote:If he actually reads the description of Vrba's work, he would notice that you were talking without clue.


Don't worry, I can hold my own.

Care to explain what your point is? Some LA Times journalist may have only flawed and rudimentary knowledge of what Vrba was doing in Auschwitz. And he was writing about it even though he should not - just like you by the way. Chester is just like the LA Times journalist? Not interesting, but irrelevant and off topic here.


My ability to focus is laser like. Here's my point. Where did the LA Times guy get the info? From the news feed. Who said it originaly? Bernie Farber. Who is Farber? CEO of the Canadian Jewish Congress, disseminator of FALSE NEWS. Guess what other papers told the same story? Atlanta Journal, Chicago Times, Miami Hearld, USA Today, The Philadelphia Inquirer, Washington Post, etc, etc, etc. Don't believe me! Search the archives yourself - second week of April 2006. FYI, I will be introducing a series of posts which prove, beyond any shadow of a doubt, where the false news begins, how it spreads, who is behind it and why.

"irrelevant and off topic here" you say? I disagree.

Here is my statement to readers. Don't believe a thing I say. Seek out the truth for yourself. Use the brain you were born with and don't let anyone lead you around by the nose. Reject all forms of social engineering.


Sure, you only wanted to boost the readers cognitive defense system. I do believe you (I am not sure that anybody else will, but we two guys hold together) and in any case cudos for the creative explanation of the failure.


Thank you. However, it's easy to get people to tell the truth when you know how. I, in turn, thank you for your admissions. Some hardcore believers are tearing out their hair at your capitulation.

Here's the one you missed, Hans. Did you really let this one get by you or is this NEW to you?
ID #44070 was the number issued to a Joseph Israel Rosenberg.


Hans' retort:
I am afraid to say (in my zeal and so) that this is also not correct. Registration number 44070 was issued to Walter [Israel, additive from the Germans] Rosenberg, check the Auschwitz State Museum registration database or his escape notification by the Auschwitz SS.

From the data contained in the Digital Repository: Rosenberg, Walter b.1924-09-11, camp serial number:44070

From the escape notification: "Rosenberg Walter Israel, geb. 11.9.24 aus Topocany, eingeliefert am 30.6.42 vom RSHA"

The "Joseph Israel Rosenberg" from the transcript of the Zündel trial - if you are having this in mind - is either a transcript mistake or Vrba's own slip of the tongue, but not authorative here. The camp records are authorative and show that Vrba was kept as Walter Rosenberg in Auschwitz (as Vrba also confirmed for instance at the Frankfurt Auschwitz trial).

See? I told you it is easy to get people to speak the truth
Thank you for the 'compliment,' ;)
You call it "either a transcript mistake or Vrba's own slip of the tongue." How about this? Vrba was a liar. Unable to keep his stories straight. Do you know the sign of a truthteller? Consistency.

Chester says:
The WRB didn't really deserve all that weight, did it? Vrba claims his friend was a reliable source. That friend? Filip Mueller

Hans replies:
The WRB report did deserve the weight because Wetzler and Vrba did provide a lot of reliable and detailed information about the Auschwitz complex at a time when this was not available.


Well, they got the details wrong. Didn't they? Shall I demonstrate? Shall I post what sincere believers say about Vrba. Are you going to stick with your story about their reliability? Let me caution you on that one.


Hans admits that hearsay is BS:
Also their description of the extermination site is good for a hearsay account, but naturally inaccurate on several details (no surprise for hearsay again). Of course, today with numerous Sonderkommando and SS testimonies available from the extermination sites the report does not has the evidentiary significance it had in 1944.


Thank you for your candor. Revisionism is alive and well.

Just to get things straight, in this thread you won't analyze the War Refugee Board report and Vrba's testimony at the Frankfurt Auschwitz trial (which are clearly his evidentiary most significant accounts)? But instead rambling about Vrba's reception in the mass media? Then I'm out.


This is a series of posts in which I outlined what I was going to discuss. Media is a driver of public opinion and I listed newspaper articles as sources in the thread starter. I will be addressing the WRB and the Frankfurt trial at length, so please don't dash away. You're the only one here with any depth of knowledge.
Nessie is a brave soldier too. I have respect for him. ]]> Holocaust Denial :: Re: Rudolf Vrba prime crime witness :: Reply by Lemmy Caution 2012-05-16T23:06:38+00:00 2012-05-16T23:06:38+00:00 http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=18089&p=281326#p281326 Lemmy Caution
Chester wrote:
Hans admits that hearsay is BS:
Also their description of the extermination site is good for a hearsay account, but naturally inaccurate on several details (no surprise for hearsay again). Of course, today with numerous Sonderkommando and SS testimonies available from the extermination sites the report does not has the evidentiary significance it had in 1944.


Please don't doctor quotations. It makes you appear even worse than you do at first blush. Ellipses are, of course, ok, but adding in words and editorializing without signaling you've done so is dishonest.]]>
Chester wrote:
Hans admits that hearsay is BS:
Also their description of the extermination site is good for a hearsay account, but naturally inaccurate on several details (no surprise for hearsay again). Of course, today with numerous Sonderkommando and SS testimonies available from the extermination sites the report does not has the evidentiary significance it had in 1944.


Please don't doctor quotations. It makes you appear even worse than you do at first blush. Ellipses are, of course, ok, but adding in words and editorializing without signaling you've done so is dishonest.]]> Holocaust Denial :: Re: Rudolf Vrba prime crime witness :: Reply by Hans 2012-05-17T05:47:14+00:00 2012-05-17T05:47:14+00:00 http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=18089&p=281345#p281345 Hans
You call it "either a transcript mistake or Vrba's own slip of the tongue." How about this? Vrba was a liar. Unable to keep his stories straight. Do you know the sign of a truthteller? Consistency.


Can you show that Vrba was lying here? Well, let's look at the actual transcript:

"I have been born as Walter Rosenberg, and when the Germans made a quizzling [Quisling] government in Czechoslovakia which obeyed their orders and prized itself that Slovak racial laws are stricter than in Germany, the law has been passed that I must have a middle name, the middle name of Israel; every Jew was called Israel as a middle name. If it was a Jewess it was Sara. Consequently, I was registered in concentration camp Auschwitz as Joseph Israel Rosenberg, and under that name, as far as I know, would have been issued the warrant against me after I escaped. Consequently I never used that name again, and when I arrived in Slovakia I started to use the name Vrba for several reasons."

The fact that Vrba was mentioning his original name Walter Rosenberg, then going on to explain he was forced to take the middle name Israel to conclude he was as Joseph Israel Rosenberg but without explaining where the Joseph suddenly comes from strongly suggests that we are dealing here with the transcript error or slip of a tongue, which is flanked by the fact there is no apparent reason why Vrba should have lied about his concentration camp registration name. Also he confirmed at the trial he was known as Walter Rosenberg at this escape:

"Q. You said you left Auschwitz on April 7, 1944.

A. Perfectly right.

Q. You said you left with Alfred Wetzler.

A. That's right.

Q. And at that time you were known as Walter Rosenberg, according to you.

A. That's right."


Well, they got the details wrong. Didn't they? Shall I demonstrate? Shall I post what sincere believers say about Vrba. Are you going to stick with your story about their reliability? Let me caution you on that one.



Of course, I stick to what I wrote yesterday:

"The WRB report did deserve the weight because Wetzler and Vrba did provide a lot of reliable and detailed information about the Auschwitz complex at a time when this was not available. Also their description of the extermination site is good for a hearsay account, but naturally inaccurate on several details (no surprise for hearsay again)."

Do you disagree? Fine, then sustain your disagreement with some arguments and evidence.


By the way, the WRB report is a 10000+ words document.

If I had to write a 10000 piece on something I experienced, and if I were to be truthfull and tried a similiar degree of details and complexity as shown in the WRB report and had zero documentation had my hands as they had, I estimate it would contain more problems and inaccuracies then the WRB does.

So, it is not enough to cite a few problems in the description to conclude, 'hey these guys were totally untruthfull and liars'. That's inconclusive. Problems do not prove a lie, they can be also caused by memory fading, undeliberate manipulation, cognitive extrapolation and hearsay to mention some mechanism that have nothing to do with lying. Further, even a shown lie does not invalidate a testimonies' corrobated and demonstrable reliable descriptions. People can lie on a specific point for some reason, but be truthfull on any other aspect. If you dismiss the enitre account then because of a lie, you are missing and dismissing also a wealth of truthfull descriptions which may you make drawing a misleading or false conclusion. So things are not that easy, otherwise many historians were driving taxis or something because testimonies and history are crap anyway. Thus, if you want to analyze such an account and extract the degree of reliability and authenticity, you need to carefully discriminate lies against sincere mistakes and further discriminate both against reliable descriptions. In the end, you should do a thorough evaluation of the testimony.

I did conduct and posted such an evaluation on the report of the SS private Pery Broad here: How reliable and authentic is the Broad report? The result is that the Broad report is a reliable and authentic testimony with only minor problems if put into perspective and context. As far I recall (I do have poor memory as mentioned and by the way would probably perform much worse than Wetzler and Vrba at any cross examination) I could not identify a single lie.

Now, we have experienced here that Holocaust deniers  Revisionists are specialists in distorting actually reliable elements in testimonies into their fictional lies and falsehoods. You also have this history here, Chester, I think you know this.

Still, I am looking forward to your comprehensive analysis of the WRB report as well as Auschwitz trial cross-examination! I am sure you will try not to disappoint us!]]>
You call it "either a transcript mistake or Vrba's own slip of the tongue." How about this? Vrba was a liar. Unable to keep his stories straight. Do you know the sign of a truthteller? Consistency.


Can you show that Vrba was lying here? Well, let's look at the actual transcript:

"I have been born as Walter Rosenberg, and when the Germans made a quizzling [Quisling] government in Czechoslovakia which obeyed their orders and prized itself that Slovak racial laws are stricter than in Germany, the law has been passed that I must have a middle name, the middle name of Israel; every Jew was called Israel as a middle name. If it was a Jewess it was Sara. Consequently, I was registered in concentration camp Auschwitz as Joseph Israel Rosenberg, and under that name, as far as I know, would have been issued the warrant against me after I escaped. Consequently I never used that name again, and when I arrived in Slovakia I started to use the name Vrba for several reasons."

The fact that Vrba was mentioning his original name Walter Rosenberg, then going on to explain he was forced to take the middle name Israel to conclude he was as Joseph Israel Rosenberg but without explaining where the Joseph suddenly comes from strongly suggests that we are dealing here with the transcript error or slip of a tongue, which is flanked by the fact there is no apparent reason why Vrba should have lied about his concentration camp registration name. Also he confirmed at the trial he was known as Walter Rosenberg at this escape:

"Q. You said you left Auschwitz on April 7, 1944.

A. Perfectly right.

Q. You said you left with Alfred Wetzler.

A. That's right.

Q. And at that time you were known as Walter Rosenberg, according to you.

A. That's right."


Well, they got the details wrong. Didn't they? Shall I demonstrate? Shall I post what sincere believers say about Vrba. Are you going to stick with your story about their reliability? Let me caution you on that one.



Of course, I stick to what I wrote yesterday:

"The WRB report did deserve the weight because Wetzler and Vrba did provide a lot of reliable and detailed information about the Auschwitz complex at a time when this was not available. Also their description of the extermination site is good for a hearsay account, but naturally inaccurate on several details (no surprise for hearsay again)."

Do you disagree? Fine, then sustain your disagreement with some arguments and evidence.


By the way, the WRB report is a 10000+ words document.

If I had to write a 10000 piece on something I experienced, and if I were to be truthfull and tried a similiar degree of details and complexity as shown in the WRB report and had zero documentation had my hands as they had, I estimate it would contain more problems and inaccuracies then the WRB does.

So, it is not enough to cite a few problems in the description to conclude, 'hey these guys were totally untruthfull and liars'. That's inconclusive. Problems do not prove a lie, they can be also caused by memory fading, undeliberate manipulation, cognitive extrapolation and hearsay to mention some mechanism that have nothing to do with lying. Further, even a shown lie does not invalidate a testimonies' corrobated and demonstrable reliable descriptions. People can lie on a specific point for some reason, but be truthfull on any other aspect. If you dismiss the enitre account then because of a lie, you are missing and dismissing also a wealth of truthfull descriptions which may you make drawing a misleading or false conclusion. So things are not that easy, otherwise many historians were driving taxis or something because testimonies and history are crap anyway. Thus, if you want to analyze such an account and extract the degree of reliability and authenticity, you need to carefully discriminate lies against sincere mistakes and further discriminate both against reliable descriptions. In the end, you should do a thorough evaluation of the testimony.

I did conduct and posted such an evaluation on the report of the SS private Pery Broad here: How reliable and authentic is the Broad report? The result is that the Broad report is a reliable and authentic testimony with only minor problems if put into perspective and context. As far I recall (I do have poor memory as mentioned and by the way would probably perform much worse than Wetzler and Vrba at any cross examination) I could not identify a single lie.

Now, we have experienced here that Holocaust deniers  Revisionists are specialists in distorting actually reliable elements in testimonies into their fictional lies and falsehoods. You also have this history here, Chester, I think you know this.

Still, I am looking forward to your comprehensive analysis of the WRB report as well as Auschwitz trial cross-examination! I am sure you will try not to disappoint us!]]> Holocaust Denial :: Re: Rudolf Vrba prime crime witness :: Reply by Lemmy Caution 2012-05-17T09:28:12+00:00 2012-05-17T09:28:12+00:00 http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=18089&p=281352#p281352 Lemmy Caution
Hans wrote:So, it is not enough to cite a few problems in the description to conclude, 'hey these guys were totally untruthfull and liars'. That's inconclusive. Problems do not prove a lie, they can be also caused by memory fading, undeliberate manipulation, cognitive extrapolation and hearsay to mention some mechanism that have nothing to do with lying.
To this I would add that each individual witnesses an event from his or her particular point of view, which may be misleading. A person can testify to his or her version of an incident in full belief he or she is being accurate, but be incorrect because the vantage point didn't allow a complete view or it made things appear a certain way. To choose a contemporary example with which I am familiar (I race cars), when a serious incident occurs on a race track, the stewards interview the drivers involved, corner and safety workers, and other drivers. They can also view videotape taken from inside the racecars and, at some tracks, from trackside cameras. Very often there is no single conclusive angle on events - and even different videotapes make the incident look different. The stewards are left making a judgment call on the preponderance of the evidence without any gold standard. Anyone who thinks history is easier is daft. Where's berty48? Or Bob?]]>
Hans wrote:So, it is not enough to cite a few problems in the description to conclude, 'hey these guys were totally untruthfull and liars'. That's inconclusive. Problems do not prove a lie, they can be also caused by memory fading, undeliberate manipulation, cognitive extrapolation and hearsay to mention some mechanism that have nothing to do with lying.
To this I would add that each individual witnesses an event from his or her particular point of view, which may be misleading. A person can testify to his or her version of an incident in full belief he or she is being accurate, but be incorrect because the vantage point didn't allow a complete view or it made things appear a certain way. To choose a contemporary example with which I am familiar (I race cars), when a serious incident occurs on a race track, the stewards interview the drivers involved, corner and safety workers, and other drivers. They can also view videotape taken from inside the racecars and, at some tracks, from trackside cameras. Very often there is no single conclusive angle on events - and even different videotapes make the incident look different. The stewards are left making a judgment call on the preponderance of the evidence without any gold standard. Anyone who thinks history is easier is daft. Where's berty48? Or Bob?]]> Holocaust Denial :: Re: Rudolf Vrba prime crime witness :: Reply by Nessie 2012-05-17T10:43:15+00:00 2012-05-17T10:43:15+00:00 http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=18089&p=281357#p281357 Nessie
The Revisionist/denier attitude of it appears wrong so dismiss it as a lie is way too basic an approach to be credible and is self serving of their agenda to deny.]]>
The Revisionist/denier attitude of it appears wrong so dismiss it as a lie is way too basic an approach to be credible and is self serving of their agenda to deny.]]> Holocaust Denial :: Re: holocaust deniel with strong evidence :: Reply by xouper 2012-05-16T15:23:48+00:00 2012-05-16T15:23:48+00:00 http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=18105&p=281295#p281295 xouper
arnab wrote:well. i personally thank pyrroh for issuing warning. i think this job is done by every administrator to silence something that disturbs their own belief system.

What a crock of {!#%@}. If Michael Shermer wanted to silence your opinion on this forum, he would simply have your posts deleted.]]>
arnab wrote:well. i personally thank pyrroh for issuing warning. i think this job is done by every administrator to silence something that disturbs their own belief system.

What a crock of {!#%@}. If Michael Shermer wanted to silence your opinion on this forum, he would simply have your posts deleted.]]> Holocaust Denial :: Re: holocaust deniel with strong evidence :: Reply by Hans 2012-05-16T16:12:21+00:00 2012-05-16T16:12:21+00:00 http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=18105&p=281301#p281301 Hans
arnab wrote:now with all these arguments no body has ever think of international red cross connection to the concentration camp during the entire war time. why red cross when doing its duty did not find anything gassy there? the HQ of red cross is not in German occupied places nor in Germany. so why they did not report any gass kiling of jews?

Because the International Red Cross was not given access to the extermination facilities, see here. There were only allowed to the main camp and did not even reach Birkenau camp where the extermination was taking place.

Also you might take note of what the Committe noted in their report on Auschwitz in September 1944:

"Once more we had the impression upon leaving Auschwitz that the secret is well protected."]]>
arnab wrote:now with all these arguments no body has ever think of international red cross connection to the concentration camp during the entire war time. why red cross when doing its duty did not find anything gassy there? the HQ of red cross is not in German occupied places nor in Germany. so why they did not report any gass kiling of jews?

Because the International Red Cross was not given access to the extermination facilities, see here. There were only allowed to the main camp and did not even reach Birkenau camp where the extermination was taking place.

Also you might take note of what the Committe noted in their report on Auschwitz in September 1944:

"Once more we had the impression upon leaving Auschwitz that the secret is well protected."]]> Holocaust Denial :: Re: holocaust deniel with strong evidence :: Reply by Hans 2012-05-16T16:16:05+00:00 2012-05-16T16:16:05+00:00 http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=18105&p=281302#p281302 Hans
arnab wrote:and how could a nation at war spend huge amount of fuel in burning bodies rather than using fuels in battle? how could anybody with a common sense justify that?


The extermination and disposal of the Jews was considered a kind of war by the Nazis. Also the resources employed for this internal war were small compared to resources actually consumed at the front. Finally, you overlook that the liquidation of the Jews itself released resources (in form of money, property and food that is no longer required for people you have murdered).]]>
arnab wrote:and how could a nation at war spend huge amount of fuel in burning bodies rather than using fuels in battle? how could anybody with a common sense justify that?


The extermination and disposal of the Jews was considered a kind of war by the Nazis. Also the resources employed for this internal war were small compared to resources actually consumed at the front. Finally, you overlook that the liquidation of the Jews itself released resources (in form of money, property and food that is no longer required for people you have murdered).]]> Holocaust Denial :: Re: holocaust deniel with strong evidence :: Reply by Matthew Ellard 2012-05-16T23:18:29+00:00 2012-05-16T23:18:29+00:00 http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=18105&p=281327#p281327 Matthew Ellard
arnab wrote:well. i personally thank pyrroh for issuing warning. i think this job is done by every administrator to silence something that disturbs their own belief system. thanks once again.

Poor fellow. You had your fundamentalist belief system, that the sun orbited the earth, destroyed on this very forum only a month ago, here.....
viewtopic.php?t=17614

Now you are copying and pasting debunked holocaust denial rubbish from Pastor Eli James' Church of Anglo-Saxon Israel, a church that doesn't believe Jesus was Jewish. You didn't check any facts and you posted this rubbish on a skeptic forum. Can you see that these activities may be considered a bit stupid by other members?

arnab wrote:.....and how could a nation at war spend huge amount of fuel in burning bodies rather than using fuels in battle? how could anybody with a common sense justify that?
Well your same idiot, Adolf Hitler, decided to pull out troops from the front to film the colour epic Kolberg in 1944. Hitler was the best weapon that the Allies had! Hitler destroyed the German armed forces!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolberg_(film)]]>
arnab wrote:well. i personally thank pyrroh for issuing warning. i think this job is done by every administrator to silence something that disturbs their own belief system. thanks once again.

Poor fellow. You had your fundamentalist belief system, that the sun orbited the earth, destroyed on this very forum only a month ago, here.....
viewtopic.php?t=17614

Now you are copying and pasting debunked holocaust denial rubbish from Pastor Eli James' Church of Anglo-Saxon Israel, a church that doesn't believe Jesus was Jewish. You didn't check any facts and you posted this rubbish on a skeptic forum. Can you see that these activities may be considered a bit stupid by other members?

arnab wrote:.....and how could a nation at war spend huge amount of fuel in burning bodies rather than using fuels in battle? how could anybody with a common sense justify that?
Well your same idiot, Adolf Hitler, decided to pull out troops from the front to film the colour epic Kolberg in 1944. Hitler was the best weapon that the Allies had! Hitler destroyed the German armed forces!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolberg_(film)]]> Holocaust Denial :: Re: holocaust deniel with strong evidence :: Reply by Pyrrho 2012-05-17T02:06:13+00:00 2012-05-17T02:06:13+00:00 http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=18105&p=281335#p281335 Pyrrho
arnab wrote:well. i personally thank pyrroh for issuing warning. i think this job is done by every administrator to silence something that disturbs their own belief system. thanks once again.

Copyright violation is a legal issue and it is non-negotiable.
now with all these arguments no body has ever think of international red cross connection to the concentration camp during the entire war time. why red cross when doing its duty did not find anything gassy there? the HQ of red cross is not in German occupied places nor in Germany. so why they did not report any gass kiling of jews?

The gas chambers weren't on the guided tour.
and how could a nation at war spend huge amount of fuel in burning bodies rather than using fuels in battle? how could anybody with a common sense justify that?

Quite simple. They were idiots. The other answer is that cremation was commonplace during that era and was a more efficient method of corpse disposal than digging mass graves, especially when corpse production exceeded quotas. Apparently it did not occur to the Nazi geniuses that they could stop killing people.]]>
arnab wrote:well. i personally thank pyrroh for issuing warning. i think this job is done by every administrator to silence something that disturbs their own belief system. thanks once again.

Copyright violation is a legal issue and it is non-negotiable.
now with all these arguments no body has ever think of international red cross connection to the concentration camp during the entire war time. why red cross when doing its duty did not find anything gassy there? the HQ of red cross is not in German occupied places nor in Germany. so why they did not report any gass kiling of jews?

The gas chambers weren't on the guided tour.
and how could a nation at war spend huge amount of fuel in burning bodies rather than using fuels in battle? how could anybody with a common sense justify that?

Quite simple. They were idiots. The other answer is that cremation was commonplace during that era and was a more efficient method of corpse disposal than digging mass graves, especially when corpse production exceeded quotas. Apparently it did not occur to the Nazi geniuses that they could stop killing people.]]> Holocaust Denial :: Re: holocaust deniel with strong evidence :: Reply by arnab 2012-05-17T03:58:48+00:00 2012-05-17T03:58:48+00:00 http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=18105&p=281342#p281342 arnab
secondly in this trial it is a condition that no rule of evidence will be followed. anything can be an evidence. so i think that evidences presented in this trial are not real evidence since no rule of evidence is followed.
why then i would trust the decision of this trial? why would i trust the documentary and oral evidence presented in this trial?

isn't it possible that all those documents written under the seal of Nazi German govt. are prepared by victor allied force much the same way forgery is done? isn't it possible that all the photographs that is said to be taken by German soldier are actually prepared by allied forces? since there is no force to stop allied forces there, the allied forces can have chance to manipulate German govt. equipment totally.]]>
secondly in this trial it is a condition that no rule of evidence will be followed. anything can be an evidence. so i think that evidences presented in this trial are not real evidence since no rule of evidence is followed.
why then i would trust the decision of this trial? why would i trust the documentary and oral evidence presented in this trial?

isn't it possible that all those documents written under the seal of Nazi German govt. are prepared by victor allied force much the same way forgery is done? isn't it possible that all the photographs that is said to be taken by German soldier are actually prepared by allied forces? since there is no force to stop allied forces there, the allied forces can have chance to manipulate German govt. equipment totally.]]> Holocaust Denial :: Re: holocaust deniel with strong evidence :: Reply by arnab 2012-05-17T04:01:41+00:00 2012-05-17T04:01:41+00:00 http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=18105&p=281343#p281343 arnab Holocaust Denial :: Re: holocaust deniel with strong evidence :: Reply by berty48 2012-05-17T04:28:25+00:00 2012-05-17T04:28:25+00:00 http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=18105&p=281344#p281344 berty48
The State of Israel today continues to use torture and murder as part of their terrorist campaign. Amnesty International has repeatedly cited Israel for such violations of human rights.


Obviously, the Zionists tortured Eichmann. I read that he was terrified of spiders and they put him in a room full of Tarantulas for about 5 minutes and he started screaming about gas chambers and bloody geysers exploding from huge mass graves. John Demjanjuk was also tortured to gain a confession that
he was some Ivan the terrible of Treblinka sort of guy. It might have been testicle crushing or he might have been afraid of 20 ft boa constrictors, but he fessed right up to being that Ivan guy.

A little known fact is that the West German courts of the 1960s used to force former Nazis to listen to Herman's Hermits singing Henry the 8th at a thousand decibels for weeks, or even months without a break.

I have personally applied for a grant to list the top 200 Nazi eyewitnesses to gas chambers and their personal style of torture used to extract the false confession. I have it on good authority that Stangl, Suchomel and Oskar Groening all gave it away after Herman's Hermits.]]>
The State of Israel today continues to use torture and murder as part of their terrorist campaign. Amnesty International has repeatedly cited Israel for such violations of human rights.


Obviously, the Zionists tortured Eichmann. I read that he was terrified of spiders and they put him in a room full of Tarantulas for about 5 minutes and he started screaming about gas chambers and bloody geysers exploding from huge mass graves. John Demjanjuk was also tortured to gain a confession that
he was some Ivan the terrible of Treblinka sort of guy. It might have been testicle crushing or he might have been afraid of 20 ft boa constrictors, but he fessed right up to being that Ivan guy.

A little known fact is that the West German courts of the 1960s used to force former Nazis to listen to Herman's Hermits singing Henry the 8th at a thousand decibels for weeks, or even months without a break.

I have personally applied for a grant to list the top 200 Nazi eyewitnesses to gas chambers and their personal style of torture used to extract the false confession. I have it on good authority that Stangl, Suchomel and Oskar Groening all gave it away after Herman's Hermits.]]> Holocaust Denial :: Re: holocaust deniel with strong evidence :: Reply by Hans 2012-05-17T06:57:30+00:00 2012-05-17T06:57:30+00:00 http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=18105&p=281346#p281346 Hans
berty48 wrote:A little known fact is that the West German courts of the 1960s used to force former Nazis to listen to Herman's Hermits singing Henry the 8th at a thousand decibels for weeks, or even months without a break.

:shock:
Thanks for the info. I had to youtube for Herman's Hermits' Henry the 8th, but can say, I'd have "confessed" myself or whatever they want already before the second verse under such bestialic treatment.

You have a discography of torture by any chance?]]>
berty48 wrote:A little known fact is that the West German courts of the 1960s used to force former Nazis to listen to Herman's Hermits singing Henry the 8th at a thousand decibels for weeks, or even months without a break.

:shock:
Thanks for the info. I had to youtube for Herman's Hermits' Henry the 8th, but can say, I'd have "confessed" myself or whatever they want already before the second verse under such bestialic treatment.

You have a discography of torture by any chance?]]> Holocaust Denial :: Re: holocaust deniel with strong evidence :: Reply by Matthew Ellard 2012-05-17T08:25:27+00:00 2012-05-17T08:25:27+00:00 http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=18105&p=281347#p281347 Matthew Ellard
arnab wrote:......and i think that only the defense counsels are German lawyers.......


Hmmmm.......so you are a holocaust denier who is telling us what they think happened without doing any research? Well that's good news. At least you're thinking unlike the other holocaust deniers who just make stuff up.

I also see that you haven't lifted a finger to argue against our rebuttals to points you copied in your very stupid opening post. Why is that? Are you lazy or don't know how to research? Which is it?]]>
arnab wrote:......and i think that only the defense counsels are German lawyers.......


Hmmmm.......so you are a holocaust denier who is telling us what they think happened without doing any research? Well that's good news. At least you're thinking unlike the other holocaust deniers who just make stuff up.

I also see that you haven't lifted a finger to argue against our rebuttals to points you copied in your very stupid opening post. Why is that? Are you lazy or don't know how to research? Which is it?]]> Holocaust Denial :: Re: holocaust deniel with strong evidence :: Reply by Lemmy Caution 2012-05-17T09:09:46+00:00 2012-05-17T09:09:46+00:00 http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=18105&p=281350#p281350 Lemmy Caution
arnab wrote:besides the Nuremberg trial is one of the most unfair trial of the history because the trial was organized by allied forces. the judges, the prosecutors are allied and i think that only the defense counsels are German lawyers. at that time there was no such thing as Germany. it is totally devastated by war so i presume that defense was very weak. even the prosecution documents are collected by the allied force. so see in a trial the organizer, the bench and the prosecution are allied people only the defense are German people. so the trial is very weak, highly partial and unfair.

secondly in this trial it is a condition that no rule of evidence will be followed. anything can be an evidence. so i think that evidences presented in this trial are not real evidence since no rule of evidence is followed.
why then i would trust the decision of this trial? why would i trust the documentary and oral evidence presented in this trial?

isn't it possible that all those documents written under the seal of Nazi German govt. are prepared by victor allied force much the same way forgery is done? isn't it possible that all the photographs that is said to be taken by German soldier are actually prepared by allied forces? since there is no force to stop allied forces there, the allied forces can have chance to manipulate German govt. equipment totally.
]]>
arnab wrote:besides the Nuremberg trial is one of the most unfair trial of the history because the trial was organized by allied forces. the judges, the prosecutors are allied and i think that only the defense counsels are German lawyers. at that time there was no such thing as Germany. it is totally devastated by war so i presume that defense was very weak. even the prosecution documents are collected by the allied force. so see in a trial the organizer, the bench and the prosecution are allied people only the defense are German people. so the trial is very weak, highly partial and unfair.

secondly in this trial it is a condition that no rule of evidence will be followed. anything can be an evidence. so i think that evidences presented in this trial are not real evidence since no rule of evidence is followed.
why then i would trust the decision of this trial? why would i trust the documentary and oral evidence presented in this trial?

isn't it possible that all those documents written under the seal of Nazi German govt. are prepared by victor allied force much the same way forgery is done? isn't it possible that all the photographs that is said to be taken by German soldier are actually prepared by allied forces? since there is no force to stop allied forces there, the allied forces can have chance to manipulate German govt. equipment totally.
]]> Holocaust Denial :: Re: holocaust deniel with strong evidence :: Reply by Lemmy Caution 2012-05-17T09:15:00+00:00 2012-05-17T09:15:00+00:00 http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=18105&p=281351#p281351 Lemmy Caution
Hans wrote:
berty48 wrote:A little known fact is that the West German courts of the 1960s used to force former Nazis to listen to Herman's Hermits singing Henry the 8th at a thousand decibels for weeks, or even months without a break.

:shock:
Thanks for the info. I had to youtube for Herman's Hermits' Henry the 8th, but can say, I'd have "confessed" myself or whatever they want already before the second verse under such bestialic treatment.

You have a discography of torture by any chance?
Henery the 8th is that bad. I think they also used to play Having My Baby by Paul Anka for the really tough cases.]]>
Hans wrote:
berty48 wrote:A little known fact is that the West German courts of the 1960s used to force former Nazis to listen to Herman's Hermits singing Henry the 8th at a thousand decibels for weeks, or even months without a break.

:shock:
Thanks for the info. I had to youtube for Herman's Hermits' Henry the 8th, but can say, I'd have "confessed" myself or whatever they want already before the second verse under such bestialic treatment.

You have a discography of torture by any chance?
Henery the 8th is that bad. I think they also used to play Having My Baby by Paul Anka for the really tough cases.]]> Holocaust Denial :: Re: holocaust deniel with strong evidence :: Reply by Lemmy Caution 2012-05-17T09:35:45+00:00 2012-05-17T09:35:45+00:00 http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=18105&p=281353#p281353 Lemmy Caution
arnab wrote:
isn't it possible that all those documents written under the seal of Nazi German govt. are prepared by victor allied force much the same way forgery is done?
In the Einsatzgruppen trial - to try to get you to be specific - which documents might have been prepared by the victors and what is the evidence for the victors' preparing them? For which victor is there evidence of such forgeries and for which documents? Please, as you've also alleged torture, which confessions leading to conviction in the Einsatzgruppen trial were gained by torture, or mistreatment, and how do you know this?]]>
arnab wrote:
isn't it possible that all those documents written under the seal of Nazi German govt. are prepared by victor allied force much the same way forgery is done?
In the Einsatzgruppen trial - to try to get you to be specific - which documents might have been prepared by the victors and what is the evidence for the victors' preparing them? For which victor is there evidence of such forgeries and for which documents? Please, as you've also alleged torture, which confessions leading to conviction in the Einsatzgruppen trial were gained by torture, or mistreatment, and how do you know this?]]> Holocaust Denial :: Re: holocaust deniel with strong evidence :: Reply by arnab 2012-05-17T10:36:39+00:00 2012-05-17T10:36:39+00:00 http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=18105&p=281356#p281356 arnab
now in this Nuremberg trial point you bring up Einsatzgruppen trial which was the ninth of the twelve trials held in Nuremberg. you want to know which evidence or which confession leads me to the conviction in the Einsatzgruppen trial were gained by torture, or mistreatment? i am saying the fact that allied force who was all-in-all at that time in germany, conduct the enter trial with their judge and prosecutor and that no rule of evidence is followed in the trial make me believe that [b]all the trial is biased, highly partial and confession is obtained by torture.[/b]

and how do i know this? well it is written in every history book of the world plus i use my brain a little bit. any body can make such conviction after critically reviewing the environment and surroundings of germany under allied rule.

you believe holocaust happened based on evidence provided in this highly partial and biased trial. well i am sorry to say that such evidence has no value at all.

if you use your brain a little and critically examine the situation you will understand it quickly.]]>
now in this Nuremberg trial point you bring up Einsatzgruppen trial which was the ninth of the twelve trials held in Nuremberg. you want to know which evidence or which confession leads me to the conviction in the Einsatzgruppen trial were gained by torture, or mistreatment? i am saying the fact that allied force who was all-in-all at that time in germany, conduct the enter trial with their judge and prosecutor and that no rule of evidence is followed in the trial make me believe that [b]all the trial is biased, highly partial and confession is obtained by torture.[/b]

and how do i know this? well it is written in every history book of the world plus i use my brain a little bit. any body can make such conviction after critically reviewing the environment and surroundings of germany under allied rule.

you believe holocaust happened based on evidence provided in this highly partial and biased trial. well i am sorry to say that such evidence has no value at all.

if you use your brain a little and critically examine the situation you will understand it quickly.]]> Holocaust Denial :: Re: holocaust deniel with strong evidence :: Reply by Nessie 2012-05-17T10:50:26+00:00 2012-05-17T10:50:26+00:00 http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=18105&p=281358#p281358 Nessie
arnab wrote:
....... i am saying the fact that allied force who was all-in-all at that time in germany, conduct the enter trial with their judge and prosecutor and that no rule of evidence is followed in the trial make me believe that [b]all the trial is biased, highly partial and confession is obtained by torture.[/b]

and how do i know this? well it is written in every history book of the world plus i use my brain a little bit. any body can make such conviction after critically reviewing the environment and surroundings of germany under allied rule.

you believe holocaust happened based on evidence provided in this highly partial and biased trial. well i am sorry to say that such evidence has no value at all.

........


You have a hypothesis which is because the victors conducted the trials they were biased and torture was used. Fine, we are more interested in your evidence for such. Please start evidencing rather than hypothesising. Just saying it is written down and likely is not evidence enough for here.

It is not just Nuremburg which provides the evidence for the Holocaust. A serious study finds faults in part but not all of the trials. So dismissing the whole because of some faults is a typical Revisionist/denier tactic I have just commented on in my last post on another thread here. Such an argument is way too simplistic and shows bias.]]>
arnab wrote:
....... i am saying the fact that allied force who was all-in-all at that time in germany, conduct the enter trial with their judge and prosecutor and that no rule of evidence is followed in the trial make me believe that [b]all the trial is biased, highly partial and confession is obtained by torture.[/b]

and how do i know this? well it is written in every history book of the world plus i use my brain a little bit. any body can make such conviction after critically reviewing the environment and surroundings of germany under allied rule.

you believe holocaust happened based on evidence provided in this highly partial and biased trial. well i am sorry to say that such evidence has no value at all.

........


You have a hypothesis which is because the victors conducted the trials they were biased and torture was used. Fine, we are more interested in your evidence for such. Please start evidencing rather than hypothesising. Just saying it is written down and likely is not evidence enough for here.

It is not just Nuremburg which provides the evidence for the Holocaust. A serious study finds faults in part but not all of the trials. So dismissing the whole because of some faults is a typical Revisionist/denier tactic I have just commented on in my last post on another thread here. Such an argument is way too simplistic and shows bias.]]> Holocaust Denial :: Re: holocaust deniel with strong evidence :: Reply by Hans 2012-05-17T12:32:50+00:00 2012-05-17T12:32:50+00:00 http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=18105&p=281365#p281365 Hans
arnab wrote:lemmy caution, matthew ellard and hans none of you has given a good response to my nuremburg trial argument.


Apart from pointing out your utter misconception of the Nuremberg trials and failure to provide any evidence to back your claims, a good response is the fact that the mass extermination was established at numerous West-German trials hold by the West-German judges, investigators and lawyers - not by Allied. See for instance:

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... kfurt.html]]>
arnab wrote:lemmy caution, matthew ellard and hans none of you has given a good response to my nuremburg trial argument.


Apart from pointing out your utter misconception of the Nuremberg trials and failure to provide any evidence to back your claims, a good response is the fact that the mass extermination was established at numerous West-German trials hold by the West-German judges, investigators and lawyers - not by Allied. See for instance:

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... kfurt.html]]> Holocaust Denial :: Re: holocaust deniel with strong evidence :: Reply by Nessie 2012-05-17T14:00:52+00:00 2012-05-17T14:00:52+00:00 http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=18105&p=281378#p281378 Nessie ]]> ]]> Politics and Government :: Re: Obama Now Supports Gay Marriage :: Reply by Face_Palm 2012-05-16T15:13:20+00:00 2012-05-16T15:13:20+00:00 http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=18085&p=281293#p281293 Face_Palm Politics and Government :: Re: Obama Now Supports Gay Marriage :: Reply by RubyHypatia 2012-05-16T17:08:37+00:00 2012-05-16T17:08:37+00:00 http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=18085&p=281304#p281304 RubyHypatia Politics and Government :: Re: Renouncing Citizenship to Avoid Taxes :: Reply by RubyHypatia 2012-05-16T17:19:56+00:00 2012-05-16T17:19:56+00:00 http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=18097&p=281305#p281305 RubyHypatia
BTW, yes, the IRS sucks.]]>
BTW, yes, the IRS sucks.]]> Politics and Government :: Re: Renouncing Citizenship to Avoid Taxes :: Reply by xouper 2012-05-16T18:16:05+00:00 2012-05-16T18:16:05+00:00 http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=18097&p=281307#p281307 xouper Politics and Government :: Re: Renouncing Citizenship to Avoid Taxes :: Reply by Face_Palm 2012-05-16T18:36:30+00:00 2012-05-16T18:36:30+00:00 http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=18097&p=281308#p281308 Face_Palm
Tom-Palven wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote:
Tom-Palven wrote:Killer drones for the IRS? Sounds like a plan that could get biparitsan support here.


The Aussie ATO has a much nastier weapon. It's called the "assessment". If the ATO issues an assessment on what they think you have earned, you have to prove otherwise. In other words, you are guilty until proven innocent. I not sure if the IRS has the same standard or if it still has to prove its full case up front.


I think it's pretty much the same here. If the IRS says that you guilty, you are until you prove otherwise. I had a friend way back who did home remodeling and was a tax resister. The IRS simply went into his bank accounts and took out thousands of dollars. He had always said that the IRS was a criminal gang that acted outside the law, but he was still shocked when they did that. :mrgreen:


I don't think this deserves even a face_palm image.]]>
Tom-Palven wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote:
Tom-Palven wrote:Killer drones for the IRS? Sounds like a plan that could get biparitsan support here.


The Aussie ATO has a much nastier weapon. It's called the "assessment". If the ATO issues an assessment on what they think you have earned, you have to prove otherwise. In other words, you are guilty until proven innocent. I not sure if the IRS has the same standard or if it still has to prove its full case up front.


I think it's pretty much the same here. If the IRS says that you guilty, you are until you prove otherwise. I had a friend way back who did home remodeling and was a tax resister. The IRS simply went into his bank accounts and took out thousands of dollars. He had always said that the IRS was a criminal gang that acted outside the law, but he was still shocked when they did that. :mrgreen:


I don't think this deserves even a face_palm image.]]> Politics and Government :: Re: Renouncing Citizenship to Avoid Taxes :: Reply by RubyHypatia 2012-05-16T19:34:56+00:00 2012-05-16T19:34:56+00:00 http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=18097&p=281314#p281314 RubyHypatia
xouper wrote:Is there some moral imperative that says a person should pay more taxes than required by law?


I don't know about the morality of the situation, but it would have been nice had he given back some to the country that made him stinkin' rich.]]>
xouper wrote:Is there some moral imperative that says a person should pay more taxes than required by law?


I don't know about the morality of the situation, but it would have been nice had he given back some to the country that made him stinkin' rich.]]> Politics and Government :: Re: Renouncing Citizenship to Avoid Taxes :: Reply by xouper 2012-05-16T21:41:22+00:00 2012-05-16T21:41:22+00:00 http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=18097&p=281322#p281322 xouper
RubyHypatia wrote:
xouper wrote:Is there some moral imperative that says a person should pay more taxes than required by law?

I don't know about the morality of the situation, but it would have been nice had he given back some to the country that made him stinkin' rich.

He has already paid some taxes on his Facebook gains to date and he will pay again when he files his last IRS tax return. It is not true that he will be paying no taxes on his capital gains.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expatriation_tax

Keep in mind, he was born in Brazil and does not live in the US.]]>
RubyHypatia wrote:
xouper wrote:Is there some moral imperative that says a person should pay more taxes than required by law?

I don't know about the morality of the situation, but it would have been nice had he given back some to the country that made him stinkin' rich.

He has already paid some taxes on his Facebook gains to date and he will pay again when he files his last IRS tax return. It is not true that he will be paying no taxes on his capital gains.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expatriation_tax

Keep in mind, he was born in Brazil and does not live in the US.]]> Politics and Government :: Re: Renouncing Citizenship to Avoid Taxes :: Reply by Martin Brock 2012-05-17T00:31:49+00:00 2012-05-17T00:31:49+00:00 http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=18097&p=281330#p281330 Martin Brock Politics and Government :: Re: Renouncing Citizenship to Avoid Taxes :: Reply by Face_Palm 2012-05-17T00:39:09+00:00 2012-05-17T00:39:09+00:00 http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=18097&p=281331#p281331 Face_Palm
He also hated slavery, and here's some more:

wikipedia wrote:Part memoir and part spiritual quest, Walden at first won few admirers, but later critics have regarded it as a classic American work that explores natural simplicity, harmony, and beauty as models for just social and cultural conditions.
American poet Robert Frost wrote of Thoreau, "In one book ... he surpasses everything we have had in America.

John Updike wrote in 2004,
A century and a half after its publication, Walden has become such a totem of the back-to-nature, preservationist, anti-business, civil-disobedience mindset, and Thoreau so vivid a protester, so perfect a crank and hermit saint, that the book risks being as revered and unread as the Bible.


I like conflating things too.]]>
He also hated slavery, and here's some more:

wikipedia wrote:Part memoir and part spiritual quest, Walden at first won few admirers, but later critics have regarded it as a classic American work that explores natural simplicity, harmony, and beauty as models for just social and cultural conditions.
American poet Robert Frost wrote of Thoreau, "In one book ... he surpasses everything we have had in America.

John Updike wrote in 2004,
A century and a half after its publication, Walden has become such a totem of the back-to-nature, preservationist, anti-business, civil-disobedience mindset, and Thoreau so vivid a protester, so perfect a crank and hermit saint, that the book risks being as revered and unread as the Bible.


I like conflating things too.]]> Politics and Government :: Re: Renouncing Citizenship to Avoid Taxes :: Reply by Martin Brock 2012-05-17T01:51:21+00:00 2012-05-17T01:51:21+00:00 http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=18097&p=281332#p281332 Martin Brock Civil Disobedience, not Walden. Yes, I've read both and the Bible too. Yes, Thoreau opposed the Mexican-American war and refused to pay taxes supporting it.

You like conflating Walden with Civil Disobedience?]]> Civil Disobedience, not Walden. Yes, I've read both and the Bible too. Yes, Thoreau opposed the Mexican-American war and refused to pay taxes supporting it.

You like conflating Walden with Civil Disobedience?]]> Politics and Government :: Re: Renouncing Citizenship to Avoid Taxes :: Reply by Face_Palm 2012-05-17T01:56:15+00:00 2012-05-17T01:56:15+00:00 http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=18097&p=281333#p281333 Face_Palm Politics and Government :: Re: Fairness and Freedom :: Reply by Lance Kennedy 2012-05-16T20:07:36+00:00 2012-05-16T20:07:36+00:00 http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=18093&p=281315#p281315 Lance Kennedy
A good example.
Amazon is now making profit, and should be paying a fair rate of tax. I am not suggesting a draconian tax. Just the same rate you and I pay.

Most of my working life, including the time when I ran my own company, I paid a tax rate of 30% plus or minus a bit. If my company was required to pay 30%, why should Amazon be able to get away with no tax?]]>
A good example.
Amazon is now making profit, and should be paying a fair rate of tax. I am not suggesting a draconian tax. Just the same rate you and I pay.

Most of my working life, including the time when I ran my own company, I paid a tax rate of 30% plus or minus a bit. If my company was required to pay 30%, why should Amazon be able to get away with no tax?]]> Politics and Government :: Re: Fairness and Freedom :: Reply by fromthehills 2012-05-16T20:27:55+00:00 2012-05-16T20:27:55+00:00 http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=18093&p=281317#p281317 fromthehills
Lance Kennedy wrote:
Most of my working life, including the time when I ran my own company, I paid a tax rate of 30% plus or minus a bit. If my company was required to pay 30%, why should Amazon be able to get away with no tax?


What if you could pay 10%, and use 20% to donate to a cause of your choice, like marine biology, for example, or marine life conservation. Or even feeding the underprivileged, the freedom to be fair, so to speak.]]>
Lance Kennedy wrote:
Most of my working life, including the time when I ran my own company, I paid a tax rate of 30% plus or minus a bit. If my company was required to pay 30%, why should Amazon be able to get away with no tax?


What if you could pay 10%, and use 20% to donate to a cause of your choice, like marine biology, for example, or marine life conservation. Or even feeding the underprivileged, the freedom to be fair, so to speak.]]> Politics and Government :: Re: Fairness and Freedom :: Reply by Lance Kennedy 2012-05-16T21:03:37+00:00 2012-05-16T21:03:37+00:00 http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=18093&p=281319#p281319 Lance Kennedy
I am not complaining about paying 30%. Taxes are a necessary evil. I accept them.

My complaint is those who use tax accountants and lawyers to find loopholes and pay next to nothing. If those earning a million dollars plus per year were to pay a realistic tax rate, similar to those who earn mere tens of thousands, then the tax rate for the normal man and woman could be dropped.

As it is, those on low incomes are supporting those on high incomes, because the tax has got to come from somewhere.

As I said before, my personal preferred method is that everyone earning through a business should pay 5% of turnover. If Amazon sells $1 billion of books in a particular country, then it should pay $ 50 million in tax in that country. Let the business sort out profit margins and selling prices, and make the hard decisions required to make a net profit. A simple tax on turnover cuts through all the tax loopholes and cuts out all the lawyers bullsh*t.]]>
I am not complaining about paying 30%. Taxes are a necessary evil. I accept them.

My complaint is those who use tax accountants and lawyers to find loopholes and pay next to nothing. If those earning a million dollars plus per year were to pay a realistic tax rate, similar to those who earn mere tens of thousands, then the tax rate for the normal man and woman could be dropped.

As it is, those on low incomes are supporting those on high incomes, because the tax has got to come from somewhere.

As I said before, my personal preferred method is that everyone earning through a business should pay 5% of turnover. If Amazon sells $1 billion of books in a particular country, then it should pay $ 50 million in tax in that country. Let the business sort out profit margins and selling prices, and make the hard decisions required to make a net profit. A simple tax on turnover cuts through all the tax loopholes and cuts out all the lawyers bullsh*t.]]> Politics and Government :: Re: Fairness and Freedom :: Reply by Face_Palm 2012-05-16T22:24:49+00:00 2012-05-16T22:24:49+00:00 http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=18093&p=281323#p281323 Face_Palm
fromthehills wrote:
Lance Kennedy wrote:
Most of my working life, including the time when I ran my own company, I paid a tax rate of 30% plus or minus a bit. If my company was required to pay 30%, why should Amazon be able to get away with no tax?


What if you could pay 10%, and use 20% to donate to a cause of your choice, like marine biology, for example, or marine life conservation. Or even feeding the underprivileged, the freedom to be fair, so to speak.


If only it worked that way it would be ideal. But people on the whole haven't been as generous.]]>
fromthehills wrote:
Lance Kennedy wrote:
Most of my working life, including the time when I ran my own company, I paid a tax rate of 30% plus or minus a bit. If my company was required to pay 30%, why should Amazon be able to get away with no tax?


What if you could pay 10%, and use 20% to donate to a cause of your choice, like marine biology, for example, or marine life conservation. Or even feeding the underprivileged, the freedom to be fair, so to speak.


If only it worked that way it would be ideal. But people on the whole haven't been as generous.]]> Politics and Government :: Re: Fairness and Freedom :: Reply by Matthew Ellard 2012-05-17T08:46:21+00:00 2012-05-17T08:46:21+00:00 http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=18093&p=281348#p281348 Matthew Ellard
Lance Kennedy wrote: If my company was required to pay 30%, why should Amazon be able to get away with no tax?


This is going to sound a bit weird but in Australia, companies "sort of" don't pay tax. When an Aussie company pays 30% on profit, the actual company tax paid become a "pre-paid tax credit" when the individual takes a franked dividend. This is called an input tax credit company tax system. The USA has a classical system where a company pays tax on profit and then an individual pays tax again, in their individual return, on their dividend.

For this reason it is impossible to compare Australian and USA company tax rates.

Rough Aussie Example:
* Matthew owns the only share in XYZ Pty Ltd.
* XYZ Pty Ltd has a $100 profit and pays $30 company tax.
* Matthew issues himself a franked dividend of $70 in cash
* Matthew "grosses up" his $70 to $100 but obtains a $30 paid tax credit.
* Matthew's personal income is taxed at 30% and thus has already paid his personal tax. Matthew keeps $70

Rough USA example
* Peter owns the only share in ABC Incorporated
* ABC Incorporated has a $100 profit and pays $30 company tax
* Peter issues himself a $70 dividend from the balance sheet
* Peter pays 30% on the $70 and keeps $49]]>
Lance Kennedy wrote: If my company was required to pay 30%, why should Amazon be able to get away with no tax?


This is going to sound a bit weird but in Australia, companies "sort of" don't pay tax. When an Aussie company pays 30% on profit, the actual company tax paid become a "pre-paid tax credit" when the individual takes a franked dividend. This is called an input tax credit company tax system. The USA has a classical system where a company pays tax on profit and then an individual pays tax again, in their individual return, on their dividend.

For this reason it is impossible to compare Australian and USA company tax rates.

Rough Aussie Example:
* Matthew owns the only share in XYZ Pty Ltd.
* XYZ Pty Ltd has a $100 profit and pays $30 company tax.
* Matthew issues himself a franked dividend of $70 in cash
* Matthew "grosses up" his $70 to $100 but obtains a $30 paid tax credit.
* Matthew's personal income is taxed at 30% and thus has already paid his personal tax. Matthew keeps $70

Rough USA example
* Peter owns the only share in ABC Incorporated
* ABC Incorporated has a $100 profit and pays $30 company tax
* Peter issues himself a $70 dividend from the balance sheet
* Peter pays 30% on the $70 and keeps $49]]> Politics and Government :: Re: Fairness and Freedom :: Reply by Lance Kennedy 2012-05-17T09:06:51+00:00 2012-05-17T09:06:51+00:00 http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=18093&p=281349#p281349 Lance Kennedy
That is probably correct, but what of a giant company that makes $ 1 billion profit?

The tax lawyers and accountants are let loose. A chunk of that profit is moved overseas so that it does not attract tax. A pile of spurious expenses are claimed. All sorts of fiddles are put to work.

End result
The company declares $ 1 million profit and pays $300,000 in tax. From an actual profit of a billion. 0.03% tax.]]>
That is probably correct, but what of a giant company that makes $ 1 billion profit?

The tax lawyers and accountants are let loose. A chunk of that profit is moved overseas so that it does not attract tax. A pile of spurious expenses are claimed. All sorts of fiddles are put to work.

End result
The company declares $ 1 million profit and pays $300,000 in tax. From an actual profit of a billion. 0.03% tax.]]> Politics and Government :: Re: Fairness and Freedom :: Reply by Nessie 2012-05-17T10:55:56+00:00 2012-05-17T10:55:56+00:00 http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=18093&p=281360#p281360 Nessie
fromthehills wrote:Amazon is a great service, especially when living rural. Say I were given the chance to vote on Amazon having to pay taxes. Say I saw that they paid less tax than I do, and I wanted it to be more fair, so I vote for Amazon to be more heavily taxed. I would be voting against my best interest. The cost of taxes would be passed down to the consumer and to their retailers. The retailers may decide to either up their prices, or quit using Amazon all together. My Amazon Prime rate would increase, and the price for all the cool {!#%@} I buy would increase, and with fewer sellers to choose from, the advantages I currently enjoy, using Amazon, would be greatly diminished.


Fine, I want to not pay any tax when getting stuff or servicing for my motorbike as that is in my best interest. You can see where that argument will end up. :D

The issue of corporate tax avoidance is rife

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009 ... -avoidance

but their lower level waged staff all have to pay full UK taxes.]]>
fromthehills wrote:Amazon is a great service, especially when living rural. Say I were given the chance to vote on Amazon having to pay taxes. Say I saw that they paid less tax than I do, and I wanted it to be more fair, so I vote for Amazon to be more heavily taxed. I would be voting against my best interest. The cost of taxes would be passed down to the consumer and to their retailers. The retailers may decide to either up their prices, or quit using Amazon all together. My Amazon Prime rate would increase, and the price for all the cool {!#%@} I buy would increase, and with fewer sellers to choose from, the advantages I currently enjoy, using Amazon, would be greatly diminished.


Fine, I want to not pay any tax when getting stuff or servicing for my motorbike as that is in my best interest. You can see where that argument will end up. :D

The issue of corporate tax avoidance is rife

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009 ... -avoidance

but their lower level waged staff all have to pay full UK taxes.]]> Politics and Government :: Re: Fairness and Freedom :: Reply by fromthehills 2012-05-17T13:12:23+00:00 2012-05-17T13:12:23+00:00 http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=18093&p=281371#p281371 fromthehills
Amazon Receipt wrote:Shipping Method: Two-Day Shipping
Items: $75.88
Shipping & Handling: $0.00
------
Total Before Tax: $75.88
Estimated Tax To Be Collected: $0.00
------
Order Total: $75.88


Delivery estimate: May 18, 2012
1 "CMT 836.950.11 Chamfer Router Bit 1/2" Shank, 2-9/16" Cutting Diameter, 1" Cutting Length, 45 Degree Cutting Angle"
Tools & Home Improvement; $51.52
In Stock
Sold by: Amazon.com
1 "Freud 20-108 3/4-Inch Diameter 90-Degree V-Grooving Router Bit with 1/2-Inch Shank"
Tools & Home Improvement; $24.36
In Stock
Sold by: Amazon.com


Shop Amazon, then. (Reason: above in bold )]]>
Amazon Receipt wrote:Shipping Method: Two-Day Shipping
Items: $75.88
Shipping & Handling: $0.00
------
Total Before Tax: $75.88
Estimated Tax To Be Collected: $0.00
------
Order Total: $75.88


Delivery estimate: May 18, 2012
1 "CMT 836.950.11 Chamfer Router Bit 1/2" Shank, 2-9/16" Cutting Diameter, 1" Cutting Length, 45 Degree Cutting Angle"
Tools & Home Improvement; $51.52
In Stock
Sold by: Amazon.com
1 "Freud 20-108 3/4-Inch Diameter 90-Degree V-Grooving Router Bit with 1/2-Inch Shank"
Tools & Home Improvement; $24.36
In Stock
Sold by: Amazon.com


Shop Amazon, then. (Reason: above in bold )]]> Politics and Government :: Re: Fairness and Freedom :: Reply by Face_Palm 2012-05-17T13:45:25+00:00 2012-05-17T13:45:25+00:00 http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=18093&p=281374#p281374 Face_Palm Politics and Government :: Re: Fairness and Freedom :: Reply by Tom-Palven 2012-05-17T13:49:59+00:00 2012-05-17T13:49:59+00:00 http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=18093&p=281375#p281375 Tom-Palven
fromthehills wrote:
Amazon Receipt wrote:Shipping Method: Two-Day Shipping
Items: $75.88
Shipping & Handling: $0.00
------
Total Before Tax: $75.88
Estimated Tax To Be Collected: $0.00
------
Order Total: $75.88


Delivery estimate: May 18, 2012
1 "CMT 836.950.11 Chamfer Router Bit 1/2" Shank, 2-9/16" Cutting Diameter, 1" Cutting Length, 45 Degree Cutting Angle"
Tools & Home Improvement; $51.52
In Stock
Sold by: Amazon.com
1 "Freud 20-108 3/4-Inch Diameter 90-Degree V-Grooving Router Bit with 1/2-Inch Shank"
Tools & Home Improvement; $24.36
In Stock
Sold by: Amazon.com


Shop Amazon, then. (Reason: above in bold )


But then you're not helping The Empire purchase killer drones with which to subdue everyone and every thing, and create Peace in the Valley.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deU7KkLdi5I]]>
fromthehills wrote:
Amazon Receipt wrote:Shipping Method: Two-Day Shipping
Items: $75.88
Shipping & Handling: $0.00
------
Total Before Tax: $75.88
Estimated Tax To Be Collected: $0.00
------
Order Total: $75.88


Delivery estimate: May 18, 2012
1 "CMT 836.950.11 Chamfer Router Bit 1/2" Shank, 2-9/16" Cutting Diameter, 1" Cutting Length, 45 Degree Cutting Angle"
Tools & Home Improvement; $51.52
In Stock
Sold by: Amazon.com
1 "Freud 20-108 3/4-Inch Diameter 90-Degree V-Grooving Router Bit with 1/2-Inch Shank"
Tools & Home Improvement; $24.36
In Stock
Sold by: Amazon.com


Shop Amazon, then. (Reason: above in bold )


But then you're not helping The Empire purchase killer drones with which to subdue everyone and every thing, and create Peace in the Valley.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deU7KkLdi5I]]> Politics and Government :: Re: Fairness and Freedom :: Reply by Nessie 2012-05-17T13:57:20+00:00 2012-05-17T13:57:20+00:00 http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=18093&p=281377#p281377 Nessie
Another issue that shows the difference is my old favourite and guns. We have freedom to bear firearms just as you do in the US, but with more controls. I think the greater control is because we have a greater emphasis on social justice where by we are not so happy with citizens being so empowered that they can kill others suspected of committing a crime.]]>
Another issue that shows the difference is my old favourite and guns. We have freedom to bear firearms just as you do in the US, but with more controls. I think the greater control is because we have a greater emphasis on social justice where by we are not so happy with citizens being so empowered that they can kill others suspected of committing a crime.]]> Politics and Government :: Re: Fairness and Freedom :: Reply by fromthehills 2012-05-17T14:08:10+00:00 2012-05-17T14:08:10+00:00 http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=18093&p=281380#p281380 fromthehills
I paid income tax on the money that this purchase came out of. These are bits for a job I'm doing for a now government building, that received a grant (tax payer money ), plus some individual donations, that is being restored. Since the purchase is so small, I probably won't bother writing it off, so when I get my check, I will pay taxes on the money again, and probably pay taxes for whatever I buy, unless through Amazon, or if I pay somebody for their service, they will pay taxes on the same money. And so it goes....]]>
I paid income tax on the money that this purchase came out of. These are bits for a job I'm doing for a now government building, that received a grant (tax payer money ), plus some individual donations, that is being restored. Since the purchase is so small, I probably won't bother writing it off, so when I get my check, I will pay taxes on the money again, and probably pay taxes for whatever I buy, unless through Amazon, or if I pay somebody for their service, they will pay taxes on the same money. And so it goes....]]> Conspiracy Theories :: Larry Sinclair press conference :: Author Monster 2012-05-17T12:35:01+00:00 2012-05-17T12:35:01+00:00 http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=72&t=18109&p=281366#p281366 Monster http://www.youtube.com/results?search_q ... tYoShu3hHg

I didn't know that that existed. I'm listening to it right now. Sinclair actually sounds like a sane person during his statement. Now I'm listening to the question and answer session.

FYI: Larry Sinclair is the idiot that accused Obama of gay trysts before the 2008 election.]]> http://www.youtube.com/results?search_q ... tYoShu3hHg

I didn't know that that existed. I'm listening to it right now. Sinclair actually sounds like a sane person during his statement. Now I'm listening to the question and answer session.

FYI: Larry Sinclair is the idiot that accused Obama of gay trysts before the 2008 election.]]> Conspiracy Theories :: Re: Larry Sinclair press conference :: Reply by Gord 2012-05-17T12:47:59+00:00 2012-05-17T12:47:59+00:00 http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=72&t=18109&p=281369#p281369 Gord
Monster wrote:http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Larry+Sinclair+Press+Conference+&oq=Larry+Sinclair+Press+Conference+&aq=f&aqi=g4&aql=&gs_l=youtube-psuggest.3..0l4.4361.5834.0.7461.17.8.0.0.0.4.134.615.7j1.8.0...0.0.etYoShu3hHg

I didn't know that that existed. I'm listening to it right now. Sinclair Actually sounds like a sane person during his statement. Now I'm listening to the question and answer session.

FYI: Larry Sinclair is the idiot that accused Obama of gay trysts before the 2008 election.

:lol:

Part 1: 130,529 views
Part 2: 34,450 views
Part 3: 17,696 views
Part 4: 12,754 views
Part 5: 10,148 views
Part 6: 9,891 views

Only 1 person out of 13 made it all the way through. Just how hard is it to watch? ;)]]>
Monster wrote:http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Larry+Sinclair+Press+Conference+&oq=Larry+Sinclair+Press+Conference+&aq=f&aqi=g4&aql=&gs_l=youtube-psuggest.3..0l4.4361.5834.0.7461.17.8.0.0.0.4.134.615.7j1.8.0...0.0.etYoShu3hHg

I didn't know that that existed. I'm listening to it right now. Sinclair Actually sounds like a sane person during his statement. Now I'm listening to the question and answer session.

FYI: Larry Sinclair is the idiot that accused Obama of gay trysts before the 2008 election.

:lol:

Part 1: 130,529 views
Part 2: 34,450 views
Part 3: 17,696 views
Part 4: 12,754 views
Part 5: 10,148 views
Part 6: 9,891 views

Only 1 person out of 13 made it all the way through. Just how hard is it to watch? ;)]]> Conspiracy Theories :: Re: Larry Sinclair press conference :: Reply by Monster 2012-05-17T13:04:52+00:00 2012-05-17T13:04:52+00:00 http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=72&t=18109&p=281370#p281370 Monster
I'm just listening to it now. Both Sinclair and his lawyer have humongous credibility issues. They're both criminals. The lawyer was disbarred and has not been reinstated yet. Sinclair is a convicted criminal for fraud and other things.

The lawyer wore a kilt to the press conference, and when asked why, he said his genitalia is too large, and he can't wear pants due to discomfort.

I think the lawyer is crazy, and Sinclair is just a criminal liar.

I listened to the whole thing. It was less funny than you might think, and it was just stupid.]]>
I'm just listening to it now. Both Sinclair and his lawyer have humongous credibility issues. They're both criminals. The lawyer was disbarred and has not been reinstated yet. Sinclair is a convicted criminal for fraud and other things.

The lawyer wore a kilt to the press conference, and when asked why, he said his genitalia is too large, and he can't wear pants due to discomfort.

I think the lawyer is crazy, and Sinclair is just a criminal liar.

I listened to the whole thing. It was less funny than you might think, and it was just stupid.]]>