As it is the 20th anniversary, can we have a look at the Seabreeze 9/11 thread which ran almost as long. Lock it from the outset, but those who have a bit of time on their hands can discover the secrets of thermite, the melting point of steel and aluminium and discover the truth as to why anything remotely controversial is banished from this forum.
Thanks, Longwinded

Select to expand quote

longwinded said..
As it is the 20th anniversary, can we have a look at the Seabreeze 9/11 thread which ran almost as long. Lock it from the outset, but those who have a bit of time on their hands can discover the secrets of thermite, the melting point of steel and aluminium and discover the truth as to why anything remotely controversial is banished from this forum.
Thanks, Longwinded

It has been destroyed. Laurie version 2, does not know about it, and if he did and mentioned it, we would have Laurie version 3.

nothing happened on the 9th November that I've heard of?

Select to expand quote

Mark _australia said..
nothing happened on the 9th November that I've heard of?

It was in the US so it would have been the 10th here...

Select to expand quote

CH3MTR4IL5 said..

Mark _australia said..
nothing happened on the 9th November that I've heard of?

It was in the US so it would have been the 10th here...

Closer to the 12th but still the 11th.

We could go on for pages about this. Where's Adriano when we need him?

^^^ So u mean almost December?

Jet fuel can't melt covid protein spikes!

^^^ Unless of course you inject it mainline.

^^^ or they are secret military grade nano-protein spikes.

also
they got away with it
then convinced the world
the seasonal flu requires a national poor person lock down
and a travel permit to visit the next post code

Select to expand quote

theDoctor said..
also
they got away with it
then convinced the world
the seasonal flu requires a national poor person lock down
and a travel permit to visit the next post code

Nonsense. Reading your comment with my government supplied rose-coloured glasses, it says everything is great!

Select to expand quote

longwinded said..
the truth as to why anything remotely controversial is banished from this forum.

Because it's a headache to moderate, lots of people get shouty and no real value is added. This thread will go the same way if it gets like that too.

Select to expand quote

GreenPat said..

longwinded said..
the truth as to why anything remotely controversial is banished from this forum.

Because it's a headache to moderate, lots of people get shouty and no real value is added. This thread will go the same way if it gets like that too.

SHOUTY! NO ONE GETS SHOUTY!

Sheep, you are all sheep. I am a sheep. They are a sheep. SHEEP!

CT Logic;

A person who has a PhD or a degree in a relevant area plus years of experience and assesses information directly from professional journals = "sheep".

A person who believes what they see on Youtube videos where no actual proof is shown = "expert".

Never seen 'CT' and 'logic' used in the same sentence before. Nice work.

So...how many years till we get the covid 'vaccination' declassification?

I thought the thermomix thread was about what was used in 9/11 so my replies there may not be valid.

Select to expand quote

Chris 249 said..
CT Logic;

A person who has a PhD or a degree in a relevant area plus years of experience and assesses information directly from professional journals = "sheep".

A person who believes what they see on Youtube videos where no actual proof is shown = "expert".

Because nobody with a PhD or a degree in a relevant area plus years of experience ever allowed themselves to be influenced by financial renumeration or ideological motivation. Or even political pressure or career advancement.

Argument from authority.

Select to expand quote

Kamikuza said..

Chris 249 said..
CT Logic;

A person who has a PhD or a degree in a relevant area plus years of experience and assesses information directly from professional journals = "sheep".

A person who believes what they see on Youtube videos where no actual proof is shown = "expert".

Because nobody with a PhD or a degree in a relevant area plus years of experience ever allowed themselves to be influenced by financial renumeration or ideological motivation. Or even political pressure or career advancement.

Argument from authority.

Might as well get in before Kiterboy.

That's not how you spell remuneration. .... Did yu even go to skool?

Select to expand quote

Mr Milk said..

Kamikuza said..

Chris 249 said..
CT Logic;

A person who has a PhD or a degree in a relevant area plus years of experience and assesses information directly from professional journals = "sheep".

A person who believes what they see on Youtube videos where no actual proof is shown = "expert".

Because nobody with a PhD or a degree in a relevant area plus years of experience ever allowed themselves to be influenced by financial renumeration or ideological motivation. Or even political pressure or career advancement.

Argument from authority.

Might as well get in before Kiterboy.

That's not how you spell remuneration. .... Did yu even go to skool?

How do you know he is not talking about people changing their number? I.e. he may want to change to a 69?

Probably right. After all, this is a wind sports site. "We're goin' where it's blowin"

Select to expand quote

Mr Milk said..
Might as well get in before Kiterboy.

That's not how you spell remuneration. .... Did yu even go to skool?

Thanks. I blame whatever software failed to put a dotted red line under it for me.

If I have a degree in the relevant area plus years of experience ... would you accept that you've been spelling it wrong this whole time?

At the risk of being offensive .... What? You're a sex worker? I mean, you've got a degree in gender studies?

Select to expand quote

Mr Milk said..
At the risk of being offensive .... What? You're a sex worker? I mean, you've got a degree in gender studies?

Neither are my area of expertise, so I'll defer to obviously greater experience.

Select to expand quote

Kamikuza said..

Chris 249 said..
CT Logic;

A person who has a PhD or a degree in a relevant area plus years of experience and assesses information directly from professional journals = "sheep".

A person who believes what they see on Youtube videos where no actual proof is shown = "expert".

Because nobody with a PhD or a degree in a relevant area plus years of experience ever allowed themselves to be influenced by financial renumeration or ideological motivation. Or even political pressure or career advancement.

Argument from authority.

No, argument from first-hand knowledge, research, and reality. Specifically, I was referring to an incident here where the people with a PhD, a highly relevant degree and years of experience were people I know extremely well, and where those factors certainly didn't apply. Despite that, the lame "sheeple" cry came up from the arrogant ignorant CT whackos here.

More generally, CT whackos keep on bringing up the bias claim about the vast majority of experts without giving any evidence for their claim. Take the Covid issue; big oil companies are losing tens of billions of dollars from the reduced use of fossil fuels since Covid hit. The FTSE, Dow Jones and other market indices crashed. If the majority expert advice was so easily affected by under-the-table financial "renumeration" then why would the big oil companies and others not be paying enough of those experts to advise against lockdowns?

It's illogical when people raise motivations without (a) giving any actual evidence to show that they are affecting the majority of expert advice and (b) admitting that they can affect both sides of the argument. Top CT whackos get views, they get re-tweets, and they could get as much or more financial reward than it's alleged the experts could get - so why ignore that side of the issue?

If you're not actually going to show proper evidence for your claims, you're not really arguing logically at all and therefore shouldn't complain about the way others argue.

Select to expand quote

Chris 249 said..
CT Logic;

A person who has a PhD or a degree in a relevant area plus years of experience and assesses information directly from professional journals = "sheep".

A person who believes what they see on Youtube videos where no actual proof is shown = "expert".

You keep hanging your hat on this line of argument. It fails to address the complexity and nuance of issues. This is how weak it is. Plenty of your so called PHD champions have published papers in journals have had contrary views to the mainstream so called health expert narrative. Some of them on the front line of treatment of covid since day dot.

To Add these professionals have nothing to gain and everything to lose by doing so.

There are unqualified social media nut jobs on every side mind you.
The other throw away line is "you are not producing evidence". Well nor are you - even above. Although plenty of evidence was provided in the prior covid thread but obviously you chose to ignore what doesnt fit your argument.

So this binary logic of yours falls short very quickly. It is a juvenile and very simplistic argument and entirely fails to model the reality of the situation. Its a very poor model indeed.


that all being said im not saying you are wrong either. But you seem very convinced you are right via an extremely adolescent point of view which is entirely wrong.

Select to expand quote

eppo said..

Chris 249 said..
CT Logic;

A person who has a PhD or a degree in a relevant area plus years of experience and assesses information directly from professional journals = "sheep".

A person who believes what they see on Youtube videos where no actual proof is shown = "expert".

You keep hanging your hat on this line of argument. It fails to address the complexity and nuance of issues. This is how weak it is. Plenty of your so called PHD champions have published papers in journals have had contrary views to the mainstream so called health expert narrative. Some of them on the front line of treatment of covid since day dot.

To Add these professionals have nothing to gain and everything to lose by doing so.

There are unqualified social media nut jobs on every side mind you.
The other throw away line is "you are not producing evidence". Well nor are you - even above. Although plenty of evidence was provided in the prior covid thread but obviously you chose to ignore what doesnt fit your argument.

So this binary logic of yours falls short very quickly. It is a juvenile and very simplistic argument and entirely fails to model the reality of the situation. Its a very poor model indeed.


that all being said im not saying you are wrong either. But you seem very convinced you are right via an extremely adolescent point of view which is entirely wrong.

You seem to struggle to construct an argument without insults and, at least sometimes, lies. You have provided no evidence to back up your claims that I have an adolescent point of view. Nor am I making a "binary argument". For example, in the post above I quite cleary referred to "majority" of experts, which implies that there is also a minority of experts with different views. It is utterly incorrect to claim that someone who clearly allows for the existence of experts who disagree is making a "binary argument" that ignores the complexity of the issues.

It is also completely untrue to claim that I'm not producing evidence and that I ignored evidence in the Covid thread. For example, in my second-last post, I posted one link to a paper in a major journal (www.thelancet.com/journals/lanwpc/article/PIIS2666-6065(21)00135-8/fulltext) and a link to cancer screening stats (www.aihw.gov.au/getmedia/397a22ef-eb50-4337-a576-928db5cdbcb7/aihw-can-137.pdf.aspx?inline=true). I also mentioned (and did not diss) articles by anti-lockdown campaigners Cameron Murray, Ramesh Thakur or Adam Creighton.

That is evidence. I produced it, and much more. Your claims that I have not produced evidence are lies. End of story.

I don't think any evidence against "my argument" was actually produced in that thread, apart from some claims by Psychojoe. I admitted his point of view may be right and asked for more evidence, which he did not provide. You came in and made some posts that, as far as I can remember, provided no evidence at all. Allegations are not evidence.

I didn't provide evidence about exactly who I was talking about above because when I did here a while ago, some filthy CT nutter threatened to beat me up and threw foul abuse at my wife, who spent four years in a lab at ANU researching the area we were talking about. That's how foul and cowardly many CT scumbags are.

If people have actual evidence to back up their claims, then provide the actual evidence in a reasoned fashion and many of us will listen to it.

Provide proper evidence and you'll be listened to. Provide BS and childish insults and you won't. Your repeated insults are just weird. You don't know me and my life has not been one that encourages anyone to remain adolescent.

Didn't take long for this thread to fall apart

Select to expand quote

bjwedes said..
Didn't take long for this thread to fall apart

That's because the moderating effect of red thumbs has been removed.

I haven't worked out what this thread is about yet.

Then again, that hasn't stopped me arguing in any other thread yet, so...

Beetroot. Tastes better pickled.

Select to expand quote

bjwedes said..
Didn't take long for this thread to fall apart

It held together longer than I expected. Now, do we:
a) lock it
b) just delete it
c) see if it can get back on the rails

I'm not liking the chances of C, I don't think the rails were really there to start with.