Anderson Cooper BUSTED For Using Green Screen...

[Foxfyre]

And some will continue asking the same questions over and over, even when they've been given the answer in post #2.

That's the intellectually kinky part.

But is it not intellectually arrogant to expect people not to question the evidence you provide as an answer to the question? To accept it simply because you put it out there? Should the White House Press Corp. accept Jay Carney's explanations as gospel in the morning briefings? If President Obama says it, then we must believe it is true? How about if somebody in the loyal opposition says something different? Must we automatically accept that? Or dismiss it as partisan propaganda?

I have some expertise in some areas, as we all do, that helps inform my opinions and I know I am on very solid ground when I express them. But none of you here at USMB know me from any other person on the street. Why should you accept what I say just because I said it and provided some official looking links to back it up? Most especially if I have used sources that we don't all agree are credible?

I don't expect anybody to accept what I tell them and never challenge it. In a debate, I like to be challenged and have to defend my opinions. If I can't defend them, they aren't worth holding. I only have problems with those who think valid debate is attacking me because I hold an opinion or draw a different conclusion or embrace a different point of view.

Nothing got "attacked" here except the silly premise and its presentation. That premise was presented with a swiss cheese array of logical holes and no documentation whatsoever, and was deconstructed accordingly. Frankly it's a lot more arrogant to use videos of "Laugh In" from 1968 and declare that it's somehow evidence of something that is never explained. It's patently insulting.

Face it Foxy, a hoax is a hoax is a hoax. Once it's been debunked it's not susceptible to spin. And trying to compare the science of chrmoakeying with the statements of a political spokesman is apples and orangutans. Doesn't work.

Face it Pogo, everybody is not going to believe that something was a hoax. Most especially if those claiming to expose it are using questionable rationale and sources to expose it.

One of the most frustrating thing in an on line debate is the person who posts a lot of complicated or technical stuff and claims it disputes the other person's argument. That doesn't work even in a formal debate, let alone on a message board. I don't know how many numbnuts have posted a link to some multi-page thing claiming that the 'answers' are in there. But they can't or won't highlight where those answers are.

I had an opportunity to visit with a local TV editor last evening and asked him about the Anderson Cooper green screen thing as he works with green screen a lot. He watched the Youtube version and shrugged and said, 'possible but inconclusive.' This guy voted for Obama.

Me? I still don't care one way or the other, but I see valid evidence presented for both sides of this argument. And no valid reason at all for attacking the person who won't accept his evidence as more valid.

 

[Pogo]

But is it not intellectually arrogant to expect people not to question the evidence you provide as an answer to the question? To accept it simply because you put it out there? Should the White House Press Corp. accept Jay Carney's explanations as gospel in the morning briefings? If President Obama says it, then we must believe it is true? How about if somebody in the loyal opposition says something different? Must we automatically accept that? Or dismiss it as partisan propaganda?

I have some expertise in some areas, as we all do, that helps inform my opinions and I know I am on very solid ground when I express them. But none of you here at USMB know me from any other person on the street. Why should you accept what I say just because I said it and provided some official looking links to back it up? Most especially if I have used sources that we don't all agree are credible?

I don't expect anybody to accept what I tell them and never challenge it. In a debate, I like to be challenged and have to defend my opinions. If I can't defend them, they aren't worth holding. I only have problems with those who think valid debate is attacking me because I hold an opinion or draw a different conclusion or embrace a different point of view.

Nothing got "attacked" here except the silly premise and its presentation. That premise was presented with a swiss cheese array of logical holes and no documentation whatsoever, and was deconstructed accordingly. Frankly it's a lot more arrogant to use videos of "Laugh In" from 1968 and declare that it's somehow evidence of something that is never explained. It's patently insulting.

Face it Foxy, a hoax is a hoax is a hoax. Once it's been debunked it's not susceptible to spin. And trying to compare the science of chrmoakeying with the statements of a political spokesman is apples and orangutans. Doesn't work.

Face it Pogo, everybody is not going to believe that something was a hoax. Most especially if those claiming to expose it are using questionable rationale and sources to expose it.

One of the most frustrating thing in an on line debate is the person who posts a lot of complicated or technical stuff and claims it disputes the other person's argument. That doesn't work even in a formal debate, let alone on a message board. I don't know how many numbnuts have posted a link to some multi-page thing claiming that the 'answers' are in there. But they can't or won't highlight where those answers are.

I had an opportunity to visit with a local TV editor last evening and asked him about the Anderson Cooper green screen thing as he works with green screen a lot. He watched the Youtube version and shrugged and said, 'possible but inconclusive.' This guy voted for Obama.

Me? I still don't care one way or the other, but I see valid evidence presented for both sides of this argument. And no valid reason at all for attacking the person who won't accept his evidence as more valid.

He presented no "valid evidence". He gave us a YouTube video by some amateur gadfly none of us knows, making a simple ipse dixit declaration with no evidence at all. Then his video goes off into an unrelated CNN report from 1991 and an excerpt of "Laugh In" riffing on the word stupid. That's not evidence of any kind. He gives us nothing but a waste of our time. Ipse dixit is not evidence. It's not argument. It's not anything. You're trying to defend the idea of nothingness.

And when called on that nothingness, as you remember, he tried to move his goalposts to something about the "CIA". That's what I call unhinged logic.

 

[Foxfyre]

Nothing got "attacked" here except the silly premise and its presentation. That premise was presented with a swiss cheese array of logical holes and no documentation whatsoever, and was deconstructed accordingly. Frankly it's a lot more arrogant to use videos of "Laugh In" from 1968 and declare that it's somehow evidence of something that is never explained. It's patently insulting.

Face it Foxy, a hoax is a hoax is a hoax. Once it's been debunked it's not susceptible to spin. And trying to compare the science of chrmoakeying with the statements of a political spokesman is apples and orangutans. Doesn't work.

Face it Pogo, everybody is not going to believe that something was a hoax. Most especially if those claiming to expose it are using questionable rationale and sources to expose it.

One of the most frustrating thing in an on line debate is the person who posts a lot of complicated or technical stuff and claims it disputes the other person's argument. That doesn't work even in a formal debate, let alone on a message board. I don't know how many numbnuts have posted a link to some multi-page thing claiming that the 'answers' are in there. But they can't or won't highlight where those answers are.

I had an opportunity to visit with a local TV editor last evening and asked him about the Anderson Cooper green screen thing as he works with green screen a lot. He watched the Youtube version and shrugged and said, 'possible but inconclusive.' This guy voted for Obama.

Me? I still don't care one way or the other, but I see valid evidence presented for both sides of this argument. And no valid reason at all for attacking the person who won't accept his evidence as more valid.

He presented no "valid evidence". He gave us a YouTube video by some amateur gadfly none of us knows, making a simple ipse dixit declaration with no evidence at all. Then his video goes off into an unrelated CNN report from 1991 and an excerpt of "Laugh In" riffing on the word stupid. That's not evidence of any kind. He gives us nothing but a waste of our time. Ipse dixit is not evidence. It's not argument. It's not anything. You're trying to defend the idea of nothingness.

And when called on that nothingness, as you remember, he tried to move his goalposts to something about the "CIA". That's what I call unhinged logic.

Well I don't feel my time has been wasted here and I didn't even have a dog in this fight. If you felt it was a waste of time, why have you expended so much band width and angst and efforts to present an opposing point of view? And why are you so angry that he isn't buying your argument?

You do understand that if there were not differences of opinion and different points of view among USMB members, none of us would have much reason to come here at all? Is it so important to demonize somebody you think is wrong?

 

[Montrovant]

But is it not intellectually arrogant to expect people not to question the evidence you provide as an answer to the question? To accept it simply because you put it out there? Should the White House Press Corp. accept Jay Carney's explanations as gospel in the morning briefings? If President Obama says it, then we must believe it is true? How about if somebody in the loyal opposition says something different? Must we automatically accept that? Or dismiss it as partisan propaganda?

I have some expertise in some areas, as we all do, that helps inform my opinions and I know I am on very solid ground when I express them. But none of you here at USMB know me from any other person on the street. Why should you accept what I say just because I said it and provided some official looking links to back it up? Most especially if I have used sources that we don't all agree are credible?

I don't expect anybody to accept what I tell them and never challenge it. In a debate, I like to be challenged and have to defend my opinions. If I can't defend them, they aren't worth holding. I only have problems with those who think valid debate is attacking me because I hold an opinion or draw a different conclusion or embrace a different point of view.

Nothing got "attacked" here except the silly premise and its presentation. That premise was presented with a swiss cheese array of logical holes and no documentation whatsoever, and was deconstructed accordingly. Frankly it's a lot more arrogant to use videos of "Laugh In" from 1968 and declare that it's somehow evidence of something that is never explained. It's patently insulting.

Face it Foxy, a hoax is a hoax is a hoax. Once it's been debunked it's not susceptible to spin. And trying to compare the science of chrmoakeying with the statements of a political spokesman is apples and orangutans. Doesn't work.

Face it Pogo, everybody is not going to believe that something was a hoax. Most especially if those claiming to expose it are using questionable rationale and sources to expose it.

One of the most frustrating thing in an on line debate is the person who posts a lot of complicated or technical stuff and claims it disputes the other person's argument. That doesn't work even in a formal debate, let alone on a message board. I don't know how many numbnuts have posted a link to some multi-page thing claiming that the 'answers' are in there. But they can't or won't highlight where those answers are.

I had an opportunity to visit with a local TV editor last evening and asked him about the Anderson Cooper green screen thing as he works with green screen a lot. He watched the Youtube version and shrugged and said, 'possible but inconclusive.' This guy voted for Obama.

Me? I still don't care one way or the other, but I see valid evidence presented for both sides of this argument. And no valid reason at all for attacking the person who won't accept his evidence as more valid.

It's good of you to try and see all sides Foxy....but in this particular case, Paulitician really IS a conspiracy theorist who seems to jump on any CT with no need for evidence or rational argument. He asks questions, sure....but only ones that end in an answer of 'the government did it'. And if there's evidence that the government did NOT, in fact, do it? Well, he's more than willing to deny that.

As for attacking or insulting, I have no idea how many times he's told people they are nothing but sheeple, slaves to the government/media complex, and goose-steppers. So shed no tears for poor, oppressed Paulitician. He's at least as bad as any of us when it comes to not questioning things that fit with his predetermined biases and tossing around insults and denigrating those who disagree with his ideas.

You need only browse the CT forum briefly to see any of this. Although, if that kind of thing doesn't appeal to you, I wouldn't recommend it.

 

[Foxfyre]

Nothing got "attacked" here except the silly premise and its presentation. That premise was presented with a swiss cheese array of logical holes and no documentation whatsoever, and was deconstructed accordingly. Frankly it's a lot more arrogant to use videos of "Laugh In" from 1968 and declare that it's somehow evidence of something that is never explained. It's patently insulting.

Face it Foxy, a hoax is a hoax is a hoax. Once it's been debunked it's not susceptible to spin. And trying to compare the science of chrmoakeying with the statements of a political spokesman is apples and orangutans. Doesn't work.

Face it Pogo, everybody is not going to believe that something was a hoax. Most especially if those claiming to expose it are using questionable rationale and sources to expose it.

One of the most frustrating thing in an on line debate is the person who posts a lot of complicated or technical stuff and claims it disputes the other person's argument. That doesn't work even in a formal debate, let alone on a message board. I don't know how many numbnuts have posted a link to some multi-page thing claiming that the 'answers' are in there. But they can't or won't highlight where those answers are.

I had an opportunity to visit with a local TV editor last evening and asked him about the Anderson Cooper green screen thing as he works with green screen a lot. He watched the Youtube version and shrugged and said, 'possible but inconclusive.' This guy voted for Obama.

Me? I still don't care one way or the other, but I see valid evidence presented for both sides of this argument. And no valid reason at all for attacking the person who won't accept his evidence as more valid.

It's good of you to try and see all sides Foxy....but in this particular case, Paulitician really IS a conspiracy theorist who seems to jump on any CT with no need for evidence or rational argument. He asks questions, sure....but only ones that end in an answer of 'the government did it'. And if there's evidence that the government did NOT, in fact, do it? Well, he's more than willing to deny that.

As for attacking or insulting, I have no idea how many times he's told people they are nothing but sheeple, slaves to the government/media complex, and goose-steppers. So shed no tears for poor, oppressed Paulitician. He's at least as bad as any of us when it comes to not questioning things that fit with his predetermined biases and tossing around insults and denigrating those who disagree with his ideas.

You need only browse the CT forum briefly to see any of this. Although, if that kind of thing doesn't appeal to you, I wouldn't recommend it.

Actually I'm not taking sides. I don't care if you guys duke it out with each other. But apparently Paulitician is interesting enough to generate a flurry of activity on these kinds of threads. He certainly was with this one. You won't find me defending ANYBODY on any side of the political or social spectrum who makes an argument unpleasantly or insultingly personal. And that would include him.

My interest here is in the factors that make for a good discussion or debate, that require us to think, stretch our introspection a bit, and hone our research skills. The conspiracy theorists, even the nuts, provide a lot of ammunition and have frequently brought the truth to light that otherwise would never have happened.

Example: When Dan Rather used falsified military records to smear George W. Bush, it was the conspiracy theorists who went to work to expose and debunk that falsified record. The first to raise the questions about it were accused of being conspiracy theorists too, most especially by those who hated President Bush.

When Reuters photoshopped photos to make collateral damage in Lebanon look far worse than it actually was, it was those sharp eyed conspiracy theorists who caught it, exposed it, and forced Reuters to admit it. They were all folks like us who were just messing around on message boards. But they were labeled conspiracy theorists by those who hate Israel.

So I am not going to demonize anybody who asks the questions. And I don't have to agree with their conclusions or answers in order to appreciate the fact that the question was asked or who puts a theory out there for consideration.

 

[Pogo]

Face it Pogo, everybody is not going to believe that something was a hoax. Most especially if those claiming to expose it are using questionable rationale and sources to expose it.

One of the most frustrating thing in an on line debate is the person who posts a lot of complicated or technical stuff and claims it disputes the other person's argument. That doesn't work even in a formal debate, let alone on a message board. I don't know how many numbnuts have posted a link to some multi-page thing claiming that the 'answers' are in there. But they can't or won't highlight where those answers are.

I had an opportunity to visit with a local TV editor last evening and asked him about the Anderson Cooper green screen thing as he works with green screen a lot. He watched the Youtube version and shrugged and said, 'possible but inconclusive.' This guy voted for Obama.

Me? I still don't care one way or the other, but I see valid evidence presented for both sides of this argument. And no valid reason at all for attacking the person who won't accept his evidence as more valid.

He presented no "valid evidence". He gave us a YouTube video by some amateur gadfly none of us knows, making a simple ipse dixit declaration with no evidence at all. Then his video goes off into an unrelated CNN report from 1991 and an excerpt of "Laugh In" riffing on the word stupid. That's not evidence of any kind. He gives us nothing but a waste of our time. Ipse dixit is not evidence. It's not argument. It's not anything. You're trying to defend the idea of nothingness.

And when called on that nothingness, as you remember, he tried to move his goalposts to something about the "CIA". That's what I call unhinged logic.

Well I don't feel my time has been wasted here and I didn't even have a dog in this fight. If you felt it was a waste of time, why have you expended so much band width and angst and efforts to present an opposing point of view? And why are you so angry that he isn't buying your argument?

You do understand that if there were not differences of opinion and different points of view among USMB members, none of us would have much reason to come here at all? Is it so important to demonize somebody you think is wrong?

Umm... where are you getting these ideas of "angry" and "demonizing"? Now you're trying to twist where I am in order to defend nothingness?

I'm here for the fallacies. The emperor can claim he's wearing invisible clothes all he wants; it doesn't make clothing.

And this is not a matter of "opinions". The OP came in and presented a tangible claim of something that he alleges exists. He gave no evidence for that claim whatsoever. This just in -- it's not up to the audience to prove the negative; it's up to the claimant to substantiate it. He hasn't. Ergo, no issue exists.

Let's quite pretending the emperor didn't walk out naked -- because he did. The only reason I'm still here is to try to figure out how people can be shown categorically that they have no case .... and then go on with it as if nothing happened.

Paulitician is basically taking the position of "Stan"-- seen here on the left (I'm playing the part of Reg, demanding "what's the point?"):
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFBOQzSk14c]Monty Python's The life of Brian - I want to be a woman - YouTube[/ame]

Why do I link that video? Because it lampoons exactly this kind of logical fallacy. Particularly the last line.