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.