Let's Play Devil's Advocate!

[candycorn]

Nice one!

Thanks,

By the way, what's your friend's name who is in the south reporting on high school football and what did he miss/get screwed out of that supposedly went Global? I'd like to contact him or her. You said you knew of a reporter who did that but you never gave the name.

Why do I keep haviong to go back to the reading comprehension issues with you?

I told you before that he's not a friend. He's a reporter I know. I also told you that his 9/11 story went global. I never said that he missed anything.

And no, as i already told you, I'm not going to give you the name or contact information. That's a rule that I have no matter who you are or what the topic is. It's a personal connection of mine and I won't hand out personal information.

He's or she is a reporter (I apologize for using the word friend). He or she is a public figure. Contact info not something you have to give...I can just e-mail the publication.
So you're risking nothing;

Unless you're lying of course.

You're not lying are you?

 

[Shorebreak]

Thanks,

By the way, what's your friend's name who is in the south reporting on high school football and what did he miss/get screwed out of that supposedly went Global? I'd like to contact him or her. You said you knew of a reporter who did that but you never gave the name.

Why do I keep haviong to go back to the reading comprehension issues with you?

I told you before that he's not a friend. He's a reporter I know. I also told you that his 9/11 story went global. I never said that he missed anything.

And no, as i already told you, I'm not going to give you the name or contact information. That's a rule that I have no matter who you are or what the topic is. It's a personal connection of mine and I won't hand out personal information.

He's or she is a reporter (I apologize for using the word friend). He or she is a public figure. Contact info not something you have to give...I can just e-mail the publication.
So you're risking nothing;

Unless you're lying of course.

You're not lying are you?

If that's the way you want to play it just label it a lie. You'll feel better.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Nuts

 

[slackjawed]

insignificant!

 

[candycorn]

Why do I keep haviong to go back to the reading comprehension issues with you?

I told you before that he's not a friend. He's a reporter I know. I also told you that his 9/11 story went global. I never said that he missed anything.

And no, as i already told you, I'm not going to give you the name or contact information. That's a rule that I have no matter who you are or what the topic is. It's a personal connection of mine and I won't hand out personal information.

He's or she is a reporter (I apologize for using the word friend). He or she is a public figure. Contact info not something you have to give...I can just e-mail the publication.
So you're risking nothing;

Unless you're lying of course.

You're not lying are you?

If that's the way you want to play it just label it a lie. You'll feel better.

Why is everything an argument?

Let me get this straight; you're trying to protect the identity of a reporter who routinely publishes his or her name in the paper or reports on TV or radio?

Thats about the dumbest thing I have ever heard of.

The more you obfuscate, the worse you look so you must be lying since you won't give up a name that is already public knowledge. So yes, I will label it a lie and you a liar only because your actions give me no other choice.

It would be another thing all together if you had political considerations such as BHO or Clinton or whoever--those I can understand--but on a public message board? You're really looking stupid here but I'm assuming, for you, that is nothing new.

 

[Shorebreak]

He's or she is a reporter (I apologize for using the word friend). He or she is a public figure. Contact info not something you have to give...I can just e-mail the publication.
So you're risking nothing;

Unless you're lying of course.

You're not lying are you?

If that's the way you want to play it just label it a lie. You'll feel better.

Why is everything an argument?

Let me get this straight; you're trying to protect the identity of a reporter who routinely publishes his or her name in the paper or reports on TV or radio?

Thats about the dumbest thing I have ever heard of.

The more you obfuscate, the worse you look so you must be lying since you won't give up a name that is already public knowledge. So yes, I will label it a lie and you a liar only because your actions give me no other choice.

It would be another thing all together if you had political considerations such as BHO or Clinton or whoever--those I can understand--but on a public message board? You're really looking stupid here but I'm assuming, for you, that is nothing new.

I'm not protecting him. I completely agree with you that he's put himself out there as a public figure as part of his career. I'm protecting myself here.

I don't think that you're some kind of deranged psycho, but I've also seen people's names and contact information disseminated by messageboard folks who had an issue with someone. I have no evidence that you've ever done anything like that or that you ever would, but I'm not taking any risks. It's nothing personal.

I tell you that because if you were to contact him about the 9/11 story that got him relo'ed/fired and it "happens" to come up that you've communicated with the guy who gave him the story, he'll immediately know you're talking about me and I simply don't want to open that door.

Without trying to sound even more argumentative, if that doesn't make sense then I'm sorry. With all due respect, I'm not going down that road.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Nuts

 

[Fizz]

I don't think that you're some kind of deranged psycho, but I've also seen people's names and contact information disseminated by messageboard folks who had an issue with someone. I have no evidence that you've ever done anything like that or that you ever would, but I'm not taking any risks. It's nothing personal.

I tell you that because if you were to contact him about the 9/11 story that got him relo'ed/fired and it "happens" to come up that you've communicated with the guy who gave him the story, he'll immediately know you're talking about me and I simply don't want to open that door.

Without trying to sound even more argumentative, if that doesn't make sense then I'm sorry. With all due respect, I'm not going down that road.

i've put people's personal info on the board in the case of terral and christophera when they claimed they were somehow credible because they use their real name.

funny coincidence is that they both were deadbeat dads that refused to pay child support.

 

[candycorn]

If that's the way you want to play it just label it a lie. You'll feel better.

Why is everything an argument?

Let me get this straight; you're trying to protect the identity of a reporter who routinely publishes his or her name in the paper or reports on TV or radio?

Thats about the dumbest thing I have ever heard of.

The more you obfuscate, the worse you look so you must be lying since you won't give up a name that is already public knowledge. So yes, I will label it a lie and you a liar only because your actions give me no other choice.

It would be another thing all together if you had political considerations such as BHO or Clinton or whoever--those I can understand--but on a public message board? You're really looking stupid here but I'm assuming, for you, that is nothing new.

I'm not protecting him. I completely agree with you that he's put himself out there as a public figure as part of his career. I'm protecting myself here.

I don't think that you're some kind of deranged psycho, but I've also seen people's names and contact information disseminated by messageboard folks who had an issue with someone. I have no evidence that you've ever done anything like that or that you ever would, but I'm not taking any risks. It's nothing personal.

I tell you that because if you were to contact him about the 9/11 story that got him relo'ed/fired and it "happens" to come up that you've communicated with the guy who gave him the story, he'll immediately know you're talking about me and I simply don't want to open that door.

Without trying to sound even more argumentative, if that doesn't make sense then I'm sorry. With all due respect, I'm not going down that road.

Yeah whatever dingus... I could walk up to this person and say, "shorebreak" sent me and he'll know who the hell "shorebreak" is? I would bet nobody outside of USMB knows or gives a fuck who you are.

Well, at least tell us what story went global that he didn't get to tell; I'm guessing it's the Lindberg Baby or something monstrous since there is no way to trace it back since you won't share the name of a public figure or even the freaking publication they are currently working for the publication they worked for, what town its in, etc...

Your whole story is "I know a guy who got silenced and his story went global!" Damn "them"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

In that case, Yeah, I knew a guy who shot an 18 at Torrey Pines....18 holes in one; 54 under par daddy-o! Of course, I'm going to respect his privacy and not tell you anything about him or when he did it, what clubs he used to carry the water on the par 5 18th. He's a private man so I want to respect his privacy. If that sounds like bullshit; you now know how you sound with this farcical story about you "knowing a guy"

Theres no limit to how much a truther will lie; none whatsoever.

 

[DiveCon]

Why is everything an argument?

Let me get this straight; you're trying to protect the identity of a reporter who routinely publishes his or her name in the paper or reports on TV or radio?

Thats about the dumbest thing I have ever heard of.

The more you obfuscate, the worse you look so you must be lying since you won't give up a name that is already public knowledge. So yes, I will label it a lie and you a liar only because your actions give me no other choice.

It would be another thing all together if you had political considerations such as BHO or Clinton or whoever--those I can understand--but on a public message board? You're really looking stupid here but I'm assuming, for you, that is nothing new.

I'm not protecting him. I completely agree with you that he's put himself out there as a public figure as part of his career. I'm protecting myself here.

I don't think that you're some kind of deranged psycho, but I've also seen people's names and contact information disseminated by messageboard folks who had an issue with someone. I have no evidence that you've ever done anything like that or that you ever would, but I'm not taking any risks. It's nothing personal.

I tell you that because if you were to contact him about the 9/11 story that got him relo'ed/fired and it "happens" to come up that you've communicated with the guy who gave him the story, he'll immediately know you're talking about me and I simply don't want to open that door.

Without trying to sound even more argumentative, if that doesn't make sense then I'm sorry. With all due respect, I'm not going down that road.

Yeah whatever dingus... I could walk up to this person and say, "shorebreak" sent me and he'll know who the hell "shorebreak" is? I would bet nobody outside of USMB knows or gives a fuck who you are.

Well, at least tell us what story went global that he didn't get to tell; I'm guessing it's the Lindberg Baby or something monstrous since there is no way to trace it back since you won't share the name of a public figure or even the freaking publication they are currently working for the publication they worked for, what town its in, etc...

Your whole story is "I know a guy who got silenced and his story went global!" Damn "them"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

In that case, Yeah, I knew a guy who shot an 18 at Torrey Pines....18 holes in one; 54 under par daddy-o! Of course, I'm going to respect his privacy and not tell you anything about him or when he did it, what clubs he used to carry the water on the par 5 18th. He's a private man so I want to respect his privacy. If that sounds like bullshit; you now know how you sound with this farcical story about you "knowing a guy"

Theres no limit to how much a truther will lie; none whatsoever.

if the "story went global"
then it should be published SOMEWHERE

 

[SFC Ollie]

I'm not protecting him. I completely agree with you that he's put himself out there as a public figure as part of his career. I'm protecting myself here.

I don't think that you're some kind of deranged psycho, but I've also seen people's names and contact information disseminated by messageboard folks who had an issue with someone. I have no evidence that you've ever done anything like that or that you ever would, but I'm not taking any risks. It's nothing personal.

I tell you that because if you were to contact him about the 9/11 story that got him relo'ed/fired and it "happens" to come up that you've communicated with the guy who gave him the story, he'll immediately know you're talking about me and I simply don't want to open that door.

Without trying to sound even more argumentative, if that doesn't make sense then I'm sorry. With all due respect, I'm not going down that road.

Yeah whatever dingus... I could walk up to this person and say, "shorebreak" sent me and he'll know who the hell "shorebreak" is? I would bet nobody outside of USMB knows or gives a fuck who you are.

Well, at least tell us what story went global that he didn't get to tell; I'm guessing it's the Lindberg Baby or something monstrous since there is no way to trace it back since you won't share the name of a public figure or even the freaking publication they are currently working for the publication they worked for, what town its in, etc...

Your whole story is "I know a guy who got silenced and his story went global!" Damn "them"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

In that case, Yeah, I knew a guy who shot an 18 at Torrey Pines....18 holes in one; 54 under par daddy-o! Of course, I'm going to respect his privacy and not tell you anything about him or when he did it, what clubs he used to carry the water on the par 5 18th. He's a private man so I want to respect his privacy. If that sounds like bullshit; you now know how you sound with this farcical story about you "knowing a guy"

Theres no limit to how much a truther will lie; none whatsoever.

if the "story went global"
then it should be published SOMEWHERE

You would think so anyway......

 

[Shorebreak]

You people remind me of the three stooges on crack. Seriously.

And Candycorn - your responses aren't even making sense. You've completely deviated from the initial comment I made about the news story, making your recent responses out of context.

Just give this one up. I told you that I'd take the hit if you just want to call this one a victory and label me a liar. Isn't that what you want?

 

[candycorn]

You people remind me of the three stooges on crack. Seriously.

And Candycorn - your responses aren't even making sense. You've completely deviated from the initial comment I made about the news story, making your recent responses out of context.

Actually they are right on the mark which is why you've clammed up. Your stance is that you're protecting a reporter's name; who publishes his or her name freely whenever they file a story? Its a farcical excuse for an argument; one that is...in the words of your fellow twoofer; 9/11 Nutjob..."unpresidented".

So I simply asked for the name of this shadowy figure who didn't write a story that supposedly "went global" (I think you even referenced it was about 9/11) and you've gone ape-shit stupid about "I can't reveal" and "It'll come back to me" and now "you're out of context"

If I were talking in the macro about 9/11, believe me, there are plenty of weapons to destroy ANY truther argument 1,000 times over. In short here they are:

*You can't wire 3 buildings for controlled demo while they are occupied; period.
*Airplanes crashing into buildings would disable or destroy the carefully placed charges thus nixing any "control" from a controlled demolition
*All airplane parts found at the Pentagon were consistent with a Boeing 757
*American airlines Flight 77 was a Boeing 757
*Nobody who boarded Flight 77 was ever heard from again after it slammed into the Pentagon.
*The fireball caused by AA77 hitting the Pentagon was identical to the two video taped crashes of two other jumbo jets that day in New York City when AA11 hit the North Tower and UAL 175 hit the South Tower

And it goes on and on. Trust me, there is no limit to the amount of damage I can do and have done to your "movement"; hence 8 years in a box that is more and more looking like a coffin with all of you idiots spouting all manner of conspiratorial bullshit.

Just on this board alone; we have your buddy 9/11 Nutjob making the most outrageous claim that the CIA contracted the Mossad to carry it out. Yeah...thats exactly what you want to do to mass murder; outsource it and have them hold that over your head forever. Yet all of the other nutjobs are silent even when he makes your "movement" look like a convention of people who don't have oars much less two in the pond. Then there are the folks who swear the CIA did it. There are the folks who swear the Neocons did it. There are those who swear that Bush or Cheney did it. And now Terral swears the Rothchilds did it. Basically you dopes have blamed everybody except Martha Stewart. Amazing how the same "evidence" points in 1,000 different directions, is it not? Usually evidence points in a single direction.

That the twoofers are nowhere on this issue is self-evident; so I chose to focus on the other little tidbit; your claim that there is some sort of exquisite cover-up going on and this business about your friend...sorry, this reporter you know who isn't a friend yet you want to protect this non-friend's identity even though it's already public??? So I simply asked for a name. And we all know what has happened, obfuscation over the name, where they work, what publication they work for now, obfuscation over what publication they worked for then, and for the crown jewel of obfuscation, you won't comment on the story that your non friend was screwed out of or however you put it that is now "global" so the cat is out of the bag Junior.

You look like a damn fool.

Just give this one up. I told you that I'd take the hit if you just want to call this one a victory and label me a liar. Isn't that what you want?

Not at all; I would love for you to admit that the 9/11 Commission Report is correct on all major points or as correct as any account will ever be. Short of that, I would love for you to denounce those who don't agree with your set of events (if you're a truther, surely there can't be two versions of the truth; right?). Short of even that, I would love for you to admit that there is no worldwide media bias on 9/11 since we have a polarized society on every other issue yet somehow on 9/11 all of the newspapers, editors, writers, advertisers, magazines, TV stations, Radio Stations, affiliates, distributors, string writers, weighted commentators, and every other credible person has put aside their partisanship to toe the line and not break ranks on the 9/11 Story.

Of course you're not going to do any of that; are you?

I don't have to claim victory; that I am the victor is self-evident. As always.

Check please.