Author Topic: JREF involved in "cognitive infiltration"  (Read 5771 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline truthbadger

  • Deleted
  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 26
Re: JREF involved in "cognitive infiltration"
« Reply #30 on: Apr 22, 2012, 04:35:56 PM »
I knew you were the same Robert Hanson from DJ's post. I figured if I posted something about you, it wouldn't be long before your urges to engage would get the best of you and I would hear from you sooner or later. I still contend that you have some mental issues that need addressing after reading your blog and seeing the email you sent Greg Gutfeld and the exchange you had with DJ Grothe at JREF. I hope you're sincere about playing nice. I will if you will.

Sure thing drwfishesman! Nice is always prefered, and you suckered me into this enemy filled hornets nest. Contrary to the emotions expressed in the email I sent to Greg Gutfield, I see zero reason for my trusty insta-hate reflex to kick in during our exchange. You seem like a reasonable person and your introduction was a peaceful one. Is there anything specific we might agree to discuss?

I am a veteran who hates to see our nation become such a corrupt vile place because of poor leadership and a disgustingly controlled news media. Our system could be just fine if we prevented the interchangle parts from ruining it forever. My biggest fault is caring too much about that stupid oath to the Constitution. I wish more citizens took the same oaths ignored by our elected representation more serioulsy. What happened to the lead by example concept?   

Offline drwfishesman

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Forum Necromancer
Re: JREF involved in "cognitive infiltration"
« Reply #31 on: Apr 22, 2012, 04:44:59 PM »
I knew you were the same Robert Hanson from DJ's post. I figured if I posted something about you, it wouldn't be long before your urges to engage would get the best of you and I would hear from you sooner or later. I still contend that you have some mental issues that need addressing after reading your blog and seeing the email you sent Greg Gutfeld and the exchange you had with DJ Grothe at JREF. I hope you're sincere about playing nice. I will if you will.

Sure thing drwfishesman! Nice is always prefered, and you suckered me into this enemy filled hornets nest. Contrary to the emotions expressed in the email I sent to Greg Gutfield, I see zero reason for my trusty insta-hate reflex to kick in during our exchange. You seem like a reasonable person and your introduction was a peaceful one. Is there anything specific we might agree to discuss?

I am a veteran who hates to see our nation become such a corrupt vile place because of poor leadership and a disgustingly controlled news media. Our system could be just fine if we prevented the interchangle parts from ruining it forever. My biggest fault is caring too much about that stupid oath to the Constitution. I wish more citizens took the same oaths ignored by our elected representation more serioulsy. What happened to the lead by example concept?

Then we agree. I personally find no problem with 9/11 trutherism, people are free to believe anything they want. I am a Marine Corps veteran and fought for that specific right. I am bothered when truthers become so ideological that if someone is skeptical of their claims of a government conspiracy they think that skeptics are part of the conspiracy or being duped. It could just be that the evidence you present is not compelling enough. And responding to someone with threats and ad hominem attacks is no way to have civil discourse about the issue. That kind of reaction makes me think you might need some help from a mental health professional, when in real life you could be one of the most rational, intelligent people I've ever met.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals". Kay, from Men in Black

Offline truthbadger

  • Deleted
  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 26
Re: JREF involved in "cognitive infiltration"
« Reply #32 on: Apr 22, 2012, 04:48:38 PM »
Now, I know that poking a crazy with a stick can be immense fun. O, to see him pacing his padded cell, the white froth of deluded indignation dribbling down his chin, his eyes darting to and fro like marbles set whizzing down the sides of a bowl. This is why I won't ask you to leave him alone. But please, if you've gone a-pokin', don't shower us with reports of his - undoubtedly mental - responses.

An alternative course of action could of course be not responding to him and letting him work out his current psychosis in a vacuum. 

Louie
3rd generation moderator
5th generation fucking chickenhawk spineless weak cowardly little man

Text book job on the messenger kill Louie. Understand that I will ignore this and all your future attempts to simmer my blood. You may stick around and continue to prove yourself a "fucking chickenhawk spineless weak cowardly little man". But, if you seek only to annoy me, you best try a fresh new approach, or go way.
« Last Edit: Apr 22, 2012, 11:48:59 PM by truthbadger »

Offline drwfishesman

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Forum Necromancer
Re: JREF involved in "cognitive infiltration"
« Reply #33 on: Apr 22, 2012, 05:10:45 PM »
truthbadger,

I applaud you for two things:

1. Joining this forum and speaking your peace and publishing it on your blog. I hope you find that there are some people here who do disagree with you but are willing to have a civil debate about it.

2. It showed class to delete your blog post that contained the email to Gutfeld. I think that it distracted from your message and made you seem unstable. Folks on this forum may not respect what you believe about 9/11 but they will respect you for having some class about it.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals". Kay, from Men in Black

Offline Eternally Learning

  • Master Mr. a.k.a. Methodical Loaf
  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 7108
  • Break a leg, badger!
    • Get Past The 140 Character Limit!
Re: JREF involved in "cognitive infiltration"
« Reply #34 on: Apr 22, 2012, 06:27:40 PM »
"First and foremost, it has been my experience that the vast majority of people in the skeptical community (i.e. those who associate with the likes of the JREF, the SGU, and so on) do in fact believe, that the theories of so-called 9-11 truthers are incorrect and potentially harmful."

Yeah, no shit, so give me some credit for hanging out in this den of vipers. There are much easier places/ways to spend my time and mental energy. What is so potentially harmful about 911 truthers? Do we threaten the stability and reputation of the government that takes care of us and keeps us safe?

Well I'm not too involved in debates on this topic so I can only speak for myself, but I consider it potentially harmful in the same way I consider any spread of blatantly false information potentially harmful.  I say the same thing about seemingly innocuous things like the belief that Obama is a Muslim or wasn't born in the US.  They don't cause harm just by existing, but actions based off of ignorance is I think an inherent problem that can range from simply spreading ignorance to inciting violence.

This is like falsely lead 911truth skeptics continuously telling me 2+2=5. Never, ever, ever, am I going to flip flop on this, so debating it makes no sense if you are trying to convince me otherwise. Do I want to know 911 was planned ahead of time...hell no, but I do. If this sets me up for extra doses of the typical 911 twoofas are deranged lunatics gibberish, it only discredits the intellect on your side of the 911 skepticism.

Saying you will never, ever, ever change your mind on something is decidedly about as unskeptical as possible.  At the very core of skepticism is the ability and desire to change one's opinions and beliefs with appropriate evidence.  I've no love for Bush Jr. and his administration and fully believe that they have done possibly irreparable harm to the US (some of which was likely intentional and some which was likely not), but I've simply seen nothing rock solid enough to convince me that our government is or was involved in a conspiracy of this magnitude. 

Regardless, you clearly are not interested in debating the conspiracy theories, and I don't particularly feel inclined to either so I'll just leave the particulars of my disagreement out of it.

"Furthermore, the linking of every single bit of data you've shared or implied you have to the federal government has not even been attempted by you; merely asserted repeatedly."

So would you recommend keeping our outstanding forecast a secret? Why would I bother being kind enough to point out the obvious future troubles for DJ/JP Grohle and Co? Knowing I am going to be hated by those that I initially wanted to help, I still gave them an opportunity to fix the problem before they transformed me into a messenger to they had to destroy.

As for tying this directly to the federal government...you have some serious lofty expectations. This penny ante operation has been up and running for only a couple weeks. Consider this the start of our start. Allow some government timing reality...IE: NIST released its final report on the causes of the collapse of 7 World Trade Center in November 2008.

So you're allowed to make baseless assertions as long as you can say that they are reasonably baseless?  If you don't have the facts to back up the assertion that the JREF is part of a government effort to spread disinformation about their conspiracies then don't make the assertions.

"..as you attempted to join the JREF forum yourself you are clearly aware that one does not need to be a memeber of or even informally involved with the JREF to post there."

I get the feeling you are just feeling me out and trying to get more information from me than I care to share right now. If you expect me to present to you a finished case file full of evidence to improve my credibility with you...I can't. I'm a peon worker bee just like you.

Didn't your blog post contained emails of failed efforts to join their forums?  Maybe I misread something, but I got the impression that you were claiming that DJ was lying about JREF forum members not having to be members of the JREF.

"There is plenty more that I could skeptically comment on..."

Yeah, me too. Unfortunately, creating never ending debates has become a trendy. Using foresight to prevent future problems is still very unpopular.

Why solve problems when it is so much easier to magnify mine?

I don't mind the battle, beat me up real good, send me out of this forum as an illuminated 911twoofa idiot convert that blindly trusts our government.  I only wish you could.

I'm skeptically interested in hearing what skeptical response you will come back with as well!

Never-ending debates mainly happen when one or both sides are uninterested in conceding a point under any circumstances.  Still, like I said, I don't particularly feel like debating trutherism with you so I'll abstain.  The other stuff I was referring to was simply with regards to your kerfuffle with the JREF.
« Last Edit: Apr 22, 2012, 06:39:24 PM by Eternally Learning »

Offline pandamonium

  • Skeptical Beer Inspector
  • Global Moderator
  • Planetary Skeptic
  • *****
  • Posts: 28669
  • I'm feeling all right
    • Oodles of Doodles - My blog
Re: JREF involved in "cognitive infiltration"
« Reply #35 on: Apr 22, 2012, 06:28:36 PM »
we on the SGU moderator team welcome voices of dissent. I for one don't have an opinion one way or the other concerning your mental health, truth Badger. I'm not a medical professional and therefore any claims I make concerning the craziness of another individual would only be poisoning the well or ad home attacking/name calling.

to be clear, I was attempting humor regarding your JP/DJ gaff. I was hoping someone would give me an opening to say "I'm just asking questions!!!" I have dyslexic friends, and make enough cognitive errors regarding names, so I've taken to joking about these things instead of just saying "u got teh name rong dumdum."

but really, you should work on getting the Face of Devil's name right. (hint: it starts with an "R" and ends in "ichard Dawkins")

Rillon's Law

Panda is smart!
"I'm hungry but it's ok that's why we've got a confessions stand."

Offline truthbadger

  • Deleted
  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 26
Re: JREF involved in "cognitive infiltration"
« Reply #36 on: Apr 22, 2012, 08:42:07 PM »
truthbadger,

I applaud you for two things:

1. Joining this forum and speaking your peace and publishing it on your blog. I hope you find that there are some people here who do disagree with you but are willing to have a civil debate about it.

2. It showed class to delete your blog post that contained the email to Gutfeld. I think that it distracted from your message and made you seem unstable. Folks on this forum may not respect what you believe about 9/11 but they will respect you for having some class about it.

Phew, another skeptical Veteran. We are two cornerstones towards a mutual foundation...inside the viper pit of all places! (Can I keep saying that without incident? You should be a proud pit of skeptical vipers!)

My concerns about the trending organization of skeptics (humans) are numerous. Although summing them up properly in a forum reply is next to impossible. Am I imagining patterns and trends that haven't existed for decades? Do the skeptic groups of today direct an unexplainably high ratio of their skeptical energy towards the often less organized enemy skeptics of our governments agenda. For a rough example, what ratio of this proud pit of skeptical vipers would you estimate to stand on each side of these national/global issues:

1. global warming/carbon tax vs. global warming not due to human-carbon relationship
2. tighter gun restrictions/laws vs. "From my cold, dead hands"
3. more homeland security/less civil liberties vs. privacy rights/bill of rights
4. empire vs isolation 
5. socialism vs. capitalism
6. Fed fiat vs. bye Fed, gold or silver backed currency
7. globalism vs. nationalism

This list is a just a few of the basics stuck inside my mellon, so I will stop here. If accurate estimates can be made, would I be out of line making this forecast? Far too few of the organized skeptics are skeptical about our government. And far too many are skeptical of our justified government skeptics. 


« Last Edit: Apr 22, 2012, 11:51:36 PM by truthbadger »

Offline Beleth

  • Administrator Emeritus
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8170
Re: JREF involved in "cognitive infiltration"
« Reply #37 on: Apr 22, 2012, 09:07:29 PM »
inside the viper pit of all places! (Can I keep saying that without incident?)

Beleth You obviously realize it's questionable behaviour, so you already know that the answer to your question is "no".
I expect to pass through this world but once;
any good thing therefore that I can do, or any kindness that I can show to any fellow creature, let me do it now;
let me not defer or neglect it, for I shall not pass this way again.
-- Stephan Grellet

Offline Belgarath

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9305
Re: JREF involved in "cognitive infiltration"
« Reply #38 on: Apr 22, 2012, 09:20:11 PM »
I'll try this:

Truthbadger, you indicate that you believe that the government conspired to cause 9/11.  I am willing to accept this, provided you can help me do so.  In order for me to do so, I need the answer to a couple of questions, then we can have a discussion.

First, can you point to your strongest piece of evidence for your hypothesis?

Second, if I can show that your strongest piece of evidence either doesn't support the theory, or is refuted, will you change your mind?


I will certainly tell you what will change my mind, but you must first tell me what would change your mind about the issue.


Please read what I say, not what you choose to imagine I meant to say.
Please don’t try to argue about statements I never made.
- Dr. Harriet Hall

Offline truthbadger

  • Deleted
  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 26
Re: JREF involved in "cognitive infiltration"
« Reply #39 on: Apr 22, 2012, 09:33:55 PM »
Eternally Learning:"Well I'm not too involved in debates on this topic so I can only speak for myself, but I consider it potentially harmful in the same way I consider any spread of blatantly false information potentially harmful.  I say the same thing about seemingly innocuous things like the belief that Obama is a Muslim or wasn't born in the US.  They don't cause harm just by existing, but actions based off of ignorance is I think an inherent problem that can range from simply spreading ignorance to inciting violence."

Revealing phrases from this statement: Do you imply those that seek a new 911 investigation are responsible for:
spread of blatantly false information
actions based off of ignorance
spreading ignorance to inciting violence
the belief that Obama is a Muslim or wasn't born in the US

Seems you have been sold an information package or are attempting to sell one.
 
Eternally Learning: "Saying you will never, ever, ever change your mind on something is decidedly about as unskeptical as possible.  At the very core of skepticism is the ability and desire to change one's opinions and beliefs with appropriate evidence."

2 + 2 =4....I will never, ever, ever change my mind. Yet I'm still very skeptical about you.

Eternally Learning: "I've simply seen nothing rock solid enough to convince me that our government is or was involved in a conspiracy of this magnitude."

Your I've is not enough for me at this point.

Regardless, you clearly are not interested in debating the conspiracy theories, and I don't particularly feel inclined to either so I'll just leave the particulars of my disagreement out of it.

Eternally Learning (fill in the blank also by Eternally Learning): "So you're allowed to make baseless assertions as long as you can say that they are reasonably baseless?  If you don't have the facts to back up the assertion that those that seek a new 911 investigation are responsible for: spread of blatantly false information, actions based off of ignorance, spreading ignorance to inciting violence, or the belief that Obama is a Muslim or wasn't born in the US don't make the assertions."


Eternally Learning: "I got the impression that you were claiming that DJ was lying about JREF forum members not having to be members of the JREF."

Unreal, another wrong impression!

Eternally Learning: "Never-ending debates mainly happen when one or both sides are uninterested in conceding a point under any circumstances."

2+2=4   STILL! We have no reason to debate now! Go sell your package elswhere or get a refund for the one you bought.
« Last Edit: Apr 23, 2012, 12:26:58 AM by truthbadger »

Offline truthbadger

  • Deleted
  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 26
Re: JREF involved in "cognitive infiltration"
« Reply #40 on: Apr 22, 2012, 10:11:52 PM »
I'll try this:

Truthbadger, you indicate that you believe that the government conspired to cause 9/11.  I am willing to accept this, provided you can help me do so.  In order for me to do so, I need the answer to a couple of questions, then we can have a discussion.

First, can you point to your strongest piece of evidence for your hypothesis?

Second, if I can show that your strongest piece of evidence either doesn't support the theory, or is refuted, will you change your mind?


I will certainly tell you what will change my mind, but you must first tell me what would change your mind about the issue.


Why must we make this agreement over just one single peice of evidence? I will agree 100% if we can use either simple math concept on the following link and enter only mutually agreed upon data into either or both of equations.

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/DAV504A.html

My mind will be changed when you can convince me that my eyes don't see what everybody else's see. I went 9.5 years, giving that awful day as little thought as I could. I saw an AE911Truth billboard, I think in Colorado(sucker for advertising, not my fault). It got lost inside my head for a couple weeks before I started digging around online to check it out. All I had to do was watch the footage of all the collapses with a different mindset. I debunked the government 911 Official Story with my eyes. Is that too minimalist of me? Can you make me see right/differently?

Offline Belgarath

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9305
Re: JREF involved in "cognitive infiltration"
« Reply #41 on: Apr 22, 2012, 10:16:49 PM »
Truthbadger:

No, I would not expect that there was only one piece of evidence.  Heck, I wouldn't believe in much supported by only one piece of evidence.  What I am trying to find out is the strongest piece of evidence you have to support the theory that the US government was behind it.

Are you claiming that the webpage you linked is the strongest evidence?

Also, if it is the collapse videos which convinced you, what are you seeing and what does it indicate to you?

Please read what I say, not what you choose to imagine I meant to say.
Please don’t try to argue about statements I never made.
- Dr. Harriet Hall

Offline Zytheran

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2835
    • The old Skeptics SA website
Re: JREF involved in "cognitive infiltration"
« Reply #42 on: Apr 22, 2012, 10:32:37 PM »
 :munch:

Online Chew

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 10235
  • Let's gut it!
Re: JREF involved in "cognitive infiltration"
« Reply #43 on: Apr 22, 2012, 10:36:01 PM »
All I had to do was watch the footage of all the collapses with a different mindset.

Ah yes. The "what I saw is not what I expected to happen" dictum of the layman. What makes you qualified to render a judgement on how the buildings should have collapsed?
"It is difficult to say what truth is, but sometimes it is easy to recognize falsehood." -Albert Einstein

Offline Beleth

  • Administrator Emeritus
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8170
Re: JREF involved in "cognitive infiltration"
« Reply #44 on: Apr 22, 2012, 10:36:15 PM »
I expect to pass through this world but once;
any good thing therefore that I can do, or any kindness that I can show to any fellow creature, let me do it now;
let me not defer or neglect it, for I shall not pass this way again.
-- Stephan Grellet