man, within 3 minutes of mentioning his name, you get a response from spank.

if only pizza places were that fast!

Low Key, always the terrible critic. Too stupid to stop.

Come on AsianNit, parade that sacred cow of bullying around like you got something super smart to show off. You know I can feast on that beef while looking you in the eye.

Meanwhile, if Deuces ever complains of being bullied, call me if you want help with the science and knowledge on the matter.

Deuces deserves any piling on that may occur in the 9/11 thread. (Don't read it, don't know if it happens that way.)

In your expert opinion, what would it look like if someone was being bullied in an online forum for being a 9/11 truther?

five minutes?

my jabberwocky better be free!

Nom Nom Nom

Buddy, pretending I'm stupid isn't going to help anymore than if I pretend you are stupid.

Why are you asking me about Deuces? Deuces hasn't said **** **** about this to me.

If you want to discuss what is bullying- start a thread. The bad poster thread is for people who talk about knowing stuff like bullying and then need to ask a lot of questions about it.

I thought the bad poster thread was for people trying to earn extra credit for the next time we decide whose name goes in the thread title and for other posters who want to enable them.

Posted in ATF

I have a hard time deciding whether spank or low key is the better poster.

you had your chance, not that one vote woulda mattered

It's not a legitimate inference. 911 is a topic I am interested in, but I don't drive the conversation. I'm sure if masque participated for awhile he would eclipse me in word count, but I don't even think he is that interested in it. Posters have different writing styles, and if a poster given to writing in a more structured way is also in a minority opinion on a highly ramified topic, then a high word count can result.

I'm not in there trying to make friends and influence people lol. I'm talking **** and trying to see how far people will go with their illusions. I talk about what they want to talk about. With a very few exceptions, I don't introduce the topics. And I don't bump the thread when the conversation dies down. The missionary analogy just doesn't hold up to the slightest scrutiny. I'm just fascinated at the power of social authority over empirical fact and I like to see it demonstrated. It's like a game.

In other news, keeed has like run tail ever since I declared rebellion.

Also, haters still can't intelligently explain why spank is a bad poster, but so many other posters are not. For months now. Spank talks funny didn't qualify.

So I declare a victory today in the rebellion against keeed's bad poster authority. His occupation has been repelled like spank was a village or town.

It very possible that people only engage you because they want to see how far you will go with what they think are your illusions.

I don't read that thread. How often has the conversation died down since you've started posting in it, only to be restarted by someone else?

Spank must have winded himself last week. But he's back with spamming glory!

The best part of the 9/11 thread is where Deuces goes on long defenses of his posting claiming he answers all questions posited to him and doesn't duck or dodge anything while refusing to answer my questions to him because he is in the title of this thread.

And can't answer the questions cogently anyway...

It used to be. That's what made it so great.

ehh, I think it's a stretch to say anyone is being hard on me. Maybe they are trying? Like, what is this?

Can someone explain this to me? lololol

Maybe most people don't realize that spank is not the only verbally challenged poster here (not that there is anything wrong with that). I've got Paul and Dids on that list as well. Maybe chezlaw needs a mention too. So I could chalk up the above Paul quote to his deficiency, but I can also allow for the possibility that it makes sense and I am just not getting it.

And Paul D is never far behind Low Key in being classically stupid.

Nothing more pathetic than a willfully stupid person with an education, like Paul D. At least Low Key probably has an excuse.

You fill most of your posts with fluff that is bereft of any real value, and then proceed to repeat it.

There isn't a symmetry to the debate to suggest that. I am primarily pointing out the failings of the story they believe, not so much presenting the demolition or other hypotheses as proven fact. My main point is that there needs to be an honest investigation, while they maintain an illusion that one has been done and that it's findings are valid in the same way other findings of facts are.

I don't know. I've never restarted it after a significant pause. And like I said, I don't even really steer the conversation. The papers and concepts being discussed are 95% things the fire collapse theorists introduce. If I had my druthers it would be WTC 7, the flights, and the money trail all day. But like I said, I'm not trying to sell anyone. I am well aware that people become more entrenched by the kind of discussion going on there.

I don't do that. I still don't understand what you mean by "50% phrases".

Maybe, because you have a hard time with language, you take a lot of short cuts in evaluating speech. You probably tend to think anyone using a stronger vocabulary or writing longer sentences is necessarily bloviating. Of course that isn't true, just like it isn't true that a high volume of words in a single thread necessarily means "missionary zeal". Sorry Paul, but if you want to understand things you're going to have to actually read, not just label.

I would like to see any example of my repeated fluff phrases in action, but I'm guessing I am going to get some kind of lame "it's not worth it" type of excuse.

Hmmm, a cursory look at part of the thread suggests that the primary instigator who won't let it die is JiggsCasey. Does that fit your recollection of how the thread plays out?

The only one who has a hard time with language is you. Otherwise you would be able to answer peoples' questions. Which you fail to do.

You shouldn't take shots at me. I know you lied about your math background. As far as I can tell you as big of a fraud as anyone this side of DblJ otf.