Shills??? MOD ALERT

Yes, keep claiming that his interjection of 9-11, when it had nothing to do with the conversation wasn't the predictive behavior I began talking about when I entered this thread.

 

Have you read the OP? The conversation is about 'shills' in the 9/11 forum.
Why do you insist on changing the subject? Isn't that what the supposed 'shills' do?

I will grant you: 'truthers' are very predictable in their posting habits. Perhaps someone is paying them to do so... but I digress. Back to topic:

Any evidence of paid shills in the 9/11 forum?

 

What ad hominem attacks could I be talking about?

 

Changing the subject again?

I already agreed that 'truthers' are very predictable in their posting practices. They run and dodge when asked for evidence, for example.

Oh, that reminds me ... do you have any evidence of paid shills in the 9/11 section of this forum?

 

Is it that you can't read, or are you just rejecting reality and substituting your own?

 

Dodge noted, as well as an implied insult.

Seriously, though: do you have any evidence of paid shills in the 9/11 section of this forum?

You're not doing very well in supporting your team.

 

You are providing all the evidence needed my friend.

lets go back to your claim that I am dodging your question somehow by supplying the quotes that document how this conversation has went down.

LeftySeargent tried to derail my point about predictive evidence being accpetable in science to prove the theory of gravity by trying to claim I was referancing the WTC tower in my post.

I then call him out for interjecting 9-11 where it had no place in the conversation.

You then come to his defense, and claim that because this is the 9-11 section, that this somehow makes the answer to the question, "What color is the sky?", and you reply, "9-11" that this somehow makes sense.

 

Lefty misread or misinterpreted your meaning. He was wrong.

Your getting all aghast about 9/11 being brought up in a thread about shills in the 9/11 section was silly.

So, is your entire argument based on speculation?

 

I was pointing out that, when cornered, youtry to re-write natural laws, then get defensive when someone who has worked in a profession where knowledge of those laws is required corrects you.

Yes, predictive evidence is valid in some cases. You had better predict correctly if you wish to use it. Stop kvetching when we point out that you have predicted wrongly.

 

Yeah, you really got me there. I'm slipping on my research of currently banned members. Not enough hours in the day, even for such important research.

 

"You people"? Who is that? And just what IS "our game", since you know us so well, and since we all hold the same beliefs and agenda (in your mind)?

 

Kinda puts a crimp in your main shill list, not to mention your attempts to provoke, huh?

 

Actually, it kinda does. He was the most obvious shill here. I hoped he would stay in there, so that his position didn't become filled by someone more competant.

 

I expect these accusations are born of the minds of conspiracy kooks, not of any observed reality. When faced with people who refuse to accept their wonderful 'theories,' they prefer to view those people as either blind fools or parties to the conspiracy/conspiracies in which they believe, and so they're either stupid sheeple or shills, in their view.

 

Anything else I say is just fleshing out what you have said here.

 

Why would anyone bother to pay to debunk most of this nonsense?

Serious attention whoredom at play here.

 

The better question is: How does anyone keep a straight face while arguing with a guy fawkes mask, who has no issues comparing evidence supporting shills to evidence of gravity?

That is stundie worthy right there, and guy_fawkes_v2.0, you sir are nominated.

 

Gravity is the name we use to describe a specific force. Force is the name we use to describe the influence that causes acceleration. It can be observed. It can be measured. The gravitational constant is 6.67398 × 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2. This is physical evidence, not some type of newly coined "predictive evidence."

Your argument is nonsense. It's exactly the same as arguing that there's no proof that force causes acceleration.

Now I just gave you physical evidence of gravity in the form of a measurement of gravity.

Where's your physical evidence of shills on this forum?

 

I for one think it's funny to see how convoluted arguments get in the defense of an indefensible position.

Seriously, gravity?

 

That post made reading this thread worth it all by itself.

Maybe he deserves to get paid, because entertainment like that is hard to find.

 

Guy Fawkes doesn't shill for money.

He does it to establish a Catholic monarchy.

 

I might posit that the fact you aren't flying into space at this very moment might be direct evidence of the existence of gravity, but please continue down this line of thinking.

However, I could be wrong and you aren't currently residing on the surface of this planetary object due to gravitational forces. If that's the case, then my apologies for jumping to conclusions.

 

Breaking News: Tides, do they really exist?

 

Earth circles Sun. 9/11 truthers blame Bush.

 

How can something flat circle the sun?