Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => That CAN'T be true! => Topic started by: Zer0 on 09/03/2021 19:15:09
-
Moderators on TNS are quite Lenient & supposedly Kind on Trolls.
👎
Please Change your Policies regarding posting Conspiracy Theories & Please Stop encouraging Trollish Behaviour.
🙏
P.S. - A genuine heartfelt humble request to all members,
PLEASE Do Not Feed the TROLLZ!
🙏
(itz not a jolly gud idea atall)
-
How do you define a troll?
-
@Kryptid
Hi there!
🙋
TROLL :-
" Someone who leaves an intentionally annoying or offensive message on the internet, in order to upset someone or to get attention or cause trouble. "
" A message that someone leaves on the internet that is intended to annoy people. "
" To leave an insulting or offensive message on the internet in order to upset someone, or to get attention or cause trouble. "
" To intentionally do or say something annoying or offensive in order to upset someone, or to get attention or leave an insulting or offensive message on the internet in order to upset someone, or to get attention or cause trouble. "
But the ones Attacking & Infesting this Science Forum are a bit smart & tactful...Please allow Me to Elaborate with a few examples :-
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=65239.0
(Preaching Trolls which forcefully Shove their Supreme GOD into a Science Forum & then Copy&Paste almost half the verses of their " Holy Book " on the webpage, as if TNS has unlimited free cloud data storage capacity)
What's worse, is they work in teams of Two(2) n keep posting counter arguments so that the OP never dries out but ends up becoming the looooongest unproductive OP!
👎
Perhaps they feel if they can Convert even one Scientifically enabled mind into a religious believer, then the Troll shall receive a direct confirmed ticket to Heaven directly by GOD!
😏👎
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=81847.0
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=81854.0
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=81852.0
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=81846.0
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=81855.0
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=81851.0
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=81857.0
(Flood Trolls who all of a Sudden unleash a " Shock & Awe " campaign onto a Specific subsection of the site & go on n onn n ooonnn asking questions without pausing or even slightly considering the possibility of Others who might also have a few questions to ask)
Then when their queries are answered satisfactorily, there are no further enquiries & it's almost as if the Folks who tried to contribute inorder to genuinely answer the OP were just mere Fools!
👎
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=81864.0
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70418.0
(Regular & very predictable Seller & AD posting Trolls. They first ask a humble question, & then quickly jump onto Advertising their world renown supreme product)
Such OPs just add on dead weight to the Forum. They should be taken Down!
👎
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=80356.msg611413#msg611413
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=80390.msg611838#msg611838
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=81812.0
(New wannabe UTUBE Superstars Trolls who Twist & Break up facts & post em as New Discoveries, Do not ever bother to Respond to any clarifications & keep posting their channel links all over the webpage inorder to increase their Tube Followers count)
Feeding off like leeches, they eat up space n take undue advantage of such a free for all wonderful forum.
😏👎
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=81740.msg632384#msg632384
(Conspiracy Theory Trolls who post Absolute Crap without even a miniscule amount if Evidence & completely baseless allegations & even Dare to go upto the extent to Blame & Accuse other Users of being paid or have taken money from rich businessmen inorder to counter attack their hallucinatingly delusional OPs)
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=81587.0
The hog on & feed on the time of the Wise & Scholarly on the Forum & hence the " Question of the Week " finds itself dry without any takers as such time killing Trolls are evading the Real questions & wish to cocoon all members into their revengeful irrelevant & baseless Conspiracy Theories!
👎
P.S. - Feeding the Trolls will Attract more on more if em!
WE all Users should Help the Moderators by Refraining from doing so, Please Remember...United WE Stand...Divided... it's anyone's guess...WE All Suffer Collectively.
🙏
-
How do you define a troll?
Doing this on a science site?
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=81928.msg632638#msg632638
-
@Kryptid
Hi there!
🙋
TROLL :-
" Someone who leaves an intentionally annoying or offensive message on the internet, in order to upset someone or to get attention or cause trouble. "
" A message that someone leaves on the internet that is intended to annoy people. "
" To leave an insulting or offensive message on the internet in order to upset someone, or to get attention or cause trouble. "
" To intentionally do or say something annoying or offensive in order to upset someone, or to get attention or leave an insulting or offensive message on the internet in order to upset someone, or to get attention or cause trouble. "
That's not the definition of trolling rather it's a small list of a few tactics a troll might use. While there are the newer types of Troll that seek to provocate for It's own sake.
Trolling is almost always the action of a person or group designed to prevent or stop discussion from continuing. A Troll exists to shut down discussion.
But the ones Attacking & Infesting this Science Forum are a bit smart & tactful...Please allow Me to Elaborate with a few examples :-
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=65239.0
(Preaching Trolls which forcefully Shove their Supreme GOD into a Science Forum & then Copy&Paste almost half the verses of their " Holy Book " on the webpage, as if TNS has unlimited free cloud data storage capacity)
What's worse, is they work in teams of Two(2) n keep posting counter arguments so that the OP never dries out but ends up becoming the looooongest unproductive OP!
👎
Perhaps they feel if they can Convert even one Scientifically enabled mind into a religious believer, then the Troll shall receive a direct confirmed ticket to Heaven directly by GOD!
😏👎
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=81847.0
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=81854.0
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=81852.0
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=81846.0
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=81855.0
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=81851.0
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=81857.0
Many of the topics you list are perfectly acceptable, how is a rainbow generated? Questions regarding the moon.
It appears to me that you're the one, trolling here, you're the one seeking to prevent topics being raised or discussed. If you cant win the argument, closing the topic is a troll tactic.
We need more not less discussion.
-
A Troll exists to shut down discussion.
No.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll#Psychological_characteristics
-
We need more not less discussion.
This sounds like the attitude of a:
Conspiracy Theory Troll who posts Absolute Crap without even a miniscule amount of Evidence
-
A Troll exists to shut down discussion.
No.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll#Psychological_characteristics
Yes
This is typically for the troll's amusement, or to achieve a specific result such as disrupting a rival's online activities
-
We need more not less discussion.
This sounds like the attitude of a:
Conspiracy Theory Troll who posts Absolute Crap without even a miniscule amount of Evidence
Quite the opposite, discussion allows conspiracies to be proven or disproven. If a suggestion is complete nonsense a discussion can show that.
Trolls generally don't start discussions they generally seek to destroy them
-
Quite the opposite, discussion allows conspiracies to be proven or disproven. If a suggestion is complete nonsense a discussion can show that.
Your conspiracy theories have been overwhelmingly disproven on this discussion board.
Why hasn't it stopped you?
Maybe because you immediately dump another, giant, steaming, pile of
Crap without even a miniscule amount of Evidence
-
This is typically for the troll's amusement, or to achieve a specific result such as disrupting a rival's online activities
And, since nobody here is anyone's rival, we are left with the trolls who are just playing themselves.
Quite the opposite, discussion allows conspiracies to be proven or disproven.
True, but trolls keep posting the same nonsense long after it has been disproved. So you get long topics where one side is just repeating unevinced nonsense, rather than actually being able to point to science.
-
We need more not less discussion.
This sounds like the attitude of a:
Conspiracy Theory Troll who posts Absolute Crap without even a miniscule amount of Evidence
Quite the opposite, discussion allows conspiracies to be proven or disproven. If a suggestion is complete nonsense a discussion can show that.
Trolls generally don't start discussions they generally seek to destroy them
Conspiracy theories, by their very nature, cannot be disproved. It's always possible for the theorist to invoke excuses (including new conspiracies) to explain away either a lack evidence for their theory (such as, "I can't show the evidence beause it's being suppressed") or the presence of evidence against it (such as, "you can't trust that source because it's disinformation to promote their agenda").
-
We need more not less discussion.
This sounds like the attitude of a:
Conspiracy Theory Troll who posts Absolute Crap without even a miniscule amount of Evidence
Quite the opposite, discussion allows conspiracies to be proven or disproven. If a suggestion is complete nonsense a discussion can show that.
Trolls generally don't start discussions they generally seek to destroy them
Conspiracy theories, by their very nature, cannot be disproved.
Disagree it depends on the actual conspiracy being suggested. Leaks or the release of internal documents have often proven past conspiracy theories true, as they have also shown them false.
It's always possible for the theorist to invoke excuses (including new conspiracies) to explain away either a lack evidence for their theory (such as, "I can't show the evidence beause it's being suppressed")
Supressed evidence is evidence, that is not the same as no evidence at all. If there is a report that proves something and a government is suppressing the information or stopping the report being made public and there are many examples of that happening in history, then there is evidence it's just being withheld.
or the presence of evidence against it (such as, "you can't trust that source because it's disinformation to promote their agenda").
Funny both sides use that one.
-
Disagree it depends on the actual conspiracy being suggested. Leaks or the release of internal documents have often proven past conspiracy theories true, as they have also shown them false.
But the leaked documents are faked.
That's the thing.
You really can't disprove a conspiracy theory.
So , as is often the case, you are disagreeing with reality.
On a related note, how does a forum deal with a troll who doesn't realise they are a troll?
-
as they have also shown them false.
The conspiracy theorist can always claim that such documents are disinformation in order to keep their theory from being falsified.
Supressed evidence is evidence, that is not the same as no evidence at all.
The problem is that what a lot of conspiracy theorists consider to be "suppressed evidence" cannot be distinguished from hearsay or rumors because it cannot be confirmed to be true.
-
As Jolly has rightly pointed out, "suppressed" evidence is not devoid of value. It can reveal truth by implication.
This sometimes happened during World War 2. During that conflict, Britain attempted to infiltrate secret agents into Germany, to find out what the Germans were planning. For example, to report whether the Germans were planning to invade a certain country, or not.
Now, if a British agent got detected and captured, the Germans would try to turn this to their advantage. By making the captured agent send misleading reports back to Britain. Such as: "No, the Germans aren't going to invade".
When in fact, the Germans actually were planning to invade. But were trying to suppress the fact.
This might have misled the British authorities - if they didn't know that the agent had been captured and was being forced to send misleading information.
But if the British did know - because the agent had included a subtle clue in his message that he'd been captured - then the British could obtain the truth - by simply reversing the information supplied in the message.
-
As Jolly has rightly pointed out, "suppressed" evidence is not devoid of value.
Do you know what suppression of evidence means?
"Suppression of evidence is a term used in the United States legal system to describe the lawful or unlawful act of preventing evidence from being shown ..."
from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppression_of_evidence
So evidence that is suppressed is not heard.
You and Jolly may thing that evidence which nobody knows about can be valuable, but in reality, it can't because people don't know about it.
The only thing that comes close is where you see a suspicious lack of information about something.
You seem to have it muddled with ideas like
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vi_coactus
and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duress_code
which are essentially unrelated.
-
Aren't you missing the point? If certain facts are deliberately suppressed - or, at least, not allowed even to be mentioned, isn't the inference as plain as a pikestaff.
We all know that. But let's just drop the matter. I don't so much mind being blown up in a spectacular global thermonuclear war. At least that'd contain elements of excitement.
But not being arrested, led down to a dingy execution cell, and shot in the back of the neck by some Party snowflake.
-
Aren't you missing the point? If certain facts are deliberately suppressed - or, at least, not allowed even to be mentioned, isn't the inference as plain as a pikestaff.
Here's a hint.
The only thing that comes close is where you see a suspicious lack of information about something.
-
Aren't you missing the point? If certain facts are deliberately suppressed - or, at least, not allowed even to be mentioned, isn't the inference as plain as a pikestaff.
Here's a hint.
The only thing that comes close is where you see a suspicious lack of information about something.
I see what you mean. You put it more succinctly, and more guardedly. So you're probably safe from getting shot.
-
And here we have the problem with a conspiracy theory.
The lack of proof a statement is evidence of both the falsehood and of the truth of the statement.
Which is why they don't belong on science web sites.
-
And here we have the problem with a conspiracy theory.
The lack of proof a statement is evidence of both the falsehood and of the truth of the statement.
Which is why they don't belong on science web sites.
Except perhaps on websites run by cats
-
as they have also shown them false.
The conspiracy theorist can always claim that such documents are disinformation in order to keep their theory from being falsified.
It goes both ways, the Obama administration decided the best way to tackle 911 truth was to proliferate even more crazy conspiracies related to what happened on 911, and so disappearing planes amoung other nonsense were added to list of conspiracies by government.
Inherently the security services act in secret, everything they do is a conspiracy.
Supressed evidence is evidence, that is not the same as no evidence at all.
The problem is that what a lot of conspiracy theorists consider to be "suppressed evidence" cannot be distinguished from hearsay or rumors because it cannot be confirmed to be true.
Sure, my only point was that historically evidence has been suppressed intentionally, and that in the current climate, it appears some people feel the only way they can tell the truth is with some degree of protection. Ultimately that is a climate the security establishment has imposed, and it's a bad sign.
Just because the health care worker spoke serctly is not in of itself a reason to reject the statement.
-
It goes both ways, the Obama administration decided the best way to tackle 911 truth was to proliferate even more crazy conspiracies...
Is that meant to be irony?
-
It goes both ways, the Obama administration decided the best way to tackle 911 truth was to proliferate even more crazy conspiracies related to what happened on 911, and so disappearing planes amoung other nonsense were added to list of conspiracies by government.
Please don't tell me you're also a 9-11 truther.
Inherently the security services act in secret, everything they do is a conspiracy.
So how can you ever claim to know what it is that they are doing?
in the current climate, it appears some people feel the only way they can tell the truth is with some degree of protection
Again, since when was it established that these people are telling the truth? For all we know, they real reason they are keeping themselves anonymous is so that they cannot be held accountable if they are, in fact, lying. So yes, it is important whether they are telling the truth or not.
Ultimately that is a climate the security establishment has imposed, and it's a bad sign.
Evidence?
Just because the health care worker spoke serctly is not in of itself a reason to reject the statement.
That's right, but there is also no reason to accept the statement. There is no weight behind it and there won't be any weight behind it until someone can provide objective evidence to support it. Remember, the burden of proof is on the claimant, not the debunker.
-
" On a related note, how does a forum deal with a troll who doesn't realise they are a troll? "
LMAO! @ B.C.
🤭
P.S. - Hopefully Thee Sleeping Giant(C.H.R.I.S.) shall wake up soon & deal with the Trollz!
🙏
Special Thanks to the Mod who brought down an OP that triggered Me to create this OP.
👍👍👍
Also Thanks Alot for making the User " palashinternationals " disappear in thin air.
🤗
-
@Jolly2
Hello there...
🙏
At first, i thought it would be simply futile to respond to your Post.
(I still feel somewhat the same)
But...i have this uncanny ability to surprise my ownself...hence, here's a Response.
👍
(Apologies for the delay)
Jolly...you kinda Misunderstood what i was tryin to point out at...
😑
I certainly wasn't questioning the Subject Matter of the OPs...
No Questions are Stoopid!
👍
All i wished to state was that there needs to be a Limit per User inorder to create new OPs.
There are no specified limits set as yet by the Webpage Forum Designer...coz perhaps We all are mature enough to follow chat etiquettes & that's something taken to be part of basic principles of any forum...to be nice & courteous & follow unstated guidlines & silent rules.
My only concern was, just as Some Users create 10(ten) different OPs in a single day...the other OPs get pushed down the page...& Most if em simply go unanswered.
🙏
Imagine...you register n login n create an OP for the very first time on this forum...& For complete 2(two) months there are no takers...not a Single response to your OP...would that really make you feel Jolly Good?
😑
Perhaps You do Not face the same dillema, coz you keep on n on posting comments single handedly in your OPs, hence they are afloat always atop each sub section of the forum.
🙏
(Again, plz do not misunderstand, im not complaining)
I cannot help but simply Agree with You on the point that " We need to have More discussions, Not Less ".
The Only aspect i wish to elaborate & emphasize upon is as " Quantity " matters, so does " Quality ".
👍
Less chitty chatter...but alot more meaningful wouldn't really be such a bad thing as it sounds.
I have No personal beef with you, none whatsoever!
🙏
But citing Conspiracy Theories & especially invoking GOD onto a Science Forum feels a bit disheartening & disrespectful.
Anyways, if i have ended up stirring all sorts of the wrong emotions in You...then Please do Forgive Me!
🙏
As i mentioned prior, i shall refrain from posting in your OPs but do not expect the same from You.
Please feel free to hijack my OPs with C.T.s & other stuff which is completely non evidental & pure work of Faith or Belief.
P.S. - May Your GOD/S provide You the Strength to Stop bowing down to Commandments & to Start Critically Thinking for your Ownself.
🤞
Tc!
-
" On a related note, how does a forum deal with a troll who doesn't realise they are a troll? "
LMAO! @ B.C.
🤭
🙏
👍👍👍
🤗
Tell them this is not facebook.
But they probably won't understand.
-
@Jolly2
Hello there...
🙏
At first, i thought it would be simply futile to respond to your Post.
(I still feel somewhat the same)
But...i have this uncanny ability to surprise my ownself...hence, here's a Response.
👍
(Apologies for the delay)
Jolly...you kinda Misunderstood what i was tryin to point out at...
😑
I certainly wasn't questioning the Subject Matter of the OPs...
No Questions are Stoopid!
👍
All i wished to state was that there needs to be a Limit per User inorder to create new OPs.
There are no specified limits set as yet by the Webpage Forum Designer...coz perhaps We all are mature enough to follow chat etiquettes & that's something taken to be part of basic principles of any forum...to be nice & courteous & follow unstated guidlines & silent rules.
My only concern was, just as Some Users create 10(ten) different OPs in a single day...the other OPs get pushed down the page...& Most if em simply go unanswered.
Imagine...you register n login n create an OP for the very first time on this forum...& For complete 2(two) months there are no takers...not a Single response to your OP...would that really make you feel Jolly Good?
😑
If that happens I doubt it because others and posting too much, I used to look for unanswered question in the depths of the forum and answer then.
@
Perhaps You do Not face the same dillema, coz you keep on n on posting comments single handedly in your OPs, hence they are afloat always atop each sub section of the forum.
🙏
(Again, plz do not misunderstand, im not complaining)
I generally only ever do that to add I formation, or to return the conversation back to its actual theme, even when I copy a post I'll update it and add other information.
@
I cannot help but simply Agree with You on the point that " We need to have More discussions, Not Less ".
The Only aspect i wish to elaborate & emphasize upon is as " Quantity " matters, so does " Quality ".
👍
Its interesting I was watching a documentary yesterday about how big tobacco and the oil industry and plastics industry had funded science inorder to flood science with 1000s of studies that were intended to cloud the issues, big tobacco invested in studies that looked for other causes of cancer, of plastics even worse funded studies that used animals that were not effected by plastics in the same way as other mammals as a means to muddy the waters with regards to how safe plastics were.
@
Less chitty chatter...but alot more meaningful wouldn't really be such a bad thing as it sounds.
I have No personal beef with you, none whatsoever!
🙏
But citing Conspiracy Theories & especially invoking GOD onto a Science Forum feels a bit disheartening & disrespectful.
It's sad you see things that way, science and faith completely different subjects looking at different things, evolutionary psychology has actually gained an appreciation for religion in recent years, Jordan Peterson is an example of a psychologist working in this area.
Still there is no conflict between religion and faith.
@
Anyways, if i have ended up stirring all sorts of the wrong emotions in You...then Please do Forgive Me!
🙏
As i mentioned prior, i shall refrain from posting in your OPs but do not expect the same from You.
Please feel free to hijack my OPs with C.T.s & other stuff which is completely non evidental & pure work of Faith or Belief.
P.S. - May Your GOD/S provide You the Strength to Stop bowing down to Commandments & to Start Critically Thinking for your Ownself.
🤞
Tc!
Oh dear, these ideas you Express are highly simplistic, and stem from miseduaction, no one is called to bow down to the commandments, no where does the actual text tell people to 'obey the law', rather a better translation would be 'repsect the teaching' not something many christains are interested in as the teaching is dead according to Paul.
You would agree that its wrong to kill people? Or to steal? The entire moral framework of the west, innocent til proven guilty, along with many other ideas, are all built on biblical teaching.
-
Wow, using Jordan Peterson as an example may not be a good move.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jordan_Peterson
-
Wow, using Jordan Peterson as an example may not be a good move.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jordan_Peterson
Rather then simply citing wikipedia which is a highly politicized site that often distorts the actual truth about people, why not just make your point?
-
why not just make your point?
He did.
On an unrelated point, Practically every post that Dave Lev has made is trolling.
Why is he still here?
-
wikipedia which is a highly politicized site
Wikipedia has a very diverse and open editorial committee, and an editorial policy of citing sources.
- Both of which mitigate against it becoming highly politicized
- If it did make objectively false political statements, people of the opposing political view would produce their verifiable sources, and it would be changed
The fact that Jolly2 thinks Wikipedia is "highly politicized" strongly suggests to me that in fact Jolly2 is "highly politicized".
- And he is making unfounded statements here that would not be accepted on Wikipedia
-
Wow, using Jordan Peterson as an example may not be a good move.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jordan_Peterson
Rather then simply citing wikipedia which is a highly politicized site that often distorts the actual truth about people, why not just make your point?
That's RationalWiki, not Wikipedia.
Since you brought it up, I'd like for you to point out what content of Wikipedia you think is politicized. What evidence do you have for it?
-
Wow, using Jordan Peterson as an example may not be a good move.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jordan_Peterson
Rather then simply citing wikipedia which is a highly politicized site that often distorts the actual truth about people, why not just make your point?
That's RationalWiki, not Wikipedia.
Since you brought it up, I'd like for you to point out what content of Wikipedia you think is politicized. What evidence do you have for it?
Jimmy dore is a perfect example he has been complaining about false information about him on the site as have other journalists and wikipedia refuses to remove it, seems clearer by the day that wikipedia is a site that is being used by those in power to impose what is and what is not accepted to be true. Just seems to be a tool of power now.
What wikipedia claims and how it actually behaves in reality are not the same thing.
-
Jimmy dore is a perfect example he has been complaining about false information about him on the site as have other journalists and wikipedia refuses to remove it,
What, specifically, is the false information that has been posted about him?
He appears to be a conspiracy theorist, so I'm already suspicious of his reliability.
seems clearer by the day that wikipedia is a site that is being used by those in power to impose what is and what is not accepted to be true. Just seems to be a tool of power now.
Please support this extraordinary statement with reliable evidence. Not that Wikipedia is the be-all-end-all of sources anyway. It's supposed to cite sources itself.
-
Jimmy dore is a perfect example he has been complaining about false information about him on the site as have other journalists and wikipedia refuses to remove it,
What, specifically, is the false information that has been posted about him?
He appears to be a conspiracy theorist, so I'm already suspicious of his reliability.
seems clearer by the day that wikipedia is a site that is being used by those in power to impose what is and what is not accepted to be true. Just seems to be a tool of power now.
Please support this extraordinary statement with reliable evidence. Not that Wikipedia is the be-all-end-all of sources anyway. It's supposed to cite sources itself.
<<link removed>>
Report from the OPCW showed that the Barrels claimed to have been dropped by a plane or helicopter by the Assad regime were actually placed at the location, probably by the white helmets.
Ergo the chemical attacks were a staged event to gain support for the bombing of Syria. And those hurt in these false flags were hurt by western powers. Nothing new here as Chomsky loves to point out "what happened in 911 is no different to the kinds of attacks America Carries out routinely around the rest of the world"
It was this act that caused Trump to change his non interventionist stance and actually his daughter that convinced him to attack Syria in retaliation
<<link removed>>
Marking a striking U-turn from the anti-interventionist stance Mr Trump took during his campaign, on Friday he ordered the firing of 59 cruise missiles at a military target in the war-torn country
Jimmy Dore has been listed as a conspiracy theorist on wikipedia for reporting this information, seems to be a successful campaign afterall you just called him one.
It's Jimmy Dore Vs the war machine, and the war machine has a lot more influence over wikipedia then you might imagine. They play everyone they play the fish. It's honestly shocking how every country that has resources the west wants always manages to be ruled by a monster, there is clearly some monster university somewhere in the world just ready to provide 3rd world nations with horrible leaders.
-
OK, lets' have a look at what they say.
"It is possible, the OPCW said, “that the cylinders were the sources of the substances containing reactive chlorine”. Testimony, environmental and biomedical samples and toxicological and ballistic analyses, “provide reasonable grounds that the use of toxic chemical as a weapon took place.” In other words, the canisters had fallen from the sky."
So, the testimony, the environmental samples the toxicology and the ballistics say it was a gas attack.
On the other hand the report which isn't that repressed since it's reported in the Indy... says
"engineering sub-team cannot be certain that the cylinders at either location arrived there as a result of being dropped from an aircraft".
That's not saying "they are sure that they were not dropped"- just that they can't be sure if they were dropped or not.
So, the evidence is that the people were gassed with chlorine. we can't be sure if the gas was dropped from a helicopter.
But it sure wasn't sent by post.
So the evidence still completely supports the story.
Someone gassed these people.
And yet you somehow read that as
Ergo the chemical attacks were a staged event to gain support for the bombing of Syria.
Well that's absurd.
There is no logical way to get from the evidence to your claim.
However, it might be possible if there was a massive conspiracy.
You have already been warned about implausible conspiracy theories.
Posting them is trolling.
You are one of the trolls running amok.
Why shouldn't we just ban you?
-
OK, lets' have a look at what they say.
"It is possible, the OPCW said, “that the cylinders were the sources of the substances containing reactive chlorine”. Testimony, environmental and biomedical samples and toxicological and ballistic analyses, “provide reasonable grounds that the use of toxic chemical as a weapon took place.” In other words, the canisters had fallen from the sky."
So, the testimony, the environmental samples the toxicology and the ballistics say it was a gas attack.
On the other hand the report which isn't that repressed since it's reported in the Indy... says
"engineering sub-team cannot be certain that the cylinders at either location arrived there as a result of being dropped from an aircraft".
That's not saying "they are sure that they were not dropped"- just that they can't be sure if they were dropped or not.
So, the evidence is that the people were gassed with chlorine. we can't be sure if the gas was dropped from a helicopter.
But it sure wasn't sent by post.
So the evidence still completely supports the story.
Someone gassed these people.
And yet you somehow read that as
Ergo the chemical attacks were a staged event to gain support for the bombing of Syria.
Well that's absurd.
There is no logical way to get from the evidence to your claim.
However, it might be possible if there was a massive conspiracy.
You have already been warned about implausible conspiracy theories.
Posting them is trolling.
You are one of the trolls running amok.
Why shouldn't we just ban you?
You really enjoy defending horror dont you chemist. You should get a job with Mi6.
<<link removed>>
You can watch Jimmy Dore as he reviews discussions in the European parliament and the United nations
<<video removed>>
-
You must be mad.
Because we can not prove that the cylinders were dropped from a helicopter, you assume they must have been put there by locals who, presumably, wanted to gas themselves.
Is that really how your mind works?
-
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/voices/douma-syria-opcw-chemical-weapons-chlorine-gas-video-conspiracy-theory-russia-a8927116.html%3famp
-
Jimmy Dore has been listed as a conspiracy theorist on wikipedia for reporting this information, seems to be a successful campaign afterall you just called him one.
The very link you posted states, "The evidence we were never meant to see about the Douma ‘gas’ attack". That certainly sounds like they are proposing that there is a cover-up. The web address of the page itself has "conspiracy theory" in it. So this very much sounds like a conspiracy theory. If Jimmy Dore promotes it, then that makes him a conspiracy theorist. As such, Wikipedia is not in the wrong for calling him one. If you're going to convince us that Wikipedia isn't trustworthy, you're going to have to do way better than that. Wikipedia isn't unreliable simply because Jimmy Dore doesn't like being called a conspiracy theorist. Plenty of fat people don't like being called fat either. Being offended by a label doesn't make it wrong.
Also, why are you posting links again? Weren't you told not to? It's like nothing has changed at all. You are pretty much right back where you started pre-suspension. Due to this, I have removed the links from your posts.
-
To be honest, with Jolly I just view his posts from the perspective of conspiracy theory bingo. Nearly have all of them ticked off, I just need him refer to 'sheeple' then I have a full house.
-
Jolly isn't the only one.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=71332.msg639304#msg639304
-
You must be mad.
Because we can not prove that the cylinders were dropped from a helicopter, you assume they must have been put there by locals who, presumably, wanted to gas themselves.
Is that really how your mind works?
No, the scientists on the ground, in their now suppressed report, suggested the barrels were most likley placed at the location. Robert Fisk who visited the town in question reported quoting a doctor at the village
“I was with my family in the basement of my home three hundred metres from here on the night but all the doctors know what happened. There was a lot of shelling [by government forces] and aircraft were always over Douma at night – but on this night, there was wind and huge dust clouds began to come into the basements and cellars where people lived. People began to arrive here suffering from hypoxia, oxygen loss. Then someone at the door, a “White Helmet”, shouted “Gas!”, and a panic began. People started throwing water over each other. Yes, the video was filmed here, it is genuine, but what you see are people suffering from hypoxia – not gas poisoning.”
The white helmets were created by James Le Mesurier a "Former" Mi6 agent incidentally.
The cylinders were not dropped from a helicopter, considering that America listed the use of chemical weapons as a red line, and that the Assad government was winning the civil war in the country at the time, the use of chemical weapons by the Assad administration which was used as justification by America to attack the country makes little sense.
Repeated American administration's since 2002 have claimed a desire to change the regime inside Syria.
There is also the hilarious story published by the Los Angeles Times, where terrorist groups funded by the Pentagon actually ended up fighting with other terrorist groups funded by the CIA inside Syria. Which also opens the possibility that one of these proxy groups were involved.
Bit of a casino really, but while Assad using chemical weapons makes little sense, the Hoax makes more.
-
Jimmy Dore has been listed as a conspiracy theorist on wikipedia for reporting this information, seems to be a successful campaign afterall you just called him one.
The very link you posted states, "The evidence we were never meant to see about the Douma ‘gas’ attack". That certainly sounds like they are proposing that there is a cover-up. The web address of the page itself has "conspiracy theory" in it.
Sorry Kryptid but the links I posted were from the independent newspaper and the Nation newspaper. So I really dont get what you are talking about. Or understand why they have been removed considering that both are main steam news sources are you now suggesting the Independent is a fake news site?
So this very much sounds like a conspiracy theory. If Jimmy Dore promotes it, then that makes him a conspiracy theorist.
Disagree, the official narrative has holes in it, the suppression of the scientists finding which MEPs amoung other are protesting, also is highly suggestive.
In this background to expression an opinion isnt a conspiracy theory, to label someone that offers a dissenting opinion as a conspiracy theorist however just serves as a way to dismiss them, and in a baseless way, no service to truth and just a defence of a clear false narrative.
As such, Wikipedia is not in the wrong for calling him one.
Disagree again, it is now not clear, people suggesting a hoax should be allowed to put forward that hypothesis without these labels, labels which simply serve the America agenda funnily enough but which also could be labelled a conspiracy theory.
If you're going to convince us that Wikipedia isn't trustworthy, you're going to have to do way better than that. Wikipedia isn't unreliable simply because Jimmy Dore doesn't like being called a conspiracy theorist. Plenty of fat people don't like being called fat either. Being offended by a label doesn't make it wrong.
What makes it wrong is that CNN and wikipedia dont know, as such they have no right to decide the truth.
Also, why are you posting links again? Weren't you told not to?
I was under the impression I couldn't, and was suprised when they went up. You're the one that have repeatedly asked me to post links, I thought you'd be happy.
It's like nothing has changed at all. You are pretty much right back where you started pre-suspension. Due to this, I have removed the links from your posts.
You've removed links from the independent and Nation newspapers, they are highly controversial sites.
-
Sorry Kryptid but the links I posted were from the independent newspaper and the Nation newspaper. So I really dont get what you are talking about.
The quote came directly from the page and the word "conspiracy theory" is in the web address. I don't know what there isn't to "get".
Or understand why they have been removed considering that both are main steam news sources are you now suggesting the Independent is a fake news site?
I removed them specifically because you were restricted from posting links as a part of the compromise to allow you back on this forum. Nothing more, nothing less.
Disagree, the official narrative has holes in it, the suppression of the scientists finding which MEPs amoung other are protesting, also is highly suggestive.
In this background to expression an opinion isnt a conspiracy theory, to label someone that offers a dissenting opinion as a conspiracy theorist however just serves as a way to dismiss them, and in a baseless way, no service to truth and just a defence of a clear false narrative.
Claiming that the official narrative is wrong and that the truth about it is being covered up by powerful people is exactly what makes it a conspiracy theory: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conspiracy%20theory
Definition of conspiracy theory: a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators
also : a theory asserting that a secret of great importance is being kept from the public
Just because you don't like the label doesn't mean it doesn't fit.
Disagree again, it is now not clear, people suggesting a hoax should be allowed to put forward that hypothesis without these labels, labels which simply serve the America agenda funnily enough but which also could be labelled a conspiracy theory.
Again, just because you don't like the label doesn't mean it doesn't apply.
What makes it wrong is that CNN and wikipedia dont know, as such they have no right to decide the truth.
Nobody gets to "decide" the truth. Jimmy Dore thinks that the government is hiding the truth about what happened on 9/11 as well. That alone makes him a conspiracy theorist.
I was under the impression I couldn't, and was suprised when they went up. You're the one that have repeatedly asked me to post links, I thought you'd be happy.
That was before I knew you had restrictions imposed upon you by the other mods.
You've removed links from the independent and Nation newspapers, they are highly controversial sites.
See above.
-
Sorry Kryptid but the links I posted were from the independent newspaper and the Nation newspaper. So I really dont get what you are talking about.
The quote came directly from the page and the word "conspiracy theory" is in the web address. I don't know what there isn't to "get".
Again I have never seen what you suggested on either 'The Independent' or 'The Nation' news sites so I have no idea what you are talking about.
Or understand why they have been removed considering that both are main steam news sources are you now suggesting the Independent is a fake news site?
I removed them specifically because you were restricted from posting links as a part of the compromise to allow you back on this forum. Nothing more, nothing less.
Disagree, the official narrative has holes in it, the suppression of the scientists finding which MEPs amoung other are protesting, also is highly suggestive.
In this background to expression an opinion isnt a conspiracy theory, to label someone that offers a dissenting opinion as a conspiracy theorist however just serves as a way to dismiss them, and in a baseless way, no service to truth and just a defence of a clear false narrative.
Claiming that the official narrative is wrong and that the truth about it is being covered up by powerful people is exactly what makes it a conspiracy theory: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conspiracy%20theory
Definition of conspiracy theory: a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators
also : a theory asserting that a secret of great importance is being kept from the public
Just because you don't like the label doesn't mean it doesn't fit.
Disagree again, it is now not clear, people suggesting a hoax should be allowed to put forward that hypothesis without these labels, labels which simply serve the America agenda funnily enough but which also could be labelled a conspiracy theory.
Again, just because you don't like the label doesn't mean it doesn't apply.
What makes it wrong is that CNN and wikipedia dont know, as such they have no right to decide the truth.
Nobody gets to "decide" the truth. Jimmy Dore thinks that the government is hiding the truth about what happened on 9/11 as well. That alone makes him a conspiracy theorist.
We are just going to have to agree to disagree.
I was under the impression I couldn't, and was suprised when they went up. You're the one that have repeatedly asked me to post links, I thought you'd be happy.
That was before I knew you had restrictions imposed upon you by the other mods.
You've removed links from the independent and Nation newspapers, they are highly controversial sites.
See above.
As above
-
We are just going to have to agree to disagree.
What you are disagreeing with is the definition of a term. This isn't a matter of opinion.
-
I do not wish to be drawn into a discussion on conspiracy theories, but as one has been posted it might be appropriate to explain why I do not consider them to be science subjects, but more often politically motivated. Typically a conspiracist will use some true facts, but hide other facts so presenting only one side of the events. I will use the one posted here as an example.
Let’s start with an assertion that triggered the posting of this conspiracy theory.
The assertion that Wiki tells lies about people (specifically Jimmy Dore) because it is controlled by (unnamed) powers, is in itself a typical conspiracy theory. Unnamed organisations or ‘powers that be’ are often quoted in conspiracy theories, but strangely those same powers can either tell lies or the truth depending on which side of the political fence you sit.
The specific conspiracy theory Jimmy Dore is accused of supporting is that based around the gassing of civilians in Syria. Supporters of the Assad regime, and Russia, claim the attack was set up by the opposition to draw the US into taking action against Assad.
They point to the OPCW investigation of alleged chemical weapons use in Douma, Syria which concluded that gas canisters were dropped from the air. A whistleblower claimed that a suppressed report said the gas canisters were placed on the ground rather than dropped from the air as reported by eyewitnesses. As with most conspiracy theories it is based on a true incident and this has been reported in mainstream media.
This is mentioned here as the version promoted by Jimmy Dore:
No, the scientists on the ground, in their now suppressed report, suggested the barrels were most likley placed at the location.
Like most conspiracy theories, this only puts forward one side of the story, which as we will see is not as presented.
The OPCW refused to comment directly, asking for an independent enquiry into their investigation. That enquiry concluded that the excluded report was not written by one of the team who visited the site, that the author was not a member of the Fact-Finding Mission that worked on the Douma investigation, and was in a support role that denied him access to much of the information the FFM handled. His excluded report contained diagrams of a gas cylinder that did not match photographs from the scene and was misleading as it omitted damage to the cylinder harness caused by impact to the ceiling and subsequent impact on the floor of the room below. So this ‘suppressed’ report was not by “the scientists on the ground” but was by someone who wasn’t in the team, didn’t visit the site, and which contained errors. I wonder why it was not included?
Unfortunately, the excellent journalist Robert Fisk was drawn into the controversy when he quoted a doctor who claimed that the victims where suffering hypoxia due to panic. Whether that doctor saw actual victims is questionable, but other eyewitnesses including first response medics and hospital workers noted foaming at the mouth, one of the signs of chlorine gas poisoning. Other evidence from the site noted the corrosive effects of chlorine gas around the cylinders which caused corrosion of metal objects nearby.
I have a great deal of respect for Robert Fisk and I am certain that he reported what he found in interviews. The Independent certainly gave a lot of coverage to the Douma attacks, but as far as I am aware they didn’t give the same coverage to the results of the independent enquiry into the OPCW report as other newspapers eg https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/07/inquiry-strikes-blow-to-russian-denials-of-syria-chemical-attack
Why would Jimmy Dore promote this conspiracy theory? The cynics among us would say controversy increases viewing figures, which increases advertising revenue. As Jolly says, it’s all about money.
Just a word for Jimmy Dore. In one of his programmes he says of 9/11, that no other Tower has collapsed due to fire either before or after this one. Well Jimmy, look at the Tacoma Narrows bridge, no suspension bridge before or after that was destroyed by the wind; so do you think someone blew it up with explosives?
Keep smelling whatever it is you are drinking!
“woe to the arrogant as they will destroy themselves”.