Originally Posted by Guardian Danr, when I posted a thread for you to read, you retorted with '(BTW your link is obviously not objective)". I will admit this was unexpected as I wasn't offering it as any kind of proof, only a source of information on Jeff King. I gather that Mr. Jeff King obtained his BS degree in electrical engineering from MIT way back in the 1970's. This is his only connection with MIT and he never taught or worked there as far as their records show. Is this not true? In fact Jeff King has never been on their faculty. Is this not true? We got into a discussion today in class about this subject and our professor said, your oppinion must have been based on something and ask me how you were qualified to pass the judgment about this thread being not objective? I had to tell him I had no clue as to your qualifications. Could you be so kind as to tell me how you can determine these things, and what it takes to earn such a talent? Guess I'm a lot like Cloudsweeper, in that I would like a lot more information about this subject, but without all the misinformation involved. You won't believe this but I also agree with a guy called Norm Chomsky who will normally fight at the drop of a hat. He said he wasn't buying into this conspirxcy theory as there was to much black magic being used to determing exactly what did an what didn't happen....on both sides. So if he can't be sure, I guess I'm in good company. Can I get a response, please!
that link was from a forum that is more extreme than this one, is that the best source you can find? "Guess I'm a lot like Cloudsweeper" my guess is that CS is quite a bit older and more wise.
You never answered any of the questions posed! Am I to assume that you don't have an answer, or does this mean you can't find an answer? Either way, I'm starting to feel that these people in this forum have you pegged about right. Sorry to say that, but your not even attempting to be square and give answers that could help your cause...what ever that may be!!! Dont worry, I'll not be asking you for any other information.:hail:
Would you have prefered me to say that I'm a lot like Noam Chomsky, in that neither one of us is buying into the conspiericy theory you are talking about. I think he is also older than I am, but then he should know what he is talking about. Do you?
How would King's resume stack up against Chemsky's resume? See what I mean, if it's all the same to you, I'll be following chemsky.
That is right and he doesn't buy into this phony story on either side of the argument. They used too much bad information to form their conclusions and he said he would not support either side of the argument. They both used very bad judgement to form their conclusions. So you believe what you want, I'm going with Chomsky on this argument. You do as you please!
Lets see if I understand you on this issue. At first you didn't believe what the commission said because of who they were and what they were doing the report on. But now you are saying you believe the same people as before, because they are saying they did a poor job. Which way do you want it, as it isn't possible to have them both. This is exactly what NC said about using falulty information, and you fell of the trap. I'm disapointed in you Mr. Danr.
I never believed that faulty report, niether did anyone with a brain. Finally they came out and admitted it is faulty- THAT IS THE POINT OF MY THREAD- THE TRUTH IS COMING OUT LATELY (DUH)
Lets see if I understand you now. These people who prepared the report could not be believed (you said) and issued a faulty report. Now these same people who you couldn't believed say it's a faulty report and now you can believe them. Do you understand the fallicy of this stance, and your switching of sides to prove a point. This is exactly what Chomsky said was going on and I don't see that you are helping clear up the situation. (Double-DUH!) You indicated that you thought that Noam Chomsky was a brilliant person. Well, I would think you would try and emulate him if possible, not fly into the face of what he is against in mankind. You have me confused Danr, or was that your intention all along.
They have clearly pointed out some of the shortcomings and the fact that the facts were not available to them, this incurs no fallicy on my point. According to your twisted logic any Christian conversion is false because the convert was once a sinner. As for Chomsky I do not march lock step with the guy, but he is one heck of a brain.
Why is it that you think jwevansv is unhappy with you? Maybe I'm just not with it, but it seems that he is only replying in kind to your previous posts on any of the subjects that he is discussing. Now that would mean that you are mad at him for some reason that I couldn't understand either. Life is too short and there is a lot of need in this world for understanding. If you aren't going to be the one to give the understanding than it can only be assumed that you are part of the problem. Stop and think about that for a second, please. I know you can do better. I"ve go faith in you, so give it a try, please.
