Gaddafi captured

1234579

Comments

  • edited October 2011
    No Beanz, I am saying it is time to do your own research and not sit on your backside accepting everything the Media says.

    yeah beanz, you lazy git. :D

    get out there and find us the truth.
  • edited October 2011
    beanz wrote: »
    It's always amusing when someone makes unverified statements and then asks the other side for evidence...

    han-solo-c96_masuer.jpg

    Sorry, couldn't resist, had to do it...
  • edited October 2011
    mile wrote: »
    yeah deep analysis, and when that analysis supposts in being a terrorist attack its completely ignored by the conspiracy people in favour of some 'look at me' expert who has been out of work the past 20 years and even though claims to be impartial, is probably gettting a sizable payout. most conpiracy sites, have a little icon on the page, a little icon that links to the book/DVD they are trying to sell.

    almost any site of any kind on any topic have a "donation" icon.

    they must all be liars.

    even wos once had links to somebody selling a wos cd.
    there's must be something nasty about it! those games were surely fakes!

    even, barack obama writes books and sells them - so what?
    would you use this same argument against him and the content of his book or whoever's book?

    almost any politician has written a book and sold it - that makes those books automatically false in their content?

    and we could extend this concept to any book. its content it's false just because there's a market for it, or because they try to sell it, or because they try to publicize it?

    peculiar concept.

    you're talking around the subject and not about the subject, speculating about the "psychology" and "(economic) interests" that stand behind what is being written about it.

    that's pretty useless.

    besides, there are experts (not out-of-work for 20,10,5 or whatever years) on both sides, yeah, even on the "fruitcakes" side!
  • edited October 2011
    No Beanz, I am saying it is time to do your own research and not sit on your backside accepting everything the Media says.

    You're assuming I haven't...I've read all the 'conspiracy' crap and come to the conclusion it's crap.

    But to address your blinkered point.....anything you research is still..'hearsay' and so as valid as the 'media' heresay...

    The best you can do is weigh up the various sources and the legitimacy of those sources and form an opinion....that opinion should be based on best available information, not some dudes assumptions and guesses.

    You made my point about that by assuming I didn't 'research' it.
  • edited October 2011
    sinclair researched it!
  • edited October 2011
    Whenever I've been in a war zone, the most trusted news source on both sides has always been BBC World News.

    Hmmm... wars seem to follow me....
    My test signature
  • edited October 2011
    "so, excuse me if i don't get near you".
  • edited October 2011
    so it's quite a mystery why should a big media's journalist be, in general, more credible - they, by the way, are paid too: to write and say what the others want'em to write and say.

    Quite simple, a body of work that can be measured over a longer period of time and verified from multiple sources.

    If 10 'top' media sources say the sky is blue, and '1' independent says it's green and everyone is color blind due to the mind control used by the US government, you don't need to step outside your door and look at the sky to form a realistic option. You can tap your knowledge and experience of how the media works and how conspiracy theorists work..and the track record of both.

    If you then come to the conclusion the sky is green...well...get a job as an independent reporter!
  • edited October 2011
    almost any site of any kind on any topic have a "donation" icon.

    they must all be liars.

    even wos once had links to somebody selling a wos cd.
    there's must be something nasty about it! those games were surely fakes!

    even, barack obama writes books and sells them - so what?
    would you use this same argument against him and the content of his book or whoever's book?

    almost any politician has written a book and sold it - that makes those books automatically false in their content?

    and we could extend this concept to any book. its content it's false just because there's a market for it, or because they try to sell it, or because they try to publicize it?

    peculiar concept.

    you're talking around the subject and not about the subject, speculating about the "psychology" and "(economic) interests" that stand behind what is being written about it.

    that's pretty useless.

    besides, there are experts (not out-of-work for 20,10,5 or whatever years) on both sides, yeah, even on the "fruitcakes" side!

    wooah that went straight over your head didn't it, when did i say people that sell books are all liars?

    i will simplify it for you.

    a website that sells books and dvds on why the color red is the best color in the world, will not publish an article supporting the fact that blue is the better color.

    come on, its not difficult to understand.
  • edited October 2011
    mile wrote: »
    wooah that went straight over your head didn't it, when did i say people that sell books are all liars?

    i will simplify it for you.

    a website that sells books and dvds on why the color red is the best color in the world, will not publish an article supporting the fact that blue is the better color.

    come on, its not difficult to understand.

    "thank you! thank your for simplyfing and reduce your thought to help my microscopic mind to understand it!".

    it's not question of "selling" or "not selling" then - it doesn't have much to do about it - in fact not even all the sites are selling something, still they defend their own version/theory/concept of what happened, just like you and me are doing, "and we're not even selling anything!" - or maybe we're only defending our egos.

    anyway, it's not even totally true: in certain sites they report the arguments and the points of the "other sides" and they respond to them.
    they even put links to the pages of the "enemies in the battle of ideas".

    that's something good that comes from internet - there's a constant comparation and debate. there's not only one side of the story. you can almost find any side - and those sides even communicate between/among them (not peacefully!).

    just as we're doing, by the way.

    i hate you, mile!
  • edited October 2011

    i love you, mile!

    citation needed!!

    :p
  • edited October 2011
    Can we get back to sprouts...
  • edited October 2011
    sprouts! i like sprouts!
  • edited October 2011
    just like christmas day.

    massive argument

    then back to the sprouts. :p
  • edited October 2011
    (Hint: Why were traces of Nano thermate found in the rubble? Why was the evidence of a crime scene (metal and other debris) spirited away to China for disposal before any forensic analysis was completed?)

    Hint: Why is Elvis Presley's name spelt wrongly on his grave?

    Because he's STILL ALIVE!!
    THE RETRO GAMER IRC CHATROOM. EVERY SUNDAY AT 9PM BST. LOG ON USING THE LINK BELOW:
    https://discordapp.com/invite/cZt59EQ
  • edited October 2011
    Spector wrote: »
    Hint: Why is Elvis Presley's name spelt wrongly on his grave?

    Because he's STILL ALIVE!!

    If he is still alive, he'd probably be dead by now
    My test signature
  • edited October 2011
    is his name splet wrongly on his grave?
  • edited October 2011
    Spector wrote: »
    Hint: Why is Elvis Presley's name spelt wrongly on his grave?

    Because he's STILL ALIVE!!

    ...maybe his name is spelled correctly on his grave stone and was spelt wrong all his life on everything else! :-)
  • edited October 2011
    maybe both spellings of his name are wrong. so, what's his real name?

    this is becoming mysterious.
  • edited October 2011
    maybe both spellings of his name are wrong. so, what's his real name?

    this is becoming mysterious.

    John Fitgerald Kennedy...
  • edited October 2011
    "almost the president!".
  • edited October 2011
    TVzombie wrote: »
    ...When you eat too much processed news [...] you stop thinking independently and your brains turn into the sprouts ;) ...

    BWAINS!!! Err ... no wait, I mean ... SPROUTS!!! ... wait a minute, my brains = sprouts = baroquewilleatitself ... mmmmm, my brains taste rather delectably ... needs more mayo ... [strike]where is MtB and his jar of home-made mayo?[/strike] ( Say what now?!?!?! -Ed )
  • edited October 2011
    mile wrote: »
    yeah beanz, you lazy git. :D

    get out there and find us the truth.

    YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!
    THE RETRO GAMER IRC CHATROOM. EVERY SUNDAY AT 9PM BST. LOG ON USING THE LINK BELOW:
    https://discordapp.com/invite/cZt59EQ
  • edited October 2011
    Spector wrote: »
    YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!

    Solution: Oven mittens.
  • zx1zx1
    edited October 2011
    brussel_sprouts.jpg
    The trouble with tribbles is.......
  • edited October 2011
    zx1 wrote: »
    brussel_sprouts.jpg

    Can you prove they are real sprouts and not CGI sprouts or plastic models?
  • zx1zx1
    edited October 2011
    beanz wrote: »
    Can you prove they are real sprouts and not CGI sprouts or plastic models?

    I'm afraid i can't but they do look a bit 'plastic'.
    The trouble with tribbles is.......
  • edited October 2011
    Man, this thread is still running...

    But what exactly are you talking about? Brussels sprouts?:lol: Wasn't it originally about Gaddafi?
  • edited October 2011
    I recall watching a documentary of sorts about advertizing, and how they 'prepare' the foods for the photograph, Some used stuff like hair spray on fruit to make it look shiny and delicious etc.
  • edited October 2011
    zx1 wrote: »
    I'm afraid i can't but they do look a bit 'plastic'.

    YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE SPROUTS!!!
Sign In or Register to comment.