stignasty

I have as much time for Glenn Beck as I do for Oprah or Ellen. I don't leave the television on the Anna Nicole Smith Headline News channel for more than 10 seconds at a time.

Not the point. If the Conservatives want a majority they're going to have to do well in Ontario. If they were to start trumpeting that Kyoto targets would be met in a year rather than 4, do you think their support would rise? I'm just saying that they're better off politically keeping this quiet while they're in a minority situation and an election could be called at any time.

So was your point a) that you want to kill all undesirables like sentive liberals (who are a waste of breath), or elses was it b ) the opposite, in your very own "modest proposal?"

Your Parliamentary System working for you. I wouldn't call it funny though. Nothing funny ever made me feel like puking like this does.

It should be clear that I'm not. My point is that if you're so keen to put undesirables to death, what will make you stop at "baby diddlers?"* You claim that liberals aren't worth wasting your breath on. I was suggesting that with that kind of thought, you wouldn't be hard pressed to find a reason to say goodbye to them too. *What the hell is a "baby diddler?"

Or, this could simply be "We're not the conservatives you hate." He could be trying to distance the party from the current administration in order to better their outlook next election.

It's in the best interest of the Conservatives to be misleading on this - at least until they get re-elected with a majority.

Well, it's more like if there was a shooting broadcast on live television. Afterward, a group of people claimed that the bullets really didn't kill the person. Instead they claimed that he was killed by an unseen government killer who injected him with poison that couldn't be detected after death. They called their version of the event the "truth." In any event, that's it. I know I've said it before, but I'm finished with this nonsense. The "cult of the 9/11 truth" can have the forum.

I'm extremely left-wing. What do you have against me? I wasn't proposing that at all. I was commenting on our new member's willingness to do away with what he deems as worthless humans. When I questioned it on him I was called a liberal, which prompted my response. In simple terms, if you give someone the power to do away with "undesirables," where does it stop? When he's done with the "baby diddler's" what's going to stop him from killing the liberals? After all, he admits to not even considering a liberal as someone to waste his breath on.

How do you expect anyone to take you seriously if you continually act like a child? Anyway, the overpass also didn't have 40 stories of a skyscraper for extra weight coming down on the structure beneath it. Do you think the overpass below would have held if 40 stories of a skyscraper fell on it? The point is that we continually hear that the fuel fire from the jet couldn't soften the steel enough to cause a collapse, yet here's an example of just that.

Interesting how our resident conspiracy theorists decided not to comment on this. If a petrol fire was hot enough to make a steel re-enforced overpass collapse, why wouldn't it make a steel building collapse? Or were space based laser weapons used to collapse this too?

OOOOOHHHH..... you are a liberal. Your account to humanity is deleted! Goodbye

Pretty much.

As a matter of fact, that's exactly what I'm doing. Removing undesirables is no better for you (who call them the "scum of the society") than it was for Hitler or Stalin. If I misread, please explain what you meant by "I wish we could have this kind of purge in society too. "OOOOOHHHH..... you are a <fill in the blank>. Your account to humanity is deleted! Goodbye!" Be alot less murderers, rapists and baby diddlers if I was in charge of this country that's for sure."

What if you just saw the explosions but didn't see the detonator chord or the expolsives - does this make explosions impossible according to your reasoning ? I didn't see explosions either.

Arctic sea ice melting faster than most scientists project: study Last Updated: Tuesday, May 1, 2007 | 6:17 AM ET The Associated Press Arctic sea ice is melting three times faster than many scientists have projected, U.S. researchers reported Monday, just days ahead of the next major international report on climate change. Scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and the University of Colorado in Boulder, using actual measurements, concluded Arctic sea ice has declined at an average rate of about 7.8 per cent a decade between 1953 and 2006. By contrast, 18 computer models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations-sponsored climate research group, estimated an average rate of decline of 2.5 per cent a decade over the same period, the researchers said. http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2007/05...ate-arctic.html

Yeah, I sort of got that part. No, you didn't. You stated another hypothesis which requires the assumption of a series of explosions in the taller building. The problem is that there is no observation of such explosives. That's where "Occam's Razor clearly requires us to eliminate candidate explanations which imply the existence of unobserved phenomenon." comes in. Provide an eyewitness who saw detonator cables or explosives in the building or else admit that your claim has no merit. I don't think there were explosives in the building - because none were observed. Again, the obvious answer to why Fiterman Hall was damaged was because a building five times taller than it fell down onto it. To somehow extrapolate that the damage was from invisible explosives is silly.

The history of humanity is full of this. . . . a lot less Kulaks and capitalists and Jews and dissidents too. . . . (I assumed that you were doing the "modest proposal" thing, if not, wtf?)

I think, if you listen very carefully you can hear the cries of "NIMBY" in the wind...

From http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2007/05/01/c...ationalize.html

What I'm saying, is that in order for your hypothesis to be valid you had to assume that there were explosives in the building (since none were observed). That's different from attributing the damage of the smaller building to the larger building falling on it. "That is, when explaining observations, the conspirators often propose more complicated explanations than the commonly believed story. Their conclusions often require us to believe in additional postulated events or factors for which there is seldom any direct proof. Occam's Razor clearly requires us to eliminate candidate explanations which imply the existence of unobserved phenomenon. " http://www.clavius.org/occam.html

It is much more likely that the damage to 30 West Broadway was suffered when a 47 story building fell on a 15 story building, than your scenario where you propose that explosives (that no one saw, and there is no other evidence for) damaged the structure. Your abrasive tone does not camouflage the fact that your theory holds no merit.

The overpass collapse was an inside job!

Occam's razor One of the most fundamental principles of reasoning and investigation is what has come to be known as Occam's Razor. Named after the 14th century logician William of Occam, it is the principle which favors the least complicated of two or more possible explanations for an observation. Needless to say, most conspiracy theories don't satisfy this rule. In practice, Occam's Razor is used to cut away elements of theories which cannot be observed. For example, Einstein described space-time in the special theory of relativity. Lorentz had theorized that space-time fluctuations are caused by motion through the "ether". However, Lorentz's ether cannot be observed even though his equations produce the same results as Einstein's, so it represents an unnecessarily complicated model. It doesn't prove Einstein right and Lorentz wrong, but because there's a whole lot less baggage to Einstein's model, it's more likely to be correct given the current set of observations. Conspiracy theories generally entail the opposite of Occam's Razor. That is, when explaining observations, the conspirators often propose more complicated explanations than the commonly believed story. Their conclusions often require us to believe in additional postulated events or factors for which there is seldom any direct proof. Occam's Razor clearly requires us to eliminate candidate explanations which imply the existence of unobserved phenomenon. http://www.clavius.org/occam.html

We better be careful, he might launch a lawsuit against mapleleafweb too. It's funny, the Wiki page for Wayne Crookes now reads: "Wayne Crookes is a businessman in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. He is best known for his involvement in the Green Party of British Columbia, to which he donated substantial funds in 2001, and the Green Party of Canada." The history of the page is a lot more colourful.