Example Of California Murder ... Conspiracy

[wolF]

Aug 22, 2015 1:36:57 GMT jakobscalpel said:

Aug 21, 2015 14:47:44 GMT wolF said:

That's actually an IDC. Not only has no one ever said that they are sure there is no conspiracy(just asked for actual evidence that there is a conspiracy from the people convinced there is one, which is something that's still conveniently ignored), but your posts are always full of fallacies to the point that one has to ask: Are you homeschooled?

Since we don't stand for fallacies on this thread, or any other on the site.... homeschoolers tend to do quite well. In my experience better than most public school kids.

You can find statistics that confirm what you've said, but you can also find statistics that say the exact opposite. In my opinion, those are more valid, and I think I've made quite a good case why some people around here cannot properly comprehend the English language. Anyways, I should have known that this place isn't really that different from most of the internet after all... Also, regardless if what I've said is statistically true or not, someone comparing himself to geniuses who would've done well academically in any school on planet Earth reeks of narcissism. Probably also another anecdotal, again. Edit: Oh, and I almost forgot what some other statistics say "Some homeschooled students also participate in public schools at least part-time."

And Drifter, just so you know, I don't take offense to that warning or find it completely unjust. I do, however, think it's unjust to punish only me for defending myself from people who can't help but put words into my mouth (and to anyone looking at most threads, you would have to be a complete hypocrite to deny that is what has happened). I also think that it's in the forum's best interest to call out people who cannot properly comprehend the English language or talk in fallacies. To anyone who has had the pleasure of writing an essay, your teacher would usually tell you a couple of things. One, plagiarism is an instant fail. Two, fallacies are either a fail or a huge minus. Three, it needs to be X pages long.

Edit: Oh well... I'll treat your silence as confirmation that you don't really mind that this place is basically a hugbox. Just keep this in mind the next time a newcomer or some older member decides to call it a day because of the usual twats (and you know it will happen), enabling one side because they share your opinion is not really a healthy thing for any forum. I also didn't know that being argumentative in a place that basically depends on arguments is a bad thing. Would it be better if I mindlessly agreed with everything I see?

[sammyt]

You jumped into the argument to stick up for your pal, so no one really forced you to defend yourself, particularly in such an angry, aggressive and rambling way.

Did other posters put all the swearing, STFUs and personal insults into your mouth too?

I doubt if Drifter cares whether you take offence or not, that's irrelevant and even mentioning it reeks of arrogance and self importance.

You don't call people out on threads that aren't conspiracy related anyway.

[Drifter]

wolF wrote:

And Drifter, just so you know, I don't take offense to that warning or find it completely unjust. I do, however, think it's unjust to punish only me for defending myself from people who can't help but put words into my mouth (and to anyone looking at most threads, you would have to be a complete hypocrite to deny that is what has happened). I also think that it's in the forum's best interest to call out people who cannot properly comprehend the English language or talk in fallacies. To anyone who has had the pleasure of writing an essay, your teacher would usually tell you a couple of things. One, plagiarism is an instant fail. Two, fallacies are either a fail or a huge minus. Three, it needs to be X pages long.

Edit: Oh well... I'll treat your silence as confirmation that you don't really mind that this place is basically a hugbox. Just keep this in mind the next time a newcomer or some older member decides to call it a day because of the usual twats (and you know it will happen), enabling one side because they share your opinion is not really a healthy thing for any forum. I also didn't know that being argumentative in a place that basically depends on arguments is a bad thing. Would it be better if I mindlessly agreed with everything I see?

Several points here that you need to understand ...

One poster, whom you do not like, was off the board, in exile, for 3 weeks. So it's not true that "it's unjust to punish only me for defending myself from people who can't help but ..." Some of what goes on at the message board you do not see and cannot know. So it would be nice if you would give the moderator the benefit of the doubt.

"This place is basically a hugbox". No it isn't.

We have many posters who disagree on just about all topics. Debates and disagreements are what make a message board worth reading. What I will not put up with is incessant rudeness of one poster directed at other specific posters. It's against the forum's rules.

If you want to see a hugfest, there are other boards for that. And on one such board, there's very little activity because everyone agrees on just about everything. A hugfest is what I would describe as an echo chamber, wherein posters have already agreed on the main outlines of the EAR/ONS case and each message is nothing more than one poster's massaging the ego of someone else. Such an echo chamber of assumptions about the case is potentially self-deceptive because the conventional "wisdom" among posters may in fact be wrong.

"I also didn't know that being argumentative in a place that basically depends on arguments is a bad thing."

There's a difference between debating and being argumentative. You have every right to debate and disagree with someone else. Being argumentative is going outside the realm of debating, to insult or verbally abuse a specific poster. That's not allowed.

In your most recent message you have refrained from abusing anyone specific; that's good. You have worded your critique in more general terms. That's an improvement.

Debate all you want. Disagree all you want. Just don't engage in name calling or personally attack someone.

Drifter

[thrax]

Aug 21, 2015 14:37:05 GMT sammyt said:

So that's a NO then is it?

What it means is that your request isn't really a valid one.  For multiple reasons, actually, but we can dispense with the rest and just deal with the main one for this purpose.  The implication of your statement is that the lack of evidence for one position implies evidence for another, which isn't logically valid - it's what's technically called an argument from ignorance.  

Analogy time: let's say that we see a weird light in the sky.  Someone in our group says it's an alien spacecraft.  Ok, that's one hypothesis, sure.  It could be.  Someone else in the group then says that there's no real evidence that it is indeed an alien spacecraft at all.  The first person then replies by saying 'Anyone who actually has any evidence supporting any non-alien spacecraft based theory please speak up'.  Well, no - it doesn't matter in the least whether the rest of the group has specific evidence as to what that light really is.  The claim that it's an alien spacecraft is one that has to stand or fall on its own merits, and the state of the evidence (or lack thereof) for alternative hypotheses isn't really relevant to that process.

[lepke]

Aug 23, 2015 14:57:05 GMT thrax said:

Aug 21, 2015 14:37:05 GMT sammyt said:

So that's a NO then is it?

What it means is that your request isn't really a valid one.  For multiple reasons, actually, but we can dispense with the rest and just deal with the main one for this purpose.  The implication of your statement is that the lack of evidence for one position implies evidence for another, which isn't logically valid - it's what's technically called an argument from ignorance.  

Analogy time: let's say that we see a weird light in the sky.  Someone in our group says it's an alien spacecraft.  Ok, that's one hypothesis, sure.  It could be.  Someone else in the group then says that there's no real evidence that it is indeed an alien spacecraft at all.  The first person then replies by saying 'Anyone who actually has any evidence supporting any non-alien spacecraft based theory please speak up'.  Well, no - it doesn't matter in the least whether the rest of the group has specific evidence as to what that light really is.  The claim that it's an alien spacecraft is one that has to stand or fall on its own merits, and the state of the evidence (or lack thereof) for alternative hypotheses isn't really relevant to that process.

Well written.

[sammyt]

Aug 23, 2015 14:57:05 GMT thrax said:

Aug 21, 2015 14:37:05 GMT sammyt said:

So that's a NO then is it?

What it means is that your request isn't really a valid one.  For multiple reasons, actually, but we can dispense with the rest and just deal with the main one for this purpose.  The implication of your statement is that the lack of evidence for one position implies evidence for another, which isn't logically valid - it's what's technically called an argument from ignorance.  

Analogy time: let's say that we see a weird light in the sky.  Someone in our group says it's an alien spacecraft.  Ok, that's one hypothesis, sure.  It could be.  Someone else in the group then says that there's no real evidence that it is indeed an alien spacecraft at all.  The first person then replies by saying 'Anyone who actually has any evidence supporting any non-alien spacecraft based theory please speak up'.  Well, no - it doesn't matter in the least whether the rest of the group has specific evidence as to what that light really is.  The claim that it's an alien spacecraft is one that has to stand or fall on its own merits, and the state of the evidence (or lack thereof) for alternative hypotheses isn't really relevant to that process.

Plenty of posters have said that there is no way a cover up or conspiracy could have occurred, rather than saying there's no real evidence of one.

Your alien analogy is missing the part where someone says it can't be an alien spacecraft because aliens don't exist.

If someone says for certain that a theory is flat-out wrong, rather than just saying that's there's no real evidence to support it, then obviously that's going to open some cans of worms.

[Deleted]

Aug 23, 2015 16:10:52 GMT sammyt said:

Aug 23, 2015 14:57:05 GMT thrax said:

What it means is that your request isn't really a valid one.  For multiple reasons, actually, but we can dispense with the rest and just deal with the main one for this purpose.  The implication of your statement is that the lack of evidence for one position implies evidence for another, which isn't logically valid - it's what's technically called an argument from ignorance.  

Analogy time: let's say that we see a weird light in the sky.  Someone in our group says it's an alien spacecraft.  Ok, that's one hypothesis, sure.  It could be.  Someone else in the group then says that there's no real evidence that it is indeed an alien spacecraft at all.  The first person then replies by saying 'Anyone who actually has any evidence supporting any non-alien spacecraft based theory please speak up'.  Well, no - it doesn't matter in the least whether the rest of the group has specific evidence as to what that light really is.  The claim that it's an alien spacecraft is one that has to stand or fall on its own merits, and the state of the evidence (or lack thereof) for alternative hypotheses isn't really relevant to that process.

Plenty of posters have said that there is no way a cover up or conspiracy could have occurred, rather than saying there's no real evidence of one.

Your alien analogy is missing the part where someone says it can't be an alien spacecraft because aliens don't exist.

If someone says for certain that a theory is flat-out wrong, rather than just saying that's there's no real evidence to support it, then obviously that's going to open some cans of worms.

we're back to the notion that there's no evidence that anyone said a conspiracy couldn't have occurred.   I think it's about as likely as a monkey randomly tapping out Hamlet in our lifetimes, but it still has to be considered.

[wolF]

Aug 23, 2015 14:57:05 GMT thrax said:

Aug 21, 2015 14:37:05 GMT sammyt said:

So that's a NO then is it?

What it means is that your request isn't really a valid one.  For multiple reasons, actually, but we can dispense with the rest and just deal with the main one for this purpose.  The implication of your statement is that the lack of evidence for one position implies evidence for another, which isn't logically valid - it's what's technically called an argument from ignorance.  

Analogy time: let's say that we see a weird light in the sky.  Someone in our group says it's an alien spacecraft.  Ok, that's one hypothesis, sure.  It could be.  Someone else in the group then says that there's no real evidence that it is indeed an alien spacecraft at all.  The first person then replies by saying 'Anyone who actually has any evidence supporting any non-alien spacecraft based theory please speak up'.  Well, no - it doesn't matter in the least whether the rest of the group has specific evidence as to what that light really is.  The claim that it's an alien spacecraft is one that has to stand or fall on its own merits, and the state of the evidence (or lack thereof) for alternative hypotheses isn't really relevant to that process.

Common sense is not so common.

[thrax]

Aug 23, 2015 16:10:52 GMT sammyt said:

Your alien analogy is missing the part where someone says it can't be an alien spacecraft because aliens don't exist.

[citation needed]

[lepke]

Aug 23, 2015 16:39:26 GMT @trig said:

Aug 23, 2015 16:10:52 GMT sammyt said:

Plenty of posters have said that there is no way a cover up or conspiracy could have occurred, rather than saying there's no real evidence of one.

Your alien analogy is missing the part where someone says it can't be an alien spacecraft because aliens don't exist.

If someone says for certain that a theory is flat-out wrong, rather than just saying that's there's no real evidence to support it, then obviously that's going to open some cans of worms.

we're back to the notion that there's no evidence that anyone said a conspiracy couldn't have occurred.   I think it's about as likely as a monkey randomly tapping out Hamlet in our lifetimes, but it still has to be considered.

No one has ever written on the board, that there is proof/certainty no conspiracy took place in the EAR/ONS case, they have merely argued against the likelihood of there having been a conspiracy. That is a crucial difference, and something that needs to stop being misrepresented on the board, as a way for one side to malign the other.

[Deleted]

Aug 23, 2015 19:32:30 GMT lepke said:

Aug 23, 2015 16:39:26 GMT @trig said:

we're back to the notion that there's no evidence that anyone said a conspiracy couldn't have occurred.   I think it's about as likely as a monkey randomly tapping out Hamlet in our lifetimes, but it still has to be considered.

No one has ever written on the board, that there is proof/certainty no conspiracy took place in the EAR/ONS case, they have merely argued against the likelihood of there having been a conspiracy. That is a crucial difference, and something that needs to stop being misrepresented on the board, as a way for one side to malign the other.

that is what I'm saying, in an admittedly awkward way. 

[albion]

Aug 23, 2015 19:32:30 GMT lepke said:

Aug 23, 2015 16:39:26 GMT @trig said:

we're back to the notion that there's no evidence that anyone said a conspiracy couldn't have occurred.   I think it's about as likely as a monkey randomly tapping out Hamlet in our lifetimes, but it still has to be considered.

No one has ever written on the board, that there is proof/certainty no conspiracy took place in the EAR/ONS case, they have merely argued against the likelihood of there having been a conspiracy. That is a crucial difference, and something that needs to stop being misrepresented on the board, as a way for one side to malign the other.

"Merely" and "Likelihood" are both incredibly soft words. For you to have spent the enormous amount of time arguing for something which you can only define or quantify as "likely or unlikely" seems like a colossal waste of your efforts. It is a negative argument. And as long as the case is unsolved this argument will exist. Is the glass half empty or half full? IDK. If a tree falls in the woods....IDK Do these jeans make your butt look fat....IDK. What I do know is that I don't need you, or your silly and contradictory "connections", to continue on with my posts.

If you want to be taken seriously as a person of authority, stop with the failed humor, post your sources, and identify your self. Otherwise you are just another anonymous smartass with an opinion and a youtube account.

[wolF]

Aug 23, 2015 21:04:58 GMT albion said:

Aug 23, 2015 19:32:30 GMT lepke said:

No one has ever written on the board, that there is proof/certainty no conspiracy took place in the EAR/ONS case, they have merely argued against the likelihood of there having been a conspiracy. That is a crucial difference, and something that needs to stop being misrepresented on the board, as a way for one side to malign the other.

"Merely" and "Likelihood" are both incredibly soft words. For you to have spent the enormous amount of time arguing for something which you can only define or quantify as "likely or unlikely" seems like a colossal waste of your efforts. It is a negative argument. And as long as the case is unsolved this argument will exist. Is the glass half empty or half full? IDK. If a tree falls in the woods....IDK Do these jeans make your butt look fat....IDK. What I do know is that I don't need you, or your silly and contradictory "connections", to continue on with my posts.

If you want to be taken seriously as a person of authority, stop with the failed humor, post your sources, and identify your self. Otherwise you are just another anonymous smartass with an opinion and a youtube account.

Does this mean people should apply those standards to your posts? Or pretty much anyone's posts? I would guess not, considering how some kiss mod ass with any opportunity. This is also more hilarious coming from the guy who called someone very intelligent a moron, despite the fact that he was not "hiding" under any kind of anonymity. All that proves is that you don't even care if someone is "hiding" or whatever, as long as they validate your thoughts.

[albion]

Aug 23, 2015 21:47:19 GMT wolF said:

Aug 23, 2015 21:04:58 GMT albion said:

"Merely" and "Likelihood" are both incredibly soft words. For you to have spent the enormous amount of time arguing for something which you can only define or quantify as "likely or unlikely" seems like a colossal waste of your efforts. It is a negative argument. And as long as the case is unsolved this argument will exist. Is the glass half empty or half full? IDK. If a tree falls in the woods....IDK Do these jeans make your butt look fat....IDK. What I do know is that I don't need you, or your silly and contradictory "connections", to continue on with my posts.

If you want to be taken seriously as a person of authority, stop with the failed humor, post your sources, and identify your self. Otherwise you are just another anonymous smartass with an opinion and a youtube account.

Does this mean people should apply those standards to your posts? Or pretty much anyone's posts? I would guess not, considering how some kiss mod ass with any opportunity. This is also more hilarious coming from the guy who called someone very intelligent a moron, despite the fact that he was not "hiding" under any kind of anonymity. All that proves is that you don't even care if someone is "hiding" or whatever, as long as they validate your thoughts.

qwoif, thanks for the Nick Cage clip. I have always found him to be very entertaining. I cant vouch for all his films though. It seems like he gets one real good one and then a few stinkers. Still he has had a long career. And I suppose he needs the money. Do you think he would be a good choice to play earons in film as well?

[Deleted]

Aug 21, 2015 22:33:42 GMT sammyt said:

PC - I think that if this was a UK message board, and with the intellect of some of the posters here, then some of the UK cases in the last decade or so would have been ridiculed for the farces they are.

The UK is a small, and very controllable island, smaller than many of the states in the US.

I could name you a half dozen UK cases that are farcical beyond belief.

I see a lot of parallels between the UK and US on some of these cases. Do you think the whole story about what went on with Savile and how he was protected will ever come out publicly? I doubt it will.

For all we know, EAR/ONS is shielded in the hidden system OC or another agency has used for years for criminals they consider valuable and what is presumably done in the best interest of the public.  Along with the ability to wipe a criminal's record, it doesn't look like there's anything to prevent them from wiping a DNA database of a criminal's DNA profile. I imagine it's the same in the UK.