Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #572186 > unrolled thread

Arguing with lunatics

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Arguing with lunatics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-21 14:53 -0500
    Re: Arguing with lunatics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-21 20:11 +0000
      Re: Arguing with lunatics "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-21 16:27 -0500
        Re: Arguing with lunatics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-21 21:37 +0000
          Re: Arguing with lunatics "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-22 12:58 -0500
            Re: Arguing with lunatics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-22 20:56 +0000
              Re: Arguing with lunatics john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-22 14:45 -0700
                Re: Arguing with lunatics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-22 22:46 +0000
                  Re: Arguing with lunatics "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-25 13:07 -0500
                    Re: Arguing with lunatics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-25 18:35 +0000
                      Re: Arguing with lunatics "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-25 15:25 -0500
                        Re: Arguing with lunatics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-25 20:34 +0000
                          Re: Arguing with lunatics "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-25 15:57 -0500
                            Re: Arguing with lunatics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-25 21:12 +0000
                              Re: Arguing with lunatics "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-28 14:03 -0500
                                Re: Arguing with lunatics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-28 19:50 +0000
                                  Re: Arguing with lunatics "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-05-01 12:57 -0500
                                    Re: Arguing with lunatics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-05-01 19:39 +0000
                            Re: Arguing with lunatics "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2016-04-25 18:04 -0400
                              Re: Arguing with lunatics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-25 17:23 -0500
                                Re: Arguing with lunatics HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-25 16:50 -0700
                              Re: Arguing with lunatics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-25 22:41 +0000
                        Re: Arguing with lunatics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-25 21:10 +0000
                          Re: Arguing with lunatics "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-26 13:13 -0500
                            Re: Arguing with lunatics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-26 19:06 +0000
                Re: Arguing with lunatics ClutterFreak <clutterfreakincarnate@gmail.com> - 2016-04-22 18:08 -0700
                  Re: Arguing with lunatics "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-25 15:29 -0500
                    Re: Arguing with lunatics ClutterFreak <clutterfreakincarnate@gmail.com> - 2016-04-25 14:08 -0700
                      Re: Arguing with lunatics "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-04-25 14:53 -0700
                Re: Arguing with lunatics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-23 08:33 -0500
                  Re: Arguing with lunatics HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-23 06:41 -0700
                    Re: Arguing with lunatics benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-04-23 12:58 -0400
                      Re: Arguing with lunatics Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-04-23 12:33 -0500
                        Re: Arguing with lunatics HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-23 10:56 -0700
                          Re: Arguing with lunatics benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-04-23 23:29 -0400
                            Re: Arguing with lunatics Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-04-23 22:42 -0500
                        Re: Arguing with lunatics benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-04-24 00:36 -0400
                  Re: Arguing with lunatics "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-25 13:10 -0500

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#572186 — Arguing with lunatics

There are a number of lunatics that post to this group. There are also a 
number of people that seem to spend a lot of time trying to reason with 
lunatics. Lunatics cannot be reasoned with; it's what makes them lunatics.

I think there may be a problem with perception. Maybe it's because the 
lunatic isn't babbling. He *sounds* reasonable, and so maybe the thought 
is that he's not actually a lunatic and can be reasoned with after all. 
No. Lunatics can form syntactically sensible sentences while at the same 
time being unable to reason.

There's also some confusion about the conviction of one's ideas. There 
are lots of people who are firmly convinced of what they say, and feel 
*therefore* that those convictions must have been arrived at reasonably. 
No. Convictions can come from reason, but they can also come from 
emotional disturbance or unjustified prejudices or some deep-seated 
psychological need. If you are convinced that something is true, but 
can't say WHY you are convinced it is true (other than "it seems 
logical" or "it's what comes easiest to my mind"), then chances are it 
is not based on reason or evidence. In fact, a lot of lunatics will 
state something is true DESPITE evidence to the contrary or DESPITE lack 
of evidence in support. Or they will say that their ideas are true 
because of the meaning of words, where they are relying on THEIR OWN 
meaning of those same words -- another sign of lunacy.

The lunatic may spout their ideas because:
- not spouting leads to breakdowns, so that spouting is a therapeutic outlet
- they are normally shunned and feel alone, and so speak to be heard
- they are megalomaniacs with savior complexes who feel that they are 
somehow special gifts to the world
- they want to associate with normal people to feel more normal, and 
engaging in conversation is a way to feel less odd
- they are just cackling jesters who enjoy being catcallers, gadflies, 
iconoclasts-for-the-cause-of-iconoclasm
- they suffer from debilitating inferiority complexes and cope with them 
by confronting their perceived persecutors


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#572191

Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:
> There are a number of lunatics that post to this group. There are also a 
> number of people that seem to spend a lot of time trying to reason with 
> lunatics. Lunatics cannot be reasoned with; it's what makes them lunatics.

It is amusing to watch them twist and turn but a bit scary when you realize
they are probably eligible to vote and really scary when you realize they
are walking around unsupervised.
 

-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#572219

<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message 
news:hoonuc-pd6.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
> Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:
>> There are a number of lunatics that post to this group. There are also a
>> number of people that seem to spend a lot of time trying to reason with
>> lunatics. Lunatics cannot be reasoned with; it's what makes them 
>> lunatics.
>
> It is amusing to watch them twist and turn but a bit scary when you 
> realize
> they are probably eligible to vote and really scary when you realize they
> are walking around unsupervised.

ROTFLMAO because I like seeing the "Lunatics" that can not explain how a 
"Global Collapse" as NIST calls it can leave "Surviving Corners" exactly 
like a deep underground MRR nuke does.  So the "Lunatics" keep deleting the 
following link from their replies to my post.
 http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg

Rocky 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#572225

Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
> 
> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message 
> news:hoonuc-pd6.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
>> Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> There are a number of lunatics that post to this group. There are also a
>>> number of people that seem to spend a lot of time trying to reason with
>>> lunatics. Lunatics cannot be reasoned with; it's what makes them 
>>> lunatics.
>>
>> It is amusing to watch them twist and turn but a bit scary when you 
>> realize
>> they are probably eligible to vote and really scary when you realize they
>> are walking around unsupervised.
> 
> ROTFLMAO because I like seeing the "Lunatics" that can not explain how a 
> "Global Collapse" as NIST calls it can leave "Surviving Corners" exactly 
> like a deep underground MRR nuke does. 

Excellent example of a raving lunatic.

Want to see him twist and turn?

Just ask him how the explosive energy of a "MRR nuke" is different than
any other nuclear divice.


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#572454

<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message 
news:votnuc-h07.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
> Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>
>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
>> news:hoonuc-pd6.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
>>> Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> There are a number of lunatics that post to this group. There are also 
>>>> a
>>>> number of people that seem to spend a lot of time trying to reason with
>>>> lunatics. Lunatics cannot be reasoned with; it's what makes them
>>>> lunatics.
>>>
>>> It is amusing to watch them twist and turn but a bit scary when you
>>> realize
>>> they are probably eligible to vote and really scary when you realize 
>>> they
>>> are walking around unsupervised.
>>
>> ROTFLMAO because I like seeing the "Lunatics" that can not explain how a
>> "Global Collapse" as NIST calls it can leave "Surviving Corners" exactly
>> like a deep underground MRR nuke does.
>
> Excellent example of a raving lunatic.
>
> Want to see him twist and turn?
>
> Just ask him how the explosive energy of a "MRR nuke" is different than
> any other nuclear divice.

You are the one running and snipping because the following can not be 
explained by your belief system.  <G>
 http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg

Rocky 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#572504

Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
> 
> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message 
> news:votnuc-h07.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
>> Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
>>> news:hoonuc-pd6.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
>>>> Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> There are a number of lunatics that post to this group. There are also 
>>>>> a
>>>>> number of people that seem to spend a lot of time trying to reason with
>>>>> lunatics. Lunatics cannot be reasoned with; it's what makes them
>>>>> lunatics.
>>>>
>>>> It is amusing to watch them twist and turn but a bit scary when you
>>>> realize
>>>> they are probably eligible to vote and really scary when you realize 
>>>> they
>>>> are walking around unsupervised.
>>>
>>> ROTFLMAO because I like seeing the "Lunatics" that can not explain how a
>>> "Global Collapse" as NIST calls it can leave "Surviving Corners" exactly
>>> like a deep underground MRR nuke does.
>>
>> Excellent example of a raving lunatic.
>>
>> Want to see him twist and turn?
>>
>> Just ask him how the explosive energy of a "MRR nuke" is different than
>> any other nuclear divice.
> 
> You are the one running and snipping because the following can not be 

Nope, I am the one waiting for an answer to how the explosive energy
of a "MRR nuke" is different than any other nuclear device.

-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#572522

Who here thinks a jet plane
full of fuel can, all by itself,
bring down a building like
WTC1, and who thinks falling
debris and "scattered fires" 
can bring down a building like WTC7?
(How did the fires start?)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#572541

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
> Who here thinks a jet plane
> full of fuel can, all by itself,
> bring down a building like
> WTC1, and who thinks falling
> debris and "scattered fires" 
> can bring down a building like WTC7?
> (How did the fires start?)

From the airplane crash, idiot.


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#573133

<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message 
news:77mquc-m4g.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Who here thinks a jet plane
>> full of fuel can, all by itself,
>> bring down a building like
>> WTC1, and who thinks falling
>> debris and "scattered fires"
>> can bring down a building like WTC7?
>> (How did the fires start?)
>
> From the airplane crash, idiot.

But what type of airplane does not have shadows and consisted of 3 different 
images?  Oh, that's right CGIs.  ROTFLMAO

And don't forget, an airplane crash would not leave "Surviving Corners" but 
an MRR nuke could.
 http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg

And don't forget that since the seismic readings for WTC7 were so small then 
none of the seismic readings taken on 9/11/01 can be trusted.

Rocky 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#573143

Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
> 
> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message 
> news:77mquc-m4g.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
>> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Who here thinks a jet plane
>>> full of fuel can, all by itself,
>>> bring down a building like
>>> WTC1, and who thinks falling
>>> debris and "scattered fires"
>>> can bring down a building like WTC7?
>>> (How did the fires start?)
>>
>> From the airplane crash, idiot.
> 
> But what type of airplane does not have shadows and consisted of 3 different 
> images? 

The kind in your delusions.


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#573185

<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message 
news:8k42vc-h7b.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
> Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>
>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
>> news:77mquc-m4g.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
>>> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Who here thinks a jet plane
>>>> full of fuel can, all by itself,
>>>> bring down a building like
>>>> WTC1, and who thinks falling
>>>> debris and "scattered fires"
>>>> can bring down a building like WTC7?
>>>> (How did the fires start?)
>>>
>>> From the airplane crash, idiot.
>>
>> But what type of airplane does not have shadows and consisted of 3 
>> different
>> images?
>
> The kind in your delusions.

You are a complete idiot because you didn't even check to see that the bogus 
9/11 attack involved the use of 3 different CGIs as proven by the 3 
different images from what should have been the exact same jet.
 http://www.911closeup.com/nico/CGI/CGI_aprilfools.html

And there are a lot more WebPages dealing with the CGIs used on 9/11/01 
besides that one.

And do not ever forget that this is not the result of an airplane strike but 
a deep underground nuke:
 http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg

Rocky 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#573188

Kooktard, why do you keep hijacking this thread?  You're as bad as those 
19 Al Qaeda members here!

This thread is for whether we should argue with lunatics such as yourself,
not for actually arguing with lunatics such as yourself.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#573206

"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
news:nflv16$gjd$1@pcls7.std.com...
> This thread is for whether we should argue with lunatics such as yourself,
> not for actually arguing with lunatics such as yourself.

Obviously you are mistaken because real jets do not leave "Surviving 
Corners" at the very bottom to two 110 story buildings but deep underground 
MRR nukes can.
 http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg

And how do you explain how many different images there were of the alleged 
Flight 175 when they should have all been consistent?

You claim a gazillion pounds of debris was found at Ground Zero but you 
still have no explanation for how it could get around the "Surviving 
Corners."  ROTFLMAO
 http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg

From what I see of you and NIST total inability to explain why there were 
"Surviving Corners" to both the Twin Towers makes you and NIST the 
lunatics/fabricators.
 http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg

Rocky 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#573213

In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
> 
> "Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
> news:nflv16$gjd$1@pcls7.std.com...
>> This thread is for whether we should argue with lunatics such as yourself,
>> not for actually arguing with lunatics such as yourself.
> 
> Obviously you are mistaken because real jets do not

Jets don't have anything to do with arguing with lunatics such as yourself.


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#574004

<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message 
news:sqd2vc-e3c.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>
>> "Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
>> news:nflv16$gjd$1@pcls7.std.com...
>>> This thread is for whether we should argue with lunatics such as 
>>> yourself,
>>> not for actually arguing with lunatics such as yourself.
>>
>> Obviously you are mistaken because real jets do not
>
> Jets don't have anything to do with arguing with lunatics such as 
> yourself.

What Jets?  9/11 was just a made for TV movie that used CGIs instead of real 
jets and the following is proof that something else besides jets vaporized 
the Twin Towers before a gazillion pounds of debris could crush the 
Surviving Corners.  <G>
 http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg

Rocky
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#574015

In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
> 
> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message 
> news:sqd2vc-e3c.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> "Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
>>> news:nflv16$gjd$1@pcls7.std.com...
>>>> This thread is for whether we should argue with lunatics such as 
>>>> yourself,
>>>> not for actually arguing with lunatics such as yourself.
>>>
>>> Obviously you are mistaken because real jets do not
>>
>> Jets don't have anything to do with arguing with lunatics such as 
>> yourself.
> 
> What Jets?

Exactly; no one was talking about jets.


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#574632

<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message 
news:c56avc-kd8.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>
>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
>> news:sqd2vc-e3c.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:nflv16$gjd$1@pcls7.std.com...
>>>>> This thread is for whether we should argue with lunatics such as
>>>>> yourself,
>>>>> not for actually arguing with lunatics such as yourself.
>>>>
>>>> Obviously you are mistaken because real jets do not
>>>
>>> Jets don't have anything to do with arguing with lunatics such as
>>> yourself.
>>
>> What Jets?
>
> Exactly; no one was talking about jets.

Does that mean that you agree that no real jets were used on 9/11?

And you still have to explain how a "Global Collapse" can fail to crush 
every single corner at the very bottom of two 110 story buildings.  ROTFLMAO
 http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg

The truth is you and NIST can not explain why the remains of the Twin Towers 
resemble a Nuclear Demolition instead of a jet fuel demolition..

Rocky
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#574645

In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
> 
> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message 
> news:c56avc-kd8.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
>>> news:sqd2vc-e3c.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:nflv16$gjd$1@pcls7.std.com...
>>>>>> This thread is for whether we should argue with lunatics such as
>>>>>> yourself,
>>>>>> not for actually arguing with lunatics such as yourself.
>>>>>
>>>>> Obviously you are mistaken because real jets do not
>>>>
>>>> Jets don't have anything to do with arguing with lunatics such as
>>>> yourself.
>>>
>>> What Jets?
>>
>> Exactly; no one was talking about jets.
> 
> Does that mean that you agree that no real jets were used on 9/11?

Nope, it means you can't pay attention.


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#573233

Rocky wrote:
> "Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
> news:nflv16$gjd$1@pcls7.std.com...
>> This thread is for whether we should argue with lunatics such as
>> yourself, not for actually arguing with lunatics such as yourself.
>
> Obviously you are mistaken because real jets do not leave "Surviving
> Corners" at the very bottom to two 110 story buildings but deep
> underground MRR nukes can.
> http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg
>
> And how do you explain how many different images there were of the
> alleged Flight 175 when they should have all been consistent?
>
> You claim a gazillion pounds of debris was found at Ground Zero but you
> still have no explanation for how it could get around the "Surviving
> Corners."  ROTFLMAO
> http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg
>
> From what I see of you and NIST total inability to explain why there
> were "Surviving Corners" to both the Twin Towers makes you and NIST the
> lunatics/fabricators.
> http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg
>
> Rocky





I hope Trump keeps his promise to have a real investigation on 9/11 after 
he's elected.
When the truth comes out,  a lot of shill posters here will lose their jobs.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#573238

On 4/25/2016 5:04 PM, Bast wrote:
> Rocky wrote:
>> "Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
>> news:nflv16$gjd$1@pcls7.std.com...
>>
>> Obviously you are mistaken because real jets do not leave "Surviving
>> Corners" at the very bottom to two 110 story buildings but deep
>> underground MRR nukes can.

It is remarkable to me how people like this who know literally nothing 
about building engineering or forensic science can conclude that if a 
building collapsed due to impact, then there would be no "surviving 
corners". People who know nothing would not be able to judge whether 
there should be surviving corners or not. People who rant and foam from 
a position of ignorance deserve to be put on a chain in the backyard 
where dogs customarily bark at nothing.

>>
>> Rocky
> I hope Trump keeps his promise to have a real investigation on 9/11 after
> he's elected.
> When the truth comes out,  a lot of shill posters here will lose their jobs.
>
>
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web