[ExI] Top ten dumbest remarks
sjatkins at mac.com
Wed Oct 10 18:37:36 UTC 2007
On Oct 7, 2007, at 8:59 AM, John K Clark wrote:
> "Samantha Atkins" <sjatkins at mac.com>
>> one of the most difficult to accept
>> conclusions I have ever come to.
> I disagree, the UFO and ESP people have conclusions too and they are
> about equally difficult to accept because they are as STUPID as your
> However your conclusion has an additional dimension besides idiocy,
> your crap is vicious.
Thanks a lot for your insightful analysis. NOT. Please stop the
personal attacks now.
> Samantha you have every right to be angry about the war in Iraq, I'm
> too, but you shouldn't let your anger rise to a point where it
> your rationality. If the silly ideas you were pedaling were to
> become widely
> believed, (and we both know history is full of silly ideas that were
> believed) then there will be a demand for revenge against the American
> "traitors" involved in this evil 911 "plot". And that could lead to
> worse things than the war in Iraq.
If 10% of the things wrong with the official explanation were
seriously examined we would have many "leaders" on trial for treason.
That would be just and utterly necessary if we are going to escape the
end of freedom in America. Or don't you believe in finding the truth
and punishing those who have done wrong?
> You worry about civil rights and I do too, but now you would have
> American citizens rounded up and put in camps for being involved
> in an evil 911 conspiracy that in fact never existed. If I don't
> like your
> politics I'll put you in the camp too; true I can't prove you had
> to do with the plot, but that is a small point because I can't prove
> anybody in the camp had anything to do with it either because there
> was no plot to be involved in.
What are you talking about? I advocated no such thing. I advocate
reopening the investigation and letting the truth fall where it may.
It is the government that has spoken of camps and taking away all
rights on their say-so, not I.
> It turned out that the rational for the war was built on a house of
> but if you have your way the violent backlash would have an equally
> foundation. You are doing EXACTLY what George Bush did 5 years ago,
> letting your emotions run away with you. Saddam Hussein had weapons
> of mass destruction or he did not, there was an evil American plot
> to crash
> airliners into buildings or there was not. Science will not be
> fooled and
> that is why policies built on a bullshit premise will lead to
It was obviously a house of cards. I said so from day 1 and was
vilified here with great enthusiasm for doing so. I am doing what
Bush did? What kind of empty and utterly spurious argument is
that? Show me the science then. I am waiting.
More information about the extropy-chat