Do not believe...

[alloytoo]

Dude I don't think empirex knows how to admit he has made a mistake.

It is clear that the article was riddled with lies. It is also abundantly clear that empirex didn't check the original article from which his one stemmed. We see it and if empirex has even bothered to read that original article by now he sees it too. While it is embarrassing for sure one can easily salvage the situation by just saying "wow didn't see that at all, thanks for pointing it out guys I will try to be more careful in the future" good luck getting him to do it as it seems he would far rather tell us all about how we all simply dismiss his articles all the time despite the myriad of painstakingly formulated reasons those trying to discuss things with him supply.

This is recurring pattern, even to ignoring the conclusions of his (his dubious website's) own sited source material.

[empirex]

As I said that wasn't a case of simple dismissal. He quoted the relevant text (I notice you have neglected to include the quoted section) and indicated that that was strong evidence of junk science at play. NOT a simple dismissal. A simple dismissal would involve someone merely rejecting your article with no indication as to why. He did indicate why.

It may not be the strongest and most thought out reasoning on that page but it is definitely reasoning. Heck it is more than you presented as to why you still hold the monkey torture study up as valid.

Techne's post, Geriatrix's post and post #12. I've said it about 5 times at this point.

The sarcastic drivel is well earned considering you have developed a pattern of not responding to points raised against the garbage you post. Again I feel I need to point out that you didn't respond to ANY of the points raised on page 1 nevermind the myriad of other posts strewn across that thread in a similar guise.

This is inexcusable behaviour... not that the lying about people simply dismissing your article is excusable... it isn't.

Now please stop lying.

Like I said porchrat, I'm not going to even attempt to engage in debate when the likes of you and your band of superficial jester's fill the whole thread with childish nonsense.

I posted the piece, as a matter of interest. You and others never even looked twice at it, you never even googled the thing and quoted the first piece critiquing it, that would have at least been something. No you went your usual route of childlike comments.

Sorry but it does not promote debate.

If you truly feel that that is acceptable in response to an article posted surrounding a scientific study, then there is no hope for civil debate with people holding opposing views, or views that contradict the loudest voices, on MyBB.

The only "mistake" that has been made is me posting an article expecting the thread to contain a majority of civil responses on topic. Par for the course here it seems that it's ignored and the kindergarten-crowd take over dominating with useless ad hominem-filled banter.

[OrbitalDawn]

Like I said porchrat, I'm not going to even attempt to engage in debate when the likes of you and your band of superficial jester's fill the whole thread with childish nonsense.

I posted the piece, as a matter of interest. You and others never even looked twice at it, you never even googled the thing and quoted the first piece critiquing it, that would have at least been something. No you went your usual route of childlike comments.

Sorry but it does not promote debate.

If you truly feel that that is acceptable in response to an article posted surrounding a scientific study, then there is no hope for civil debate with people holding opposing views, or views that contradict the loudest voices, on MyBB.

The only "mistake" that has been made is me posting an article expecting the thread to contain a majority of civil responses on topic. Par for the course here it seems that it's ignored and the kindergarten-crowd take over dominating with useless ad hominem-filled banter.

Maybe ask yourself why every time you post something this happens. There's a lot of perfectly decent discussions going on all over this forum, but for some reason the threads you post in devolve into failfests. If you turn a bit more of a critical eye on the things you post, and its source, then maybe you can filter out the nonsense you post so others don't have to.

[empirex]

Maybe ask yourself why every time you post something this happens. There's a lot of perfectly decent discussions going on all over this forum, but for some reason the threads you post in devolve into failfests. If you turn a bit more of a critical eye on the things you post, and its source, then maybe you can filter out the nonsense you post so others don't have to.

100% wrong and is indicative of the mindset.

Your logic fails on two counts:

1. You are attempting to condone the behaviour of those who chose to engage in nothing more than boorish trolling.

2. You are saying that every article that is posted, be it in the Current Affairs, PD or Sport section needs to be verified by the poster.

You are saying people cannot post an opinion piece, or just an interesting scientific article without performing some kind of investigation into the article.

That's just ridiculous and I'm sure you can understand that.

[OrbitalDawn]

100% wrong and is indicative of the mindset.

Your logic fails on two counts:

1. You are attempting to condone the behaviour of those who chose to engage in nothing more than boorish trolling.

2. You are saying that every article that is posted, be it in the Current Affairs, PD or Sport section needs to be verified by the poster.

You are saying people cannot post an opinion piece, or just an interesting scientific article without performing some kind of investigation into the article.

That's just ridiculous and I'm sure you can understand that.

1. Nope, I'm not. Besides, it doesn't happen that often, so you don't have to exaggerate.

2. Nope again. You just seem to post an inordinate amount of twaddle, whether it be from InfoWars or NaturalNews. It has become routine for you to post something, where the slightest scrutiny lays bare either plain lies, misinformation or misrepresentation. You basically never admit this when it's pointed out, and apparently you also don't scrutinise these websites further, after being shown how they're dishonest (at best).

By all means contribute, but when someone clearly illlustrates that something you posted is BS, admit as much, and be more sceptical of the source in the future

[porchrat]

1. Nope, I'm not. Besides, it doesn't happen that often, so you don't have to exaggerate.

2. Nope again. You just seem to post an inordinate amount of twaddle, whether it be from InfoWars or NaturalNews. It has become routine for you to post something, where the slightest scrutiny lays bare either plain lies, misinformation or misrepresentation. You basically never admit this when it's pointed out, and apparently you also don't scrutinise these websites further, after being shown how they're dishonest (at best).

By all means contribute, but when someone clearly illlustrates that something you posted is BS, admit as much, and be more sceptical of the source in the future

Well said.

Please empirex you need to do more background reading on the things you post. It will save you embarrassment and if you are more responsible about what you post I guarantee you it will reduce the amount of mockery you get from many of the forumites here.

Right now I have the impression that you really don't care about the quality of your sources and I don't think I am alone in this. You seem to be prepared to post any whacky crap without bothering to check if it is actually true or not, even when the links to the original material are contained right there in the text (looking back at the last few articles steaming piles of lies you posted you can't really blame anyone for drawing that conclusion) This is not the sort of behaviour that is going to earn you the respect you want.

Change your behaviour, become more responsible when it comes to checking the veracity of what you post. If you don't I'm fairly certain the mocking will continue because there will be no reason to take you seriously.


(to be honest I don't think it is unreasonable to ask that you maybe do a quick couple of Google searches on the article before posting it, seems like a responsible thing to do given recent events and the nature of the sources you use)

[empirex]

1. Nope, I'm not. Besides, it doesn't happen that often, so you don't have to exaggerate.

I don't think I am actually.

2. Nope again. You just seem to post an inordinate amount of twaddle, whether it be from InfoWars or NaturalNews. It has become routine for you to post something, where the slightest scrutiny lays bare either plain lies, misinformation or misrepresentation. You basically never admit this when it's pointed out, and apparently you also don't scrutinise these websites further, after being shown how they're dishonest (at best).

By all means contribute, but when someone clearly illlustrates that something you posted is BS, admit as much, and be more sceptical of the source in the future

I will grant you that one of those articles from natural news exaggerated one of the stories, and played a little hard and fast with the truth
But your attempt to paint all the articles from any site into one corner is ridiculous. You commit the ultimate flaw in logic, especially when many of infowars stories are reports on current events, like the recent remarks from the pro-Israeli lobbyist calling for staged provocation to start a war with Iran.
It's ignored by many here, but it is huge news, it's so revealing in it's hubris and arrogance. He basically calls for a false flag event and no one says a word.

I'm curious what articles from Infowars you consider to have been debunked by yourself and others here? Or is it only in the minds of yourself and those few others?

You know what fascinates me; is that groups and people that once had nothing much in common, economists like Max Keiser, politicians like Ron Paul, trends forecaster and economist Gerald Celente, intelligence expert Douglas J. Hagmann now find their interests and various fields of expertise colliding directly with Alex Jones and infowars.

Have you listened to the likes of Max Keiser and Stacey Herbert. Have you listened to their predictions. Why are all these people from divergent backgrounds all singing the same tune and backing up each others views? If infowars and it's message was garbage you wouldn't see all these people rallying around Alex like this. They recognise the system has been corrupted within their various fields of expertise.

[porchrat]

I will grant you that one of those articles from natural news exaggerated one of the stories, and played a little hard and fast with the truth

If by that you mean it flat out lied then yes I agree.

I'm curious what articles from Infowars you consider to have been debunked by yourself and others here? Or is it only in the minds of yourself and those few others?

Infowars ran an article on your monkey torture study that claimed monkeys had developed autism as a result of the vaccine. That was a giant lie. Did you miss that part of the discussion?

Even the dishonest unethical researchers involved in that study weren't stupid enough to make that claim.

[dabbler]

Reading this post is giving me Alzheimers.

[porchrat]

Reading this post is giving me Alzheimers.

Eat some carrots they will cure it... and 90% of your cancer too.

[alloytoo]

Eat some carrots they will cure it... and 90% of your cancer too.

Cell phone radiation cure's Alzheimers......

[porchrat]

Cell phone radiation cure's Alzheimers......

Yea but wifi routers make your toenails turn blue.

[alloytoo]

Yea but wifi routers make your toenails turn blue.

Seriously (tongue in cheek)

(Just wanted to get this in before the NaturalNews articles on cell towers appear.)

[porchrat]

Seriously (tongue in cheek)

(Just wanted to get this in before the NaturalNews articles on cell towers appear.)

Sample size of 100 is actually approaching a decent study. I'm going to have to remember to look up the original article this piece is referencing.