You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #424: What have you brought, ontheotherhand? [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-25-11 09:11 AM
Response to Reply #421
424.  What have you brought, ontheotherhand?
Really, besides your opinion? Not one link. Not one quote. Not one source.

It'd be interesting to run a content analysis on these replies to measure what
independent readers understand them to mean.

Here's what you've posted on this thread (hope I didn't miss any):


82. huh?

What part of this makes it suspicious that Bush would visit Dallas? Would it be exculpatory if he hadn't?

94. FWIW I'm about to hit the road...

I imagine I'll be mostly offline until sometime on Sunday.

114. wait, so he was in Tyler, or he wasn't?

Are you positing that Bush was in Dallas for the assassination, flew to Tyler so he could call and say he was in Tyler, then flew back to Dallas in order to fly to Houston? I'm having a hard time following this.

Why would Bush bother to call the FBI just to record in government files that he was in Tyler and was headed to Dallas?*

Why would Bush volunteer -- or why would the FBI request -- information about where he had been? Wouldn't it be a lot more pertinent to record where he expected to be, in case the FBI had follow-up questions?

*Ooh, I have an idea: maybe it was a deliberate decoy, so that conspiracists decades hence could say how suspicious it was that the document existed, and the rest of us could facepalm. I mean, really, can you see how weird this looks to someone who doesn't already agree with you?

79. why should it bother more people?

Edited on Fri Mar-11-11 01:52 PM by OnTheOtherHand
So Bush, over an hour after the assassination, called the FBI and told them (inter alia) that he was headed to Dallas. Is it intrinsically suspicious for a Texas oilman to visit Dallas? I cannot tell why you expect people to be impressed by this document.

ETA: eh, I'll leave it. No shame in independently having the same question.

85. I agree with that

It would be nice if, at the end of the day, we could just shake our heads and say, "Wow, I cannot understand why you believe that, but at least you care."

I'm not saying that I know how to get there, especially with the few people whom I'm not sure actually do care. But I have little doubt about Octafish and SDuderstadt. They are, in a sense, worthy adversaries.

113. FWIW, I thought your post was great

I don't believe in giving serial smearers a free pass.

It's hard to imagine that this forum could ever become a bastion of respectful discussion. What sometimes happens is that little brush fires of respectful discussion break out. That isn't likely if we treat every interchange prima facie as another skirmish in an eternal pitched battle, but it also isn't likely if we don't show the self-respect to be annoyed when people slander us.

From a game-theoretic standpoint, it seems like some version of (in the technical sense) Tit-for-Tat is called for. I always try to be ready to treat people with the same respect they show me. Maybe a little more, because an online environment lends itself to a ratcheting of hostilities. Not a lot more, because there is just no point.

145. well, the subject/verb thing was kinda cheap

I missed the deleted post, so I actually don't know who threw fuel on this particular fire.

147. yes, and I'm not sure the preceding comment came out right, either

I'm guessing that johnnie meant to post something about questioning the conclusions of the Warren Report, not about questioning the dead witnesses. Just a goof. I think we've all had wee-hour posts come out a bit sideways. If we're going to get chippy, I say let's do it over something more interesting -- like bizarro-world accusations that you're paid to post. (But I don't think he has made any of those.)

Just my two cents, feel free to ignore. I like to confuse the hard-core conspiracists by pretending that we actually have individual minds of our own. :)

143. one unfortunate thing

Believe it or not, it's pretty common for people to express really strong and (IMHO) bizarre opinions, and then to say that they were just "asking questions."

It's the sort of behavior that can give asking questions a bad name. I think you'll find that the vast majority of posters here really have no problem with honest questions, per se. Sometimes we may have some trouble recognizing them as such.

Sometimes I think that SDuderstadt is overreacting, but then again, I remember how I felt about the first half-dozen times I tried to explain why the 2004 exit polls didn't provide much evidence that Kerry had won. Some people were so sure they knew otherwise, and that anyone who disagreed with them must be evil, and that somehow they exemplified openmindedness and critical thinking. Some of them said absolutely brutal things about me and close friends; I tried not to respond in kind.

Lots of people really only heard one side of that issue, and to this day they just assume that anyone with a clue knows that Kerry won. They tend to say things that remind me of those earlier fights, and sometimes I jump to the conclusion that they are just hell-bent on trashing anyone who disagrees, when actually they just didn't really know that there could be any possible basis for disagreement.

Part of the problem is that some outright misinformation became widely accepted. For instance, lots of people "learned" that the exit polls had always been "uncannily accurate" until 2004, or maybe until 2000. That simply isn't true. It's pretty useful to know that that simply isn't true. But after the first half dozen flame wars about it, you might say I learned to lose my temper in advance. It has nothing to do with trying to repress questions about voting machines and election results -- and, yes, I get really ticked off when people claim it does.

I do try to refrain from gratuitously pushing other people's buttons, but I'm sure I do it all the time.

200. (eyes)

I don't know if it's "psychic foreclosure" or what, but it does seem strange that you find it so suspicious that anyone else might care enough to disagree with you.

203. yeah, I think it quacks like psychic foreclosure

But I haven't read enough of Octafish's posts to have much of an opinion about his motivation, and I'm not planning to.

207. I'll file that under "sour grapes"

I doubt you have any idea where I'm coming from -- and it isn't as if you did any better at answering my questions than you did at answering SDuderstadt's.

219. we all have a lot to learn, I thought

The trouble is, I'm not learning anything from you. Your misdirected insults won't change that, and apparently random topic changes won't either. It's mildly interesting to watch, but I would prefer it if you cared enough to make sense.

222. in real life, I tried to catch your back

And SDuderstadt is probably still snickering at me about it. But at least it illustrates just how hollow your complaints are.

As far as I can figure out, in the world according to Octafish:

If no one challenges your posts, it implies that your arguments can't be refuted.

If one person challenges your posts, it reveals that he is hell-bent on defending the Warren Commission and/or the "BFEE."

If two or more people challenge your posts, that is "tag team tactics... to derail discussion."

I don't really see what "greater point" you are making, beyond heads you win, tails everyone else loses.

Yeah, I admit it: Even assuming for the sake of argument that Boettcher's death four years after his book criticizing Rev. Moon was published is suspicious, the connection to the JFK assassination isn't obvious to me.

387. but-- but-- but what about page 224?!!

Oh, snap. That doesn't really help his case. If he even has a case.

As for page 230... it's hard to shake the impression that Octafish was reading the index, badly. That page does show up under Kennedy, John F.: assassination of, but that is the extent of its relevance.

It was a bizarre move anyway. Were we supposed to conclude that page 212 was "for public consumption" but the other pages he mentions weren't? Has someone claimed that those pages contain a steganographic message implicating George Bush the elder? WTF?

The truly weird thing is that Octafish could simply have said something like, "I haven't read True Compass and I'm not familiar with Ted Kennedy's thoughts about this issue, but if he endorsed the findings of the Warren Commission, then I respectfully disagree." Even if he secretly suspects that Ted was blowing smoke for some reason, there is no percentage in saying so. My guess is that he viscerally can't believe that anyone who knows and cares about the JFK assassination could actually disagree with him.

But that's alright, that's OK, he has a DU Journal!!! So somehow this must all make sense and demonstrate his superior intellectual honesty. I'm sure it does.

396. it isn't as if you're taking the high road

In your preceding comment, you ridiculed everyone in the world who disagrees with your opinion that Oswald wasn't the sole shooter.

Do you actually believe that Ted Kennedy, when he said that he accepted the findings of the Warren Commission, either was lying or was revealing "preferred ignorance" about who shot his brother? Really?

401. did you read the post?

The way some people act like the Kennedy assassination was the result of a lone gunman is ludicrous. It's preferred ignorance. And anyone who prefers to be ignorant about the Kennedy assassination should do their homework.

If you want to parse "ridicule," be my guest. Given your handwaving about your own posts, my expectations are not high.

414. what basis do you have for presuming my ignorance?

Oh, right. I agree with Ted Kennedy. Shame on me.

421. I hope this cleared things up for Octafish, at least

It amazes me how you folks can brag so much about your knowledge of an issue, bring so little of it to a discussion, and think you're strutting your stuff, or whatever it is you think.


Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC