Joe Quinn on 'CIA Candidate'

For non-partisan discussion ONLY. This policy will be strictly moderated and enforced. For those with eyes wide open, visionaries, lunatics, humorists (definitely!)

Moderator: Super Moderators

User avatar
Corvid
Anchors Aweigh
Posts: 5678
Joined: 12-31-2002 03:00 AM

Post by Corvid » 10-26-2009 12:03 PM

A few days ago I saw, right there on my TV, a glittery gasbag floating in aimless (but magnificent) limpness above Colorado. CNN said that there was a frightened six year old inside.

I called to Joolz, "Hey, lookie here. Joe Quinn's ego got loose over Colorado."

Eventually it hit the ground and was stomped flat by people who actually worked for a living.

Anyways. I never heard that you refute it...... so it must be true.

User avatar
Corvid
Anchors Aweigh
Posts: 5678
Joined: 12-31-2002 03:00 AM

Post by Corvid » 10-26-2009 12:14 PM

Oh.... Have a nice day, Joe. :)

HB3
Moderator
Posts: 11919
Joined: 11-02-2000 03:00 AM

Post by HB3 » 10-26-2009 12:21 PM

Joe Quinn, you stand accused of ideological impurity and the propagation of hate facts...how do you plead?

HB3
Moderator
Posts: 11919
Joined: 11-02-2000 03:00 AM

Post by HB3 » 10-26-2009 12:33 PM

Please note that any attempted recourse to "the rules" or "uniform standards" will be viewed as counter-revolutionary. Choose your words carefully!

User avatar
Corvid
Anchors Aweigh
Posts: 5678
Joined: 12-31-2002 03:00 AM

Post by Corvid » 10-26-2009 01:46 PM

HB3 wrote: Joe Quinn, you stand accused of ideological impurity and the propagation of hate facts...how do you plead?



No accusation.

Actually, I think it was the kid with the comic book, or the guy with the ham radio or the one whose car starts by itself...... or it could be you.

Who is to say?

Someone my neighbor bowls with said that he heard a lady named "Oily Teetz" (or something) on the radio say that the glittery limp thing kept bouncing off the mainstream and kept trying to go higher.

That could be a clue.

All I want to see is a "documented refutation".

And remember: "It all seems pretty clear and pretty simple to me. And a casual wave of the magisterially dismissive hand is not enough, in itself, to refute these claims."

User avatar
joequinn
Magister Ludi
Posts: 8282
Joined: 04-25-2000 02:00 AM

Post by joequinn » 10-26-2009 01:47 PM

HB3, I don't want the allegations to be true. I do want them to be refuted. But they aren't being refuted, are they? :(
"Fuggedah about it, Jake --- it's Chinatown!"

Joolz
Pirate
Posts: 11976
Joined: 12-25-2002 03:00 AM

Post by Joolz » 10-26-2009 01:49 PM

HB, WTF are 'hate facts'? So, asking someone to support their claims means you're saying they are posting 'hate facts'? This is BS. Since when did where did you 'hear' it, or where did you 'read' it become unreasonable questions? I guess I don't 'belong' in this deck. If we are not allowed to question someone's claims and ask them for their sources, then what's the frigging point anyhow?
Image Anchors Aweigh!

Joolz
Pirate
Posts: 11976
Joined: 12-25-2002 03:00 AM

Post by Joolz » 10-26-2009 01:50 PM

joequinn wrote: HB3, I don't want the allegations to be true. I do want them to be refuted. But they aren't being refuted, are they? :(

And I told you WHY that is, but you refuse to hear it. So be it. It's not worth my time, Joe.
Image Anchors Aweigh!

User avatar
Corvid
Anchors Aweigh
Posts: 5678
Joined: 12-31-2002 03:00 AM

Post by Corvid » 10-26-2009 01:52 PM

HB3 wrote: Please note that any attempted recourse to "the rules" or "uniform standards" will be viewed as counter-revolutionary. Choose your words carefully!



"For non-partisan discussion ONLY. This policy will be strictly moderated and enforced. For those with eyes wide open, visionaries, lunatics, humorists (definitely!)"


I have a doctor appointment, hb3, ..... but feel free to post about me when I am not here...... I know that that is easier for you.


Have a nice day. :)
Last edited by Corvid on 10-26-2009 01:54 PM, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Corvid
Anchors Aweigh
Posts: 5678
Joined: 12-31-2002 03:00 AM

Post by Corvid » 10-26-2009 04:15 PM

Just as I thought.

Where are the documented refutations of the claims that I transmitted in my post about the shiny thing on this thread? If the refutations could be made, then the people who have refused to make them are either morons or intellectual slobs or both; if the refutations could not be made, then the people who have refused to admit the fact are cowards or liars or both.

Now I will plank myself.

Linnea
Moderator
Posts: 14985
Joined: 04-22-2000 02:00 AM

Post by Linnea » 10-26-2009 06:24 PM

Some of us have more tolerance for conspiracy theories, and Joe Quinn's offering in the 'CIA Candidate' is obviously of the variety of 'raging conspiracy theory'. Typical of conspiracy theories, there are a 'few facts' which serve as the tottering foundation for a full blown edifice of paranoid and/or wild speculation. That's a given, and most reasonable people recognize that.

Given the track record of the US Govt and other parties, a theory as this, unfortunately - does not require too huge a suspension of disbelief to entertain as a possibility. We've actually had a 'CIA President' recently, whose son followed a very suspect route to the White House, ushering in eight years of really mind blowing change in this country.

Other than that, of course Joe's 'position' here that this 'theory' is truth, unless proved to be falsehood, is ridiculous. And, he knows this as well, I am sure. No harm in pointing that out either.

As far as discussing the 'conspiracy theory' itself - this is the only useful link I have found thus far. Within the article posted at this link, are other links to explore:

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/06/more-b ... tan-trip/#

User avatar
Kaztronic
Moderator
Posts: 7148
Joined: 07-07-2007 04:52 PM

Post by Kaztronic » 10-26-2009 06:25 PM

Nothing like a tempter tantrum or two - sprinkle in a few personal insults for good measure - to completely derail a thread.

Anyway Joe, it's an interesting topic - but to your point about refuting your claims, that is (as I am certain you are well aware) extremely difficult as their is so little documentation available. Even for you to come to these conclusions, you have found yourself forced to rely upon sources that cannot be cited.

As for the government itself being a big sham, it's entirely possible. I have become more and more open to the possibility in fact.

Will try to do some research tonight and see if I can come up with any info that I can contribute to this topic.
Image "You'll get used to my babbling, all the others have." - Anna Madrigal from "Tales Of The City" by Armistead Maupin

User avatar
Kaztronic
Moderator
Posts: 7148
Joined: 07-07-2007 04:52 PM

Post by Kaztronic » 10-26-2009 06:31 PM

Linnea wrote: Some of us have more tolerance for conspiracy theories, and Joe Quinn's offering in the 'CIA Candidate' is obviously of the variety of 'raging conspiracy theory'. Typical of conspiracy theories, there are a 'few facts' which serve as the tottering foundation for a full blown edifice of paranoid and/or wild speculation. That's a given, and most reasonable people recognize that.


It does make for one hell of an interesting conversation though. Sort of like the "Philadelphia Experiment" - a topic I am absolutely fascinated with.

Reminds me of my feelings when I listen to Art interview John Lear. I think that there is plenty of stuff he shares with the audience that is nonsense - spread based upon no more than the words of others (at least that is my opinion). And then, I also know that mixed in with all those fantastic stories are a few kernels of absolute truth.
Image "You'll get used to my babbling, all the others have." - Anna Madrigal from "Tales Of The City" by Armistead Maupin

Linnea
Moderator
Posts: 14985
Joined: 04-22-2000 02:00 AM

Post by Linnea » 10-26-2009 06:35 PM

Originally posted by joequinn
Where are the documented refutations of the claims that I transmitted in my original posts in this thread? If the refutations could be made, then the people who have refused to make them are either morons or intellectual slobs or both; if the refutations could not be made, then the people who have refused to admit the fact are cowards or liars or both.

It all seems pretty clear and pretty simple to me. And a casual wave of the magisterially dismissive hand is not enough, in itself, to refute these claims.


Joe, this is an absolute bull**** post, imo. Worse - it is baiting of the worst kind. Did you ever intend an actual discussion of this 'theory'? - or is your purpose to inflame and bludgeon.

Granted, I transferred this post here, in good faith - so there might be some discussion of it. Have I been 'had'?

Linnea
Moderator
Posts: 14985
Joined: 04-22-2000 02:00 AM

Post by Linnea » 10-26-2009 06:45 PM

Kaz! How did I miss your post? Guess it posted as I was hitting the reply button.

Guess I am one of those people who like to explore this kind of thing. I don't 'believe' any of it at this point. I do believe in the possibility of such nefarious doings though, sad to say. In many respects, joining in to a conversation about these kinds of issues, does show a willing suspension of disbelief. Some of us are more disposed to go there than others. More gullible? More cynical? I suppose either or both.

Glad you have joined the conversation.
;)

(hope I am allowed a similie ;-> )

Post Reply

Return to “Pirates and Skeptics -P&G, etc”