Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Adios, Audio.

Expand Messages
  • Bruce Majors
    Bruce Majors WWP Email Member and libertarian activist (majors.bruce@gmail.com) It s amazing those scientists taught this monkey to bark like a chihuahua MARK
    Message 1 of 95 , Apr 19, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Bruce Majors WWP Email Member and libertarian activist (majors.bruce@...) It's amazing those scientists taught this monkey to bark like a chihuahua

      MARK CARPENTER WWP Poster designated a girly man by Ducky (carpbear@...) Listing to a Teahadist accuse someone of "constant and perpetual misrepresentstions and falsifications" is about as disingenuous as listening to a Nazi recite the "Shema Y'Israel".


      Thomas Montague Hall Esq. aka Automatic Lie who abuses the generosity of the WWP email group to which he does not belong by posting various insulting lies about people often involving his preoccupation with male genitalia (AudioLaw@...)


      See what I mean?
    • bob wynman
      Your constant & perpetual misrepresentations & falsifications are irrational & immoral (THEREFORE WRONG SQUARED as our favorite astrophysicist often
      Message 95 of 95 , Dec 28, 2015
      • 0 Attachment
        Your constant & perpetual misrepresentations & falsifications are irrational
        & immoral (THEREFORE "WRONG SQUARED" as our favorite astrophysicist often
        expressed it) as well as probably being lmalicious and do not add to your
        dwindling credibility.

        We're continuing to understand the Moderator's "Automatic Lie" label for
        you. It does seem justified, given the perpetual misrepresentations &
        falsifications you provide in nearly every post.

        Adios, Audio.

        --bob & lou

        From: AudioLaw@... <mailto:AudioLaw@...>
        Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2015 17:38:55 -0500
        Subject: Re: Puma on Indoctrination

        Except that what Galambos, Snelson, et al. were really talking about was
        how to wheedle big bucks out of gullible suckers. They certainly knew what
        they were talking about as far as that goes.

        As bob&lou Wynman bragged about just one of those huxsters, he still
        sends him money every month. Read the vacuous, factually and logically
        challenged broad generalizations on that huxster's website and you will see
        the kind of pablum that draws 'donations' out of folks like bob&lou Wynman.

        In a message dated 12/28/2015 2:08:34 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
        algae5636@... <mailto:algae5636@...> writes:

        The inverse of what I said before is that when you don't understand what
        you're trying to explain, the attempt to make it make sense gets ever longer
        and more complex-- so 30 hours is a pretty good sign you don't know what the
        hell you're talking about.


        -----Original Message-----
        From: AudioLaw <AudioLaw@... <mailto:AudioLaw@...> >
        Sent: Mon, Dec 28, 2015 1:20 pm
        Subject: Re: Puma on Indoctrination

        It sort of makes one wonder why Galambos, Snelson, et al. needed to
        deliver 30 hour lectures before they could get around to the explanation of

        But then we recall that these 30 hour lectures are all seminars, over a
        weekend or week, sometimes in a comfortable resort location. And all
        offered only to an "exclusive" group of (well heeled) 'thinkers', who have
        the ability and gullibility to pay to sit for hours, listening to excuses
        and justifications for their narcissistic hedonism, washing away any
        incipient pangs of guilt they might feel.

        The real reason that bob&lou Wynman can't "'splain" is that there is no
        substance there to explain. It is all generalizations, dreams of what might
        be, and excuses for current sociopathic conduct.

        Ask any specific question and the who 30 hours evaporates like so much
        smoke. Then they have to sign up and pay for another 30 hour course, in
        another luxury resort location.

        How much you wanna bet that every course at a luxury resort turns out to
        be a "tax deductible" educational expense?

        In a message dated 12/28/2015 12:48:40 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
        algae5636@... <mailto:algae5636@...> writes:

        Yup. If you can't explain something, you don't understand it yet.
        Corollary to that, the better you understand it, the more simply you can
        explain it.
        That makes going ahead and attempting to explain something-- even if it's
        just to yourself-- a great way to figure out the parts of it that you don't
        get yet-- i.e., to figure out the questions that will fill out your
        understanding. Usually, if you can get the question right, the answer
        becomes obvious.


        -----Original Message-----
        From: Davidwin <Davidwin@... <mailto:Davidwin@...> >
        Sent: Mon, Dec 28, 2015 4:24 am
        Subject: Re: Puma on Indoctrination

        No, that is not what my argument is based on, Tommy. What my argument is
        based on, is that Bo7B has stated that he is unable to eloquently and
        possibly clearly expound on the ideas and written explanations of the
        subject materials of those individuals that he has studied and relies on, to
        the extent needed by the readers of his postings to be able to understand
        fully, though Bo7b has not used my exact words.

        I think you are granting Bob too much slack. It has always been my
        contention that if you can not explain something, you do not fully
        understand it. It follows then, that if unable to explain, and therefore
        unable to fully understand, one buys into the idea on faith and not one's
        own coming to know the truth of the thing. One indication of faith based
        beliefs rather than having become convinced through one's own thoughts, is
        the presentation of second hand thoughts, which makes such thoughts, in that
        circumstance, effective dogma. This is especially true IMO when the dogma is
        continually repeated.

        We recognize such among religious people. There is no deception when the
        Watch Tower guys come along, they are up front "believers" and not thinkers.
        Bob on the other hand, while frankly admitting his limitations, is unwilling
        to admit that such limitations, the inability to fully understand, implies
        that we who rebut his comments could well be correct, sincere, and worthy of
        consideration rather than more of his faith based, repeated, second hand

        To me, the real inexcusable act on his part is his refusal to recognize the
        special place of science, and his willingness to claim the term for his
        beliefs. Science, the study that along with capitalism has created the
        splendorous technological world we take for granted, and the great power of
        the United States, is not simply good ideas about politics or good
        philosophy, or even logical proofs. It is specific, very conservative in its
        claims, very rigid in its testing, so as to preserve its status and
        integrity. Bob and his mentors are steeling credit they have not earned, and
        disrespecting those who have given us so much.

        When Bob "clings" in faith to such ideas, he is not just failing to explain,
        or failing to fully understand, he is taking part in a deception. He is
        passing on a lie.

        Bo7b just does the best that he is able to do, and when questions are
        presented that he, personally, is unable to answer, at the least he does and
        has provided directions and inks to sources that can provide that clearer
        presentation and answers.

        I once assumed so. I assumed an Ayn Rander, a libertarian, an atheist, would
        not fall into such behaviors as he evidences here. But over and over he has
        chosen to cling to what he has come to revere, and turn away from good and
        worthy arguments and not only mine. He can not rebut those arguments any
        more than he can explain VS without escaping that (which to me is the
        responsibility of an advocate) by pointing us elsewhere for an answer. If he
        can not rebut an argument, intellectual honesty demands that one grant it at
        least that much respect. Bob does not display intellectual honesty, but
        defers to ad hominems, deflections, and other evasions to cover the fact
        that he does not know of that which he writes about. .

        Whether or not, the individual that asked the question will proceed from
        there, in on that individual not Bo7b.

        Most of us, certainly Earl and myself, are well versed in most of the same
        philosophy as Bob, and ironically, much of what he would have us read in
        lieu of an answer. there is little need for us to prepare ourselves by
        reading the kind of stuff we have been reading for our lifetimes. I read
        Rand 50 years ago!

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.