Open Forum – Friday

18 March 2016

Facebook: NZ politics/media+

This post is open to anyone to comment on any topic that isn’t spam, illegal or offensive. All Your NZ posts are open but this one is to encourage you to raise topics that interest you. 

If providing opinions on or summaries of other information also provide a link to that information. Bloggers are welcome to summarise and link to their posts.

Comments worth more exposure may be repeated as posts.

Your NZ is a mostly political and social issues blog but not limited to that, and views from anywhere on the political spectrum are welcome. Some basic ground rules:

  • If possible support arguments, news, points or opinions with links to sources and facts.
  • Please don’t post anything illegal, potentially defamatory or abusive.
  • Debate hard if you like but respect people’s right to have varying views and to not be personally be attacked.
  • Don’t say to a stranger online anything you wouldn’t say to their face.

Moderation will be minimal if these guidelines are followed. Should they ever be necessary any moderator edits, deletes or bans will be clearly and openly advised.

Leave a comment

73 Comments

  1. Missy

     /  18th March 2016

    Just following on from yesterday about the sugar tax the UK is introducing. There has been a lot of comment today, especially directed towards Jamie Oliver who is one of the biggest advocates of introducing a Sugar Tax and lobbied the Government directly for it – like all celebrities using his position to try and bully the Government. The interesting thing is the majority of the comments about it have been very negative towards Jamie Oliver considering the very high levels of sugar in many of his recipes. There have been a lot of people in the media and on social media calling him out as a hypocrite, but amongst all of the comments a couple of themes actually caught my attention.

    1. This is a tax on the poor, as healthier options are still more expensive and unaffordable, so the poor are still going to choose the unhealthy sugary drinks.

    2. Alternative low/zero calorie sweeteners are actually a lot worse for your health, with some believed to cause cancer.

    3. This is bad for diabetics, as many will turn to sugary drinks when they need to get sugar/glucose into their system quickly and in significant quantities, sugary drinks are apparently the quickest and best ways to give a diabetic glucose when they require it. Some have raised the question on whether diabetics on low income will buy the sugary drinks if they get too expensive and then they put their own health at risk.

    I am not a doctor so can’t comment on the last one, but it is an interesting question, and if there is something in that it shows that too much legislation ‘for our own good’ may cause health issues for others.

    Reply
    • kiwi dave

       /  18th March 2016

      Missy – 1. Yes. Health education is sadly lacking in NZ 2. “some believed” – evidence please. 3. This is totally spurious – as a diabetic, I’ve not had any sugary drinks for years – there are plenty of alternatives (I have used jellybeans when my blood sugar level was very low). I too am angry about the amount of junk food that is promoted in NZ – sugary drinks is only a small part of the obesity problem but banns, taxes are not the answer

      Reply
      • Missy

         /  18th March 2016

        Kiwi Dave if you read and comprehended my comment what you will note is that those three points are not my views but some of the themes comments that have appeared in the UK criticising Jamie Oliver and his hypocrisy around the sugar tax. These caught my attention partly because with the exception of reposting Jamie Oliver recipes with high sugar levels they are the most common.

        So in reference to number 2, no I will not provide evidence as I have not expressed my view on that one way or another. As for 3 I state I am not a doctor and didn’t know, it was comments made by people who claimed to be diabetic, I will defer to you on the accuracy as I have no experience of it. However as I said, if it was true it shows that sometimes their could be negative affects of something that is meant to be for our good.

        Reply
    • Kitty Catkin

       /  18th March 2016

      The cancer/artificial sweeteners thing has been thoroughly debunked.

      I notice that fruit juices are not being taxed, although they have as much sugar as (or more than) soft drinks. A severely diabetic friend used to carry a small carton of fruit juice with her at all times for this reason. The sugar in fruit juice is no healthier than the refined sugar in soft drinks, as it isn’t offset by the fibre that is in whole fruit. It has as many calories and will harm teeth as much as soft drinks, so it would appear to be an illusion that it is a healthy option.

      I don’t see the sugar tax as a tax on the poor, as they are under no obligation to drink soft drinks. But I do see it as sloppy thinking.

      Reply
  2. Gezza

     /  18th March 2016

    Uggers? Are you still alive? Or have they come and taken you out at last?

    Reply
    • Re: Boston Bombing
      So you’re still sticking to your story that a photo that shows no blood on a guy who has just supposedly had his legs blown off is somehow out of context, even though the webpage you referred to is irrelevant to that issue?

      Re: Sandy Hook
      And what about the video footage? Didn’t you say that there’s police cruiser footage of the evacuation of the children from the school, even though I gave you a link to a video where the video from the cruiser doesn’t show any such evacuation, and the footage is of the road to the firehouse where the children where supposedly taken?

      Being an apologist for conspiracy has never been a good look, Gezza.

      Reply
      • Gezza

         /  18th March 2016

        I see you’re going to be obtuse Uggers. I have shown you a page of photos where you can see the evidence of blood everywhere including on Bauman and the Afro-American lady in front of him. I have looked at your photos, where you can also see the blood on Bauman as well.

        Do you understand that people can suffer traumatic amputations from explosions and not bleed to death straight away because severed arteries vesselsare extremely elastic and when broken cleanly in two, they retract to prevent blood loss, shock sets in and blood pressure drops.

        An amputee is not going to tolerate having two very real tibia shoved in his stumps for an elaborate hoax. Bauman’s injuries are identical to US soldiers and kids in Afghanistan who’ve suffered IED and mine explosion injuries. You see them all the time with limbs that have been blown off or had to be amputated. Out in the wop wops where there were no hospitals and nearby medical facilities. They survived. It happens. Three people didn’t survive. One of the those people in the photos has both her legs blown off. Blue Jacket lady. She died.

        The page I have shown you goes on to debunk quite a number of the other ridiculous claims that are made about that sequence of photos, which I hoped would help you understand the hopelessness of your argument. But no. Still you must blunder on with your absurdities.

        You have not checked for details of hospitals or doctors operating on Bauman and other victims. You have just decided presumably that they didn’t exist and that nobody was treated. This is appalling. You have not done any research at all into the possibility that outrageous claims you believe might be complete bollocks that would only convince a dummy unable to research the alternative explanation, when it is clear when one does any such research that they are complete bollocks. You have obviously simply focussed on the crap flooding the web from all the weirdo crackpots the US is crawling with, most of whom have probably regularly been visiting Alex Jones’s Infowars website for years now to demonstrate their shoe-size IQs with inane comments about killing the Feds when they come for their guns next month

        You say that blood was added to the scene afterwards, but you have not shown one single photo or video clip showing someone pouting blood anywhere. Not one!! Do you understand the need for there to be a photo or video of someone pouring blood on the ground for you to be able to sensibly claim this is what happened? In the face of the evidence of all the witnesses who gave evidence in court? Do you actually understand how stupid you are being?

        You have not even responded to the evidence that Jahar Tsarnaev has admitted in Court at sentencing that he and his brother made and placed the bombs as charged, and the evidence that they caused all the casualties that were treated by the hospitals. Why have you not commented on this?

        Sandy Hook can wait. I have a lot of information on it and you will need to do a lot of reading before you can even start embarrassing yourself with further inanities about that dreadful tragedy.

        Reply
        • “I see you’re going to be obtuse Uggers.”

          What part of what I posted do you think should be clarified?

          “I have looked at your photos, where you can also see the blood on Bauman as well.”

          Here’s the early photo with no blood.

          Here he is again with the red paint. Notice how the paint is all the same colour, with none of the shading you get from oxygen depleted blood. If the photo was real he would be in agony, not calm like he appears to be.

          Here he is again in the wheelchair with what appears to be a tourniquet. Again he looks calm rather than in agony.

          For comparison, here’s an amputee with a fake injury where they’ve had more time to make it look realistic (she’s using her cellphone).

          “Sandy Hook can wait.”
          You’re full of shit. If there really was a video like you said there was then all you had to do was to post a link to it.

          Reply
          • Gezza

             /  18th March 2016

            You’re such an idiot. His arteries have constricted, his leg is up in the air, there is actually blood on the bone but you can only see that clearly in other shots. This is a sequence of hi-speed camera photos separated by seconds. Its all happening in the space of seconds. Didn’t you watch the animated sequence in the link I gave you? Look at the shock people are in. Their ears are ringing. A fucking bomb’s just gone off. Some of them are trying to get up but they can’t because they’re injured.

            You have no idea what direction Bauman was facing when his legs were blown off, so you have no idea where most the blood went – it’s to the left as can be seen in the other images from the other side.

            Why would they add paint? Red Paint? You fool! Anybody setting up a scene like this would add blood – real blood. Just to avoid nonces like you claiming it wasn’t real. Red paint!! FFS. And you can see some of it darkening. Are you fucking blind?

            Your fake image of the lady on the cellphone has spaghetti blood. It’s not even the right colour. And she’s on a cellphone. Who in the other pictures in on a cellphone? You idiot. There’s no comparison of the two situations.

            You still haven’t explained why Jahar confessed.

            Sandy Hook. There were 3 cruisers with cameras. They were supposed to redact all the video of the kids being evacuated but they missed a bit. The kids weren’t evacuated across the carpark but around the side of it. But as usual you need to see ALL the available evidence – photos, video incident reports, transcribed evidence from the police and EMS teams. It was a horrible scene. All of the kids were shot multiple times. Close up, with an AR15. One little boy had no lower jaw. Imagine being a parent and seeing that. Have you got any kids Uggers? A cop had to pull their bodies apart where they were all piled up in a doorway. Ordinarily you wouldn’t do that & disturb a crime scene but he had to check if any at the bottom of the pile were alive. Horrible.

            Reply
            • kiwi dave

               /  18th March 2016

              trying to convince UT is like wrestling with pigs – you get covered in mud and the pigs enjoy it

            • Gezza

               /  18th March 2016

              It’s kind of fun to be honest. I’m just taking my time letting him make a fool of himself bit by bit.

            • … according to the liar who said that I was being obtuse and then can’t follow up on his accusation… just like when he diverted with irrelevancies after I called him on his allegation that the early photos were taken out of context.

            • “You’re such an idiot.”

              I’m an idiot for asking you to be specific about your criticism of my post?

              Here’s my post again:

              Re: Boston Bombing
              So you’re still sticking to your story that a photo that shows no blood on a guy who has just supposedly had his legs blown off is somehow out of context, even though the webpage you referred to is irrelevant to that issue?

              Re: Sandy Hook
              And what about the video footage? Didn’t you say that there’s police cruiser footage of the evacuation of the children from the school, even though I gave you a link to a video where the video from the cruiser doesn’t show any such evacuation, and the footage is of the road to the firehouse where the children where supposedly taken?

              Being an apologist for conspiracy has never been a good look, Gezza.

              … and then your response begins with:

              I see you’re going to be obtuse Uggers.

              .. and reply begins with:

              What part of what I posted do you think should be clarified?

              I note that you’ve avoided responding to my question in order resume your usual tactic of posting lies and irrelevancies, Gezza.

            • Gezza

               /  18th March 2016

              Now you’re just being silly. I have responded to all your accusations. They are nonsense and I have explained why.

              You on the other hand haven’t addressed why Jahar confessed, nor have you addressed why the hospitals treated the injured, nor have you addressed all the evidence of Bauman’s injuries, his operations, and his rehabilitation.

              The reason you haven’t addressed these issues is because you can’t. Because they blow your conspiracy nonsense to bits. I’m not willing to move on to Sandy Hook until you have explained why you are persisting in your nonsense when I have clearly pointed what’s wrong with your nonsense. And you have addressed Jahar’s confession, the hospital reports (see below), the Bauman treatment evidence (see below).

              Because there’s no point in giving you more evidence when you don’t know how to deal with it of analyse it sensibly.

            • Gezza

               /  18th March 2016

              Let me correct that last para above:

              Because there’s no point in giving you evidence on Sandy Hook when you don’t know how to deal with evidence or to analyse it sensibly, because you are fixated on it being a conspiracy and you are showing with the Boston photos and evidence that you are incapable of comprehending rational factual, evidence-backed explanations.

              When you have addressed Jahar confession, hospital treatment of injured, Bauman’s ops and rehab, I will move on to Sandy Hook.

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  18th March 2016

              Gezza-don’t waste your time trying to make UT or KG see reason.

  3. The laugh of the day is Cameron Slater on about Nicky Hager. He reckons using his stolen data, obtained from a criminal hacker is one of the “worst paid for political hit jobs in modern history.” I can see historians all over the world right now in a lather recording the heinous story.

    (I have to admit this funny one could be pushed out of first place on the laugh list by anyone claiming the Boston marathon bombing didn’t happen.) 😊

    Reply
    • There never was any stolen data -stealing involves depriving the rightful owner of possession.

      Reply
    • If you’re looking for humour, try this one from Gezza: The images aren’t comparable because there are no cellphones in the BB set being used to make it easy to spot the fake injury.

      “Your fake image of the lady on the cellphone has spaghetti blood. It’s not even the right colour. And she’s on a cellphone. Who in the other pictures in on a cellphone? You idiot. There’s no comparison of the two situations.” ~ Gezza

      Reply
      • Gezza

         /  18th March 2016

        You’re just embarrassing yourself Uggers. The evidence for the bombings and their victims having to be treated for their severe and minor injuries is everywhere. Duperez just posted more evidence below. Why do you want to keep proving you’re a fool?

        Reply
        • “You’re just embarrassing yourself Uggers.”
          Who would believe a liar such as yourself? You alleged that I was being obtuse, but you won’t respond when I call you on it.

          Why don’t you try debunking the video I posted in response to Duperez, and we’ll see who embarrasses themselves….

          Reply
          • Kitty Catkin

             /  18th March 2016

            Gezza-write out ‘I must not tease the unfortunate UT.’ 1000 times, please.

            Reply
  4. A site I regularly look at for photos. I like the amazing variety:
    https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/bigpicture

    Sometimes they depict street theatre where the whole community takes part. The actors play their parts so well it almost looks authentic. Their ability goes way past acting though. They all know how to keep up the pretence that it is real, never let on even years later about the hours of rehearsal they put in, how they set up the scenes and so on.

    http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/specials/boston-marathon-explosions

    Reply
    • Yeah, they even told them it was a drill.

      Please, Gezza, try and debunk this.

      Reply
      • Gezza

         /  18th March 2016

        I think that’s a bit suss to be honest Uggers. Where’s it come from exactly? Do you have a link to a website or does it just appear on YouTube? There have reportedly been a few hoaxes that some simple folk have fallen for.

        It’s not really surprising that they had security there is it? It’s big famous event. We have police on duty at even quite small rugby games and events. Sometimes they have dogs.

        It doesn’t really sound like the voice is saying “this is a drill, this is a drill”. It’s very muffled and sounds more like a race announcement being looped to me.

        Also, the supposed Boston Globe tweet (do you have a link to the actual tweet please?) says a controlled explosion is going to go off in one minute, and shows the posting time of 12.53 EDT. But the bombs went off at 2:49 EDT. So, that’s a bit suss and makes me wonder if it’s a fake. What did the Boston Globe have to say about this tweet? Have you got a link to their comment on this when they were asked about it?

        Meantime, can you please address the other evidence I mentioned several times that you keep avoiding discussing because they make you look like a monkey?

        Reply
        • Gezza

           /  18th March 2016

          Oh, yep. The tweet explained. “On the afternoon of April 15, the Twitter feed of the Boston Globe reported that officials had stated “There will be a controlled explosion opposite the library within one minute as part of bomb squad activities”:

          This tweet was proffered by conspiracy theorists as proof that officials planned for a “controlled explosion” to be under way at the same time as the marathon explosions, a highly suspect “coincidence” that indicated the bombings were “false flag” operation. However, this tweet was issued about an hour after the bomb blasts and referenced a controlled detonation of a suspicious device near the central branch of the Boston Public Library, which is on the stretch of Boylston Street where the initial explosions occurred.”

          That makes sense. The tweet time’s odd but maybe the time given is based on another time zone. It doesn’t fit the actual time the real bombs went off anyway. So, bad luck Uggers. Another odd one blown away.

          Reply
        • I think that’s a bit suss to be honest Uggers.

          You’ve already shown that you’re not honest, Gezza.

          For sources, here’s a link to the tweet about the controlled explosion:

          So there’s clearly foreknowledge by the Boston Globe here: they picked the exact spot of the second explosion about two hours before it happened.

          For other sources, try the FBI – no response to a question about the drill, and an instruction to look only at photos of the Tsarnaev brothers (and not at the Craft mercenaries with the black backpacks).

          Oh, and full marks for the Gene Wilder ad hominem.

          Reply
  5. “Now you’re just being silly. I have responded to all your accusations.”

    You’re evading the issue, Gezza – a clear sign of intent to deceive. You said that I was being obtuse, and I asked for clarification with a question, not an accusation.

    It appears that the reason that you won’t a answer the question is because you knew that I wasn’t being obtuse, but wanted to divert attention away from the points I was making.

    Reply
    • Gezza

       /  18th March 2016

      Your accusation is that Bauman’s injuries are faked. Your explanation is that you can see no blood on Bauman’s leg. I have pointed out there is blood on his clothes and on his leg and on the ground. This is where I am clarifying what is meant by the accusation being out of context with what can be seen. I have explained this several times now. But you disagree.

      That’s ok. We can disagree on that. That doesn’t matter because you can’t see it so I have given up expecting you to. But you still haven’t addressed the evidence of Bauman having to be operated on at hospital for the very injuries that we observe.

      And you haven’t addressed Jahar’s confession.

      And you haven’t addressed the reports from the hospitals of their treating the injured. And these are just simple matters that you keep ignoring. Which is just getting beyond stupid and I don’t understand why you would want to spend so much time making a fool of yourself like this. What is driving you to be so silly?

      Reply
      • Your accusation is that Bauman’s injuries are faked. Your explanation is that you can see no blood on Bauman’s leg.

        No, you are misrepresenting me, I never mentioned his leg.

        Obviously you’re not going to answer the question about your allegation that I was being obtuse, since doing so would only serve to highlight your dishonesty.

        Reply
        • Gezza

           /  18th March 2016

          I accept your surrender.

          Reply
          • Gezza

             /  18th March 2016

            Oh, I see, I apologise, You didn’t say there was no blood on his leg. You said there was no blood on him and I said that there was but you need to look in particular the other images taken a few seconds later. You are using this minor misundersatnd to avoid addressing the other evidence of the injuries being real and treated, and Jahar’s confession that he & Tamerlane planted a real destructive bomb though. Why are you avoiding these issues?

            Reply
          • Gezza

             /  18th March 2016

            Sorry about the typos there but hopefully you get the gist. You’re wasting a lot of time not addressing these issues, focussing on petty inconsequential stuff. Please address the issues and don’t be so pedantic about non-issues.

            Reply
            • Your dishonesty isn’t a non-issue.

            • Gezza

               /  18th March 2016

              No, I have tried to address where there has been a misunderstanding. However, your lack of honesty in addressing the real evidence is telling. It’s clear you would rather believe lies. I’ll leave it there. There’s no point discussing Sandy Hook with you. The others here are right.

            • You are diverting again. I’ll quote my previous post so it’s clear what I’m talking about.

              You’re evading the issue, Gezza – a clear sign of intent to deceive. You said that I was being obtuse, and I asked for clarification with a question, not an accusation.

              It appears that the reason that you won’t a answer the question is because you knew that I wasn’t being obtuse, but wanted to divert attention away from the points I was making.

              Resist the devil and he will flee from you
              James 4:7

              devil: from diablos, meaning slanderer

            • Gezza

               /  18th March 2016

              Obtuse means “annoyingly insensitive or slow to understand” Uggers. This is what you have shown yourself to be. And endlessly evasive when you have no answer to the evidence it really all really happened as officially proven.

              Re the Globe Tweet:
              https://storify.com/dkiesow/the-controlled-explosion-farce

              I’m done with you now though because you’re just too silly for words.

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  18th March 2016

              Gezza-I’ve told you before about winding UT up ! (taps forehead significantly)

              The voice sounded as if it could have been saying it was a drill-but that proves nothing. How do we know that that voice was saying it at that time ? I believe that really modern (ahem) technology makes it possible to add sounds to films so that it seems as if the two are happening at the same time. Does anyone believe that David Attenborough is under the water with sea animals as he talks about them ?

  6. Obtuse means “annoyingly insensitive or slow to understand” Uggers. This is what you have shown yourself to be.

    So you think I should have called you out for being a liar earlier than I did?

    Remember, you still haven’t provided a link to any police cruiser video that you said showed the evacuation of the children from the school at Sandy Hook.
    I know you’re lying about it because they did two takes of the photo shoot to make it look like a real evacuation took place. There’s no way any police cruiser video is going to authenticate that.

    Here’s my post again for context:

    Re: Boston Bombing
    So you’re still sticking to your story that a photo that shows no blood on a guy who has just supposedly had his legs blown off is somehow out of context, even though the webpage you referred to is irrelevant to that issue?

    Re: Sandy Hook
    And what about the video footage? Didn’t you say that there’s police cruiser footage of the evacuation of the children from the school, even though I gave you a link to a video where the video from the cruiser doesn’t show any such evacuation, and the footage is of the road to the firehouse where the children where supposedly taken?

    Being an apologist for conspiracy has never been a good look, Gezza.

    Reply
    • Gezza

       /  18th March 2016

      Remember, you still haven’t provided a link to any police cruiser video that you said showed the evacuation of the children from the school at Sandy Hook. I know you’re lying about it because they did two takes of the photo shoot to make it look like a real evacuation took place. There’s no way any police cruiser video is going to authenticate that.

      And yet it does. But why should i bother to give you the link? Because you lie about things that are staring you in the face. You link to a police cruiser video that shows nothing. And then you say this is evidence nothing happened. But what about the other cruiser videos including the one that shows that small clip out the side of the kids being evacuated? If I can find that, why can’t you? And what about the other photos of the kids being evacuated up the roadway towards the fire station, past the EMS vehicles? If I can find those, why can’t you? And what about the testamentary evidence of the officers who attended the incident, including those who went in and found the bodies? And the on-site video interview with the Chief Medical Examiner? And the official investigation documents? This was such a dreadful, horrible crime. It’s really quite disgusting that conspiracy nutter people like you continue to harrass the parents of the children who were killed, even today.

      You’re already lying about me being a liar. You’re pushing more lies like the Boston Globe tweet lie, even after you’ve been shown it’s a lie. And now you’re lying about two takes of the photos showing some of the clearly upset kids evacuating. FFS man, stop it. You’re just embarrassing yourself with this shit. There’s no reasoning with someone as dishonest as you Uggers. That’s obviously why the others have given up.

      You still haven’t addressed Jahar’s confession, or the hospitals treating the injured or Bauman’s operations and rehabilitation. I think you must a mental condition of some kind. Has you been diagnosed?

      Reply
      • “There’s no way any police cruiser video is going to authenticate that.”

        And yet it does. But why should i bother to give you the link?

        Because the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim.

        Why should anyone believe you that it even exists?

        Because you lie about things that are staring you in the face.

        No, I don’t.

        You link to a police cruiser video that shows nothing.

        It shows people moving about, presumably police, but no children. A few sections have been redacted, but nothing long enough to get the kids across the car park, especially having to stop, move the kids back and retake the photo – a clearly ludicrous proposition.

        And then you say this is evidence nothing happened.

        No, I say it is evidence that the children where not evacuated via the road to the firehouse.
        If they were evacuated and taken to the firehouse like the MSM say, then they must have gone via the woods. Problem is that raises the question of the second gunman who was reportedly apprehended from the woods, the one who reportedly said that he didn’t do it.

        But what about the other cruiser videos including the one that shows that small clip out the side of the kids being evacuated?

        It’s time for you to put up or shut up.

        Reply
        • Gezza

           /  18th March 2016

          No. You haven’t addressed Jahar’s confession, the hospital reports of treating the injuries, the evidence of Bauman’s surgeries and rehabilitation. You need to address these before I give you any more details about yet another foolish conspiracy theory of yours that ignores all the evidence that the murders actually happened at Sandy Hook. Because otherwise you are just going to waste more of my time.

          Please comment on these outstanding issues re the Boston Bombing. I will be happy to accept your acknowledgement that they in fact blow away your conspiracy theory and then I will move on to Sandy Hook.

          Reply
          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  18th March 2016

            Gezza, unlike Oliver who changes his mind at random, UT will never change his mind. Opposite ends of the instability spectrum but equally defective. Both ways madness lies.

            Reply
            • Gezza

               /  18th March 2016

              Yes I suspect as much Alan. I just find it interesting how he ducks and dives & runs away from addressing the Boston Bombing evidence that blows away his theory.

              But while he’s doing this he wants me to show evidence that blows away his conspiracy theory about Sandy Hook. This is silly. Of course I’m not going to do that when he’s not addressing these other issues.

            • Dougal

               /  18th March 2016

              @Gezza

              George Carlin once said “‘Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience”.

              Wise words my friend. Uggas has an endless supply of tinfoil.

            • Gezza

               /  18th March 2016

              Yeah. I can see that. Dougal. I’m just a bit bored so I keep popping back here to see what he’s saying now while I’m reading up on Sandy Hook. It’s a long time since I last checked Sandy Hook out. 😀

            • Gezza, unlike Oliver who changes his mind at random, UT will never change his mind.

              I’ve just changed my mind about you Alan. I used to have some regard for your ability to put up an argument, but it’s now become apparent that you’re a bit of an idiot.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  18th March 2016

              UT, I might be a bit of an idiot but I’m not entirely bonkers. There is no point in putting up an argument to naked lunacy.

            • The point is to educate others.

          • No.

            Fine. You lose.

            You haven’t addressed Jahar’s confession…

            Irrelevant. You don’t get to set arbitrary conditions on verifying your statement.

            Reply
            • Gezza

               /  18th March 2016

              You don’t understand Uggers. You lose. Because the official story is the final version of events. Because its so obviously true. That’s why no further investigations are ongoing. That’s also why your BB conspiracy theory only appeals to fringe loonies. Sorry bud. Just how it is.

            • You don’t understand Uggers.

              But I do. Your argument is based on circular reasoning.

              You lose.

              No, you lost when you abandoned the field on a criitical point – the point being the veracity of the MSM account of the evacuation of the school.

            • Gezza

               /  18th March 2016

              No we’re talking about the Boston Bombing here. You don’t seem to realise you haven’t been able to disprove the official story because you can’t explain away the most basic proofs it really happened and people had to be treated for their injuries. I don’t know how you don’t understand this? You just ignore the court and hospital evidence. And when I show you how the photos prove it you just blather on like they don’t. Please don’t take this the wrong way but are you mentally defective?

            • No we’re talking about the Boston Bombing here.

              Not anymore. You just lost on a critical point.

            • Gezza

               /  18th March 2016

              I’m sorry Uggers. I can’t help you any more. You need to get a professional diagnosis of your problem.

            • Why do you think that I have a problem? You’re the one who was caught out lying and who has an argument based on circular reasoning.

            • Gezza

               /  18th March 2016

              What’s the circular reasoning?

  7. What’s the circular reasoning?

    Your conclusion that I lose my argument of criticism of the MSM account of the evacuation because you assume that the “official” story is the final version of events, given that the MSM account and the “official version” typical agree of critical points like whether the evacuation actually happened or not.

    You don’t understand Uggers. You lose. Because the official story is the final version of events. Because its so obviously true.

    Begging the Question / Circular Reasoning
    Explanation

    An argument is circular if its conclusion is among its premises, if it assumes (either explicitly or not) what it is trying to prove. Such arguments are said to beg the question. A circular argument fails as a proof because it will only be judged to be sound by those who already accept its conclusion.

    http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/begging-the-question/

    There’s also another fallacy (an appeal to authority) in your referral to the “official” version.

    Reply
    • Gezza

       /  18th March 2016

      Ah I see why you’re confused. I am talking about the Boston Bombing, not Sandy Hook.

      My argument is not that you are wrong simply because the official version of events to the Boston Bombing is right. That is just a summary of the end position when the evidence is clear and unrefuted.

      The evidence of injuries and blood etc is clear in the photos we are discussing. But that is only one part of the overall evidence. The evidence of people with limbs amputated turning up to Court is clear and unrefuted. The evidence that Jahar confessed to building and planting the bombs with his brother is clear & unrefuted. The evidence that hospitals treated victims of the bombings is clear & unrefuted. The evidence that Bauman underwent two surgeries and considerable rehabilitation is clear & unrefuted. Thank you for clarifying your confusion.

      Reply
      • Ah I see why you’re confused. I am talking about the Boston Bombing, not Sandy Hook.

        The misdirection here is the implication that we were talking at cross purposes, when in fact our previous argument was about Sandy Hook, where Gezza lost by default when he refused to give a link to his cruiser video.

        Gezza : “But what about the other cruiser videos including the one that shows that small clip out the side of the kids being evacuated? ”

        UT: It’s time for you to put up or shut up.

        Gezza: No.

        Since then Gezza has been trying to restart the argument about the Boston Bombing, but I’m not participating because he’s focusing on secondary reports rather than primary sources like the FBI who wouldn’t answer a question about the existence of the drill as reported by multiple witnesses.

        Reply
        • Gezza

           /  18th March 2016

          You’re not being honest here though are you Uggers? You’re selectively quoting me and not stating exactly what I said, so you give no proper context. I don’t think you understand the idea of context.

          Why would the FBI want to answer a question about a drill? The briefing was about the bombing. Even if there was,/i> some kind of security drill earlier that day, it has no relevance to the fact that these bombs the Tsarnaev’s planted went off and the evidence shows actually injured and killed people.

          And you’re still not addressing all the evidence I’ve just explained proves the Boston Bombings actually happened and that people were actually injured & killed.

          Reply
  8. Kitty Catkin

     /  18th March 2016

    ‘There is a pleasure, sure, in being mad-which none but madmen know.’

    (Dryden, The Spanish Friar)

    Reply
  9. I just find it interesting how he ducks and dives & runs away from addressing the Boston Bombing evidence that blows away his theory.

    Like the Boston Globe’s foreknowledge of the explosion near the finish line, you mean?

    Confessions can be made under duress, especially when there’s a threat of death, and
    hospital reports are pretty much only hearsay.

    Reply
    • Gezza

       /  18th March 2016

      What Boston Globe’s foreknowledge of the explosion near the finish line? If you mean the tweet, didn’t you click on the tweet and notice how many people were pointing out that the tweet had actually been sent out much later than the two bombs and was about the police detonating suspicious devices? I actually recall that. It was on our One news. After the bombs went off the Boston police later actually blew up at least one other suspicious device.

      The people who lost their limbs. Some of them have family and friends with them. Who do you think these people are? Why do you think they would lie? What could they gain from doing so?

      Why would Jahar confess when he wasn’t guilty? What is your evidence of duress?

      The hospital reports are based on interviews with the people concerned. There are even pictures of Bauman, Why do you assume they are false? Where is your evidence?

      Reply
      • What Boston Globe’s foreknowledge of the explosion near the finish line? If you mean the tweet, didn’t you click on the tweet and notice how many people were pointing out that the tweet had actually been sent out much later than the two bombs and was about the police detonating suspicious devices?

        No, the Boston Globe tweet said “across from the library”. That’s where the second explosion was amongst a group of people near the finish line.

        Reply
        • Gezza

           /  18th March 2016

          Yes because that’s where the suspicious device was. But this was after the area had been cleared of people. The tweet came much later than the two Tsarnaev bombs. Didn’t you click on that tweet and read the other tweets responding to it? Some people were confused by the twitter timelines but others were pointing out to them why it was confusing for them.

          Reply
          • But this was after the area had been cleared of people.

            No, people were there when it went off, there are plenty of pictures.

            The tweet came much later than the two Tsarnaev bombs.

            No, the tweet was two hours earlier, according to your own times.
            Here’s what you posted:

            Also, the supposed Boston Globe tweet (do you have a link to the actual tweet please?) says a controlled explosion is going to go off in one minute, and shows the posting time of 12.53 EDT. But the bombs went off at 2:49 EDT.

            google “boston globe twitter controlled explosion”

            Officials: There will be a controlled explosion opposite the library within one minute as part of bomb squad activities.

            12:53 PM – 15 Apr 2013

            Boston timezone is EDT.

            Reply
        • Gezza

           /  18th March 2016

          Actually I was just re-checking Wikipedia. A number of news reports stated that more bombs had been found nearby and the Boston Police Bomb Squad said they would perform a controlled explosion on the 600 block of Boylston Street, but in the end no other bombs were found. So my memory of this is wrong. But the fact remains that the Boston Globe tweet was sent out an hour or more after the bombs had already gone off. As you can see when you click on the tweet and read the other tweets. It wouldn’t make any sense for the police and Boston Globe if they were in some sort of conspiracy to kill people to send out a tweet to tell people a bomb was going to go off before it went off would it?

          Reply
          • It wouldn’t make any sense for the police and Boston Globe if they were in some sort of conspiracy to kill people to send out a tweet to tell people a bomb was going to go off before it went off would it?

            No, it’s their M.O. They run one or more exercises and the exercises go live. They don’t try to keep the exercises secret. This happened for 9/11 NY (Operation Tripod & others) and for 7/7 London (ref Peter Power of Visor Consulting).

            Reply
            • Pickled Possum

               /  19th March 2016

              And meanwhile up in the Atchafalaya delta they still play their slide
              feeling their “bad blues” singing the song of Vigilante man
              Love me some Ry Cooder when America is on the wire … slide on dude.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s