United 93

will you be seeing this movie?

  • yes

    Votes: 12 41.4%

  • no

    Votes: 17 58.6%
  • Total voters
    29
Quote from traderNik:

...I would welcome the input of one of the mods on this - if my responses to your posts are interpreted as 'stalking', I would be happy to desist. In this thread, I have made about 6 posts to you, but most of them were specifically asking for clarifications of the contradictions in your posts in this very thread. ....
More...

Briefly, I will say I often delete these type of off topic exchanges b/c in my view they detract from the topic of the thread- the movie United 93- and instead turn it into a discussion of a poster, Z10.

As I read your intense questioning of him (which I have seen on other threads too), I ask myself why is it so important if Z10 has contradicted himself? Are you considering voting for him? Following his preaching on how to live a proper life? Considering entrusting your life savings to him? Ok. So you repeatedly discover he is another imperfect being. Now what?
 
Quote from traderNik:
More...

Naw... that was just a joke, Z.

Oh, just a joke.

Intellectual dishonesty is when, for example, you start threads whose titles distort news items in order to promote your personal agendum, like this

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1049792#post1049792


So now you are the judge of what is or is not intellectual dishonesty, and what is or is not a joke.

Yes, joke is the appropriate word for your self appointed position....

If you look in the dictionary under 'intellectual dishonesty', you will find this thread cited.

Which dictionary are you talking about?

LOL...

Oh, more jokes...

I could provide other examples from your discography, but everyone is aware of them by now.

Continue to try to make your ad hominem case...it seems quite meaningless, except to stalkers....who rationalize their stalking somehow through the use of ad hominem...

Anyway, we can compare that to your joke, at least the thing you claimed was a joke - that's when you suggested that a fellow ET member should have it suggested to him that his kids might be the targets of pedophilic attacks.

You can compare whatever you like, I don't care....

Both jokes, Z... although there seems to be some sort of difference there. I would leave it to others to characterize the difference between your jokes and mine.

You never got the joke, obviously....

No links were necessary - the claims were based on comments made in this very thread. This is only the 5th time I have pointed this out!!!

You were throwing out all kinds of claims, for which you offered no link to supposed quotes....

Again... the statements I was questioning were from this thread.

You introduced claims from what you claim are other posts, I asked for links to back up your claims...the rest is silence....

Yes, I brought up your unaddressed contradictions from other threads too

Yes, you made claims for which you offered no proof.

let's just start with the quotes from this thread - how about that. That should be easy enough. Let's deal with the 'age of the world' issue and it's relation to your assertions about the use of reason after that.

Age of the world, provide all pertinent links to quotes.

Then tell me that I was or was not joking with kent.

ROTFLMAO....

So I gave you a break (again) and said let's just deal with the comments in this thread. So that argument is shot down.

You see yourself in a position to give me a break?

LOL...
 
Quote from resinate:

Briefly, I will say I often delete these type of off topic exchanges b/c in my view they detract from the topic of the thread- the movie United 93- and instead turn it into a discussion of a poster, Z10.

As I read your intense questioning of him (which I have seen on other threads), I ask myself why is it so important if Z10 has contradicted himself? Are you considering voting for him? Following his preaching on how to live a proper life? Considering entrusting your life savings to him? Ok. you have discovered he is another imperfect being. Now what?
More...

Z represents himself as occupying the moral high ground. In fact he is often standing on the shifting sands of assertion and sophistry. He regularly ridicules others who question his views. I find his brand of intellectual dishonesty disgusting. I hold him in greater contempt than the run-of-the-mill racists and whack jobs who are well known to everyone here. If he is denigrating the views of others while contradicting himself from post to post, isn't it ok to point it out and ask him for clarifications?

Imperfect? To me that has no meaning because there is not one human who even remotely comes close. What we must try to be is honest. Z is the epitome of dishonesty. When he asserts, we must be there to fight it. Pretty straight ahead in my books, res.

You will notice that I spend a lot less time posting here lately. That was after they made Pabst a mod, which was just after he said that in his opinion, 15% of white people are idiots, compared with 45% of black people, or something equally absurd.

The only thing I regret is that, as you say, it is detracting from the topic of discussion here. Anyway, I have proved my point - he bailed out on answering by claiming that he doesn't answer questions which are asked using the word 'we'. I will desist in this thread at this time if it is your wish, res.
 
res, if you are an imperfect being yourself :D how can you be in a position to evaluate the imperfection or perfection of another being?

In order to form the concept of an imperfect being, we must have a concept of a perfect being to begin with....it would seem that finding that perfect being would be paramount to any further evaluation of imperfection...

And, oh yes, I do consider myself an imperfect being too.... :p


Quote from resinate:

Briefly, I will say I often delete these type of off topic exchanges b/c in my view they detract from the topic of the thread- the movie United 93- and instead turn it into a discussion of a poster, Z10.

As I read your intense questioning of him (which I have seen on other threads too), I ask myself why is it so important if Z10 has contradicted himself? Are you considering voting for him? Following his preaching on how to live a proper life? Considering entrusting your life savings to him? Ok. So you repeatedly discover he is another imperfect being. Now what?
More...
 
You must be the lower moral ground I stand in opposition to.

LOL....



Quote from traderNik:

Z represents himself as occupying the moral high ground. In fact he is often standing on the shifting sands of assertion and sophistry. He regularly ridicules others who question his views. I find his brand of intellectual dishonesty disgusting. I hold him in greater contempt than the run-of-the-mill racists and whack jobs who are well known to everyone here. If he is denigrating the views of others while contradicting himself from post to post, isn't it ok to point it out and ask him for clarifications?

Imperfect? To me that has no meaning because there is not one human who even remotely comes close. What we must try to be is honest. Z is the epitome of dishonesty. When he asserts, we must be there to fight it. Pretty straight ahead, res.

The only thing I regret is that, as you say, it is detracting from the topic of discussion here. Anyway, I have proved my point - he bailed out on answering by claiming that he doesn't answer questions which are asked using the word 'we'. I will desist in this thread at this time if it is your wish, res.
More...
 
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Naw... that was just a joke, Z.

Oh, just a joke.

Intellectual dishonesty is when, for example, you start threads whose titles distort news items in order to promote your personal agendum, like this

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1049792#post1049792


So now you are the judge of what is or is not intellectual dishonesty, and what is or is not a joke.

Yes, joke is the appropriate word for your self appointed position....

If you look in the dictionary under 'intellectual dishonesty', you will find this thread cited.

Which dictionary are you talking about?

LOL...

Oh, more jokes...

I could provide other examples from your discography, but everyone is aware of them by now.

Continue to try to make your ad hominem case...it seems quite meaningless, except to stalkers....who rationalize their stalking somehow through the use of ad hominem...

Anyway, we can compare that to your joke, at least the thing you claimed was a joke - that's when you suggested that a fellow ET member should have it suggested to him that his kids might be the targets of pedophilic attacks.

You can compare whatever you like, I don't care....

Both jokes, Z... although there seems to be some sort of difference there. I would leave it to others to characterize the difference between your jokes and mine.

You never got the joke, obviously....

No links were necessary - the claims were based on comments made in this very thread. This is only the 5th time I have pointed this out!!!

You were throwing out all kinds of claims, for which you offered no link to supposed quotes....

Again... the statements I was questioning were from this thread.

You introduced claims from what you claim are other posts, I asked for links to back up your claims...the rest is silence....

Yes, I brought up your unaddressed contradictions from other threads too

Yes, you made claims for which you offered no proof.

let's just start with the quotes from this thread - how about that. That should be easy enough. Let's deal with the 'age of the world' issue and it's relation to your assertions about the use of reason after that.

Age of the world, provide all pertinent links to quotes.

Then tell me that I was or was not joking with kent.

ROTFLMAO....

So I gave you a break (again) and said let's just deal with the comments in this thread. So that argument is shot down.

You see yourself in a position to give me a break?

LOL...
More...


owned... again :)

I think the length of your responses is in direct proportion to the degree to which you are owned.

It's so satisfying to get the last word.
 
More "owning..."



Quote from traderNik:

owned... again :)

I think the length of your responses is in direct proportion to the degree to which you are owned by your interlocutor.
More...
 
You will notice that I spend a lot less time posting here lately. That was after they made Pabst a mod, which was just after he said that in his opinion, 15% of white people are idiots, compared with 45% of black people, or something equally absurd.

Why is it absurd? Because it's not politically correct to say that?
Askenazi Jews (Eastern European) is the smartest ethnic group on the planet.
Equality is a chimera.
 
Quote from Cesko:

You will notice that I spend a lot less time posting here lately. That was after they made Pabst a mod, which was just after he said that in his opinion, 15% of white people are idiots, compared with 45% of black people, or something equally absurd.

Why is it absurd? Because it's not politically correct to say that?
Askenazi Jews (Eastern European) is the smartest ethnic group on the planet.
Equality is a chimera.
More...

Interesting that you'd pick the Ashkenazim as an example :)

In fact 90% of my clients are Jewish and I am well aware that they are, as a race, brighter than most. Do you know how many Jews there are on the planet, by the way? If you take the number of geniuses among Jews per capita, they must be ahead by a factor of 10.

Try a search of my posts. I am against PC BS in any form. If you don't understand what's wrong with Pabst screed, I'm not going to take the time to explain it to you. It would take too long. Clearly you've never bothered to ask yourself what is meant by 'black people'. But then self-examination and the search for the logical basis of ideas isn't the strong suit of inbred rednecks. And yes, there exist such a group. Just as there exist pathologically criminal individuals of with negroid blood. And whites. And Chinese. and Jews. And Greeks. And Tahitians. Just as there exist bad Oriental drivers. And super-smart Jews. And super-stupid East Indians. Or super-stupid Americans who think that a statement like '45% of blacks are idiots' represents a point of view.I never said anything about the races being equal in any way. That's you assuming that I'm a left-wing nutbag.

Back to the topic - my apologies, res. Cesko, if you want to start a thread to debate this topic, go ahead. Let's leave this for United Flight 93.
 
Congratulations!
That is 6 pages of Z10 backn'forth chit.

Yet, Before I get flamed, I will admit to posting off topic - as most times there is little option not to in one's own defense or process of explanation- but 6 pages folks?
Yup! some times it is the fun to be had round here.

The mods should cull out the BS.

Now this last relevant post rang true in my ear:
"all that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing",
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top