Ambrose2007 Forum Posts (8,881)

RE: age and weight

Ah, you're such a sensitive guy, Boban.

RE: Release order for Suu Kyi reportedly signed

One of the world's "beautiful spirits." I hope she attains her freedom - for her and her country's sake.

RE: What being brutally honest means to you?

Now THAT hurt, G (but it hurt good).

RE: What being brutally honest means to you?

I liked this final paragraph especially, SD. Nicely said.

RE: What being brutally honest means to you?

Yeah, some of the most puzzling posters here (to me) are those who sound reasonable most of the time, and then - bam! - they leap off the reservation, so to speak.

RE: What being brutally honest means to you?

RE: What being brutally honest means to you?

Hi, L.

To the degree that someone is in denial, I think, there exists the temptation to become more "brutal," out of frustration or from the belief that a more forceful claim might be better heard.

I wouldn't rule out the possibility that under some circumstances of speaking more "forcefully" - perhaps even a little cruelly - but I think those occasions would be rare.

RE: What being brutally honest means to you?

Hi, E! "Mrs. Ambrose"?! I have had enough trouble convincing her to take my last name...

RE: What being brutally honest means to you?

While allowing for different interpretations of "brutal" (it was surely coined as a metaphor), I've noticed that some individuals use it more literally, under the guise of being honorably honest.

In fact - using the literal meaning of the word - there is never any reasonable basis for being brutally honest. If one is thinking of the interests of the person being addressed, all that's logically necessary is enough clarity in order for the person to understand the point. For example (from real life), telling someone that they "have a problem with alcohol" or "you're an alcoholic," completely suffices in terms of clarity and honesty. To say (for example) instead: "You are a disgusting lush," would be to indulge in brutality. It offers no improvement in clarity or honesty over less insulting variations.

RE: How do you want to see your next relationship go?

It might help if you found a lady who shared your musical tastes.

RE: U just received an interesting inbox message/great picture-To good to be true...

Talking and hearing are invaluable qualities in fictitious ladies...

RE: U just received an interesting inbox message/great picture-To good to be true...

I would reply, of course, since I get those kinds of messages all the time from GG (my lady).

RE: In the history of the world, there has never been anybody like Jesus.

Only if you are utterly ignorant of history. Horus, Osiris, Isis, Dionysus, and Mithras are examples of Jesus-like figures that well-predated the Jesus of Christian myth.

Of course, it's possible that the Jesus in your head is unique. Not, however, the Jesus of the New Testament.

RE: Do you beleive 9\11 was a inside job/?

One of the primary objections to alternate 9/11 hypotheses, T, is the belief that it's impossible for an American president to utter the Big Lie, or for the government to act egregiously against American Citizens.

For those who believe this is true, the antidote is a brief study of history - particularly American history. Lyndon Johnson and The Gulf of Tonkin lie would serve as one example. Also, Bush lied through his teeth about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Earlier in US history, plutonium was tested on unknowing civilians. Syphilis was tested on unknowing Afro-American civilians. Operation Northwoods called for, among other things, the destruction of civilian aircraft, which would be blamed on Cuba. Operation Northwoods bears a *striking* resemblance to some 9/11 events - in particular, the hijacking of American commercial airliners.

The point is that it is hardly without precedent for the USG to lie in order to justify desired goals as well as to act against the interests of US citizens. And the above scarcely scratches the tip of iceberg, believe me.

RE: Do you beleive 9\11 was a inside job/?

RE: Do you beleive 9\11 was a inside job/?

That's false. The official version does claim bin Laden and Al Qaeda are responsible for 9/11. The FBI statement does in fact contradict the official theory.

I'm scratching my head, Gard. Have you actually know anything of substance at all about this subject? Seriously. It's like arguing physics with someone who says, "One of Newton's three laws was not the law of equal and opposite reaction!" There's such a large gap of knowledge between you that all you can do is throw your hands in the air.

If you want to discuss this further with me, I'm going to require one of two things: 1) take some time and educate yourself about the subject; or 2) sit down calmly, stop proclaiming stuff that is false, open your ears, and be open to learning something new.

For the love of Zeus (or Dionysus,if you prefer), man, unlike most people here you've got the brains and intellectual discipline to do a helluva lot better this.

RE: Do you beleive 9\11 was a inside job/?

I'm not aware of any formal proof that a particular official version claim is wrong. But bear in mind that vanishingly few claims can be formally proven. Quantum mechanics can't be formally proven, for example. However, current evidence would suggest that it's *highly probable.* That's where we are vis-a-vis 9/11: which interpretation of available evidence is most probable - that is, reasonable.

This isn't to say that many claims about 9/11 couldn't be formally proven. A major problem is that a single entity - the USG - has proprietary control of critical evidence that could either prove or disprove its case. For example, the 80+ surveillance tapes the FBI has of the area around the Pentagon that it refuses to make public. Those tapes could settle the question of what struck the Pentagon. The USG has position of 9/11 aircraft parts, which it also refuses to make available for public inspection. Releasing this evidence could end the debate. Ask yourself why that hasn't happened.

Also, you may ask yourself why the USG, which ought to have been concerned with safekeeping evidence, saw fit to ship the entire bin Laden family out of the country before any of its members could be questioned by the FBI, why it shipped steel from the WTC towers overseas within days of 9/11 (removing evidence from a crime scene), why the area in front of the Pentagon was carefully cleaned and resurfaced within days of the attack, and why it took over a year for the Bush Administration to even establish an investigative agency concerned with 9/11...among countless other similar questions. Are these the actions of an administration concerned with discovering and publicly revealing the truth?

If you're serious about learning enough about 9/11 to make a truly informed decision, then I would recommend David Griffin's "The New Pearl Harbor" and "Debunking 9/11 Debunking" (critical of the official version), and Popular Mechanic's "Debunking 9/11 Myths." You could also visit the various pro and con websites. Evaluate and compare both sides, and decide which one offers the more solid case.

RE: Do you beleive 9\11 was a inside job/?

There are too many logical errors in your post for me to feel inclined to address them all, Garden. I feel as though I'd have to write a Logic 101 course for you, and I have neither the patience nor interest in doing that.

Instead, I'll simply reply to your first remark, and use it as an illustration of why it can indeed be important to actually know some critical details about something before making proclamations about it.

On June 5, 2006, Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI, responded to an inquiry about why bin Laden was not named as a suspect for 9/11:

“The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”

So you see, knowing something about all or most of the cows in a pasture is sometimes necessary in order to comment intelligently on the herd. Perhaps it would now be a good idea to ask yourself: How many other facts am I unaware of that could alter my views on this subject?

RE: Do you beleive 9\11 was a inside job/?

On what would your confidence be based? It's worth noting that it isn't shared by the 9/11 Commission's senior counsel or by some of the former 9/11 commissioners themselves.

Naming names doesn't qualify a theory as being either true or superior to theories which don't. Based on that logic, Zeus is responsible for lightning bolts is a superior claim to "I don't know what causes lightning bolts." A theory can be falsified without offering a positive alternative. All one has to do is demonstrate that one or more of its claims is false.

RE: Do you beleive 9\11 was a inside job/?

Ah, no. The official theory has enough holes to support another classic Beatles' song. If you believe the "CT" is a "neat package," then there's no way you could've done much reading about it. I don't believe even staunch supporters would call the official theory "neat." They argue, rather, that it's more believable than the alternatives.

RE: Do you beleive 9\11 was a inside job/?

Well, bin Laden initially denied involvement. His first response, on 9/17/01, was:

"I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons. I have been living in the Islamic emirate of Afghanistan and following its leaders' rules. The current leader does not allow me to exercise such operations."

In a further statement on 10/16/01:

"I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle."

Then followed the infamous "confession video" in December, to which I think you're referring. That video has been controversial from the get-go. Most, if not all, alternative conspiracy theorists decry it as an obvious fraud. But does the USG think it's genuine? If so, it seems rather problematic that bin Laden is not named by the FBI as a suspect for the events of 9/11. As a result, I'm going to guess our intelligence services believe the tape is fraudulent (along with subsequent messages).

While I'm addressing your concerns, Tom, I'd like to say that I appreciate your having taken the time to actually read up on the subject; that's obvious from your posts. Your question about the cell phones is obviously well-warranted. Perhaps the most damaging counterargument one could make would be the (alleged) cell phone calls, as well as the final disposition of the passengers. Were they all whisked off to one of those alternate dimensions on LOST?


These and other questions provide solids grounds for questioning alternative conspiracy theories. I don't claim to have all the answers - only a well-founded skepticism of many of the mainstream theory's chief contentions. The problems with the official theory are legion. All it requires to destroy the mainstream theory is to convincingly demonstrate some of its claims are false, and I believe that has been done.

RE: Do you beleive 9\11 was a inside job/?

Thanks, Gard. I had to truncate your quote for the same reason.

I appreciate your comments and tone. You're one of the few people keeping this site interesting for me, so I wouldn't particularly relish getting into a donnybrook with you over this.

I don't know of any "leading" non-mainstream conspiracy theorists who believe Bush masterminded 9/11. The usual speculation is that Cheney, Wolfowitz, and others of that ilk were more likely candidates. But if these conspiracy hypotheses are true, Bush, at a minimum, had knowledge of what was going on. His administration was heavily influenced by policy suggestions from the Project for the New American Century, which spoke longingly of the good that might come from a "new Pearl Harbor" (which 9/11 was), and advocated military interventionist strategies which the Bush Admin. adopted.

RE: I live in Canada and he's from the US ... WILL IT WORK?

There are people who've actually *seriously* made those points, Open.

To the OP: I am one of the Canadian Meets American poster-children (as are KissmeDeeply and Eric).

The points about distance - that many areas in the US are farther apart than US-Canada areas are - are well-taken. And you can get across the border if you have a passport. That's something you will need to discuss sooner or later if you're becoming serious enough for a visit.

Interestingly, the culture between some Canucks and Americans can be quite close. One of the amazing things about GG and me - for me - was that we had so much culturally in common. In fact, I've never met anyone with whom I had more socially in common (except the dratted Canadian custom of always removing shoes in the house!). Canadians are hyper-aware of what's going on in America and with Americans. Not so much in reverse.

If it gets truly serious, then of course you face the dreaded citizenship issue. One or both of you would need to apply for citizenship in the other's country. Fun!

But otherwise, Canucks and Yankees are basically kissing cousins. And we all know how much fun that can be...don't we...?

RE: Do you beleive 9\11 was a inside job/?

Well, I'm glad you agree that facts, rather than a priori intuitions, are a necessary element of an evidential argument.

Occam's razor doesn't consist of merely offering the simplest explanation, of course, but rather the simplest explanation which best accounts for the facts of an event or thing. It is quite possible, in other words, for a simple explanation to be wrong.

The debate over what brought the buildings down has been raging for a long time, and after having participated in many debates of that nature (I've seen engineers take turns in essence calling each other idiots, both claiming the other's position is "pseudo-scientic babble" [incidentally, wouldn't that be a superb example of ad hominem, which you have criticized yourself here?]), at this point I don't see much profit in a detailed debate on the demolition vs. plane-only hypotheses.

Instead, I'll content myself with a general remarks about "facts." First, if you believe that "conspiracy theorists everywhere" have ignored your points, then that is factually incorrect. These points have been acknowledged and debated ad infinitum, and in vastly greater and more sophisticated detail than your summary above (which you would of course know if you had performed even a semi-thorough investigation of the debate). Second, it is not a fact that the central argument for alternatives to the mainstream conspiracy theory (which is a "conspiracy theory," by the way) is "planes couldn't have brought down the WTC buildings." It's certainly a popular point of disagreement, but there are many theories about what happened that disagree with the mainstream theory in particulars, and thus are alternatives to it. For example, the aforementioned John Farmer, 9/11 Commission Senior Counsel, offers an alternative version of what happened that accepts planes bringing down the buildings.

While it may true that you've "evaluated every argument" you've **heard**, from reading your post I am forced to conclude that what you've heard is a tiny, perhaps even infinitesimal, portion of the arguments that have been leveled against the mainstream theory, and in particular, against the "planes-only" hypothesis - because if you had in fact performed anything even roughly approximating a thorough overview of the arguments on both sides, you would know the many (and in my view, very strong) arguments that have addressed your claims above.

And this is why I usually don't find debates about 9/11 very fruitful (indeed, I usually find them to be exercises in utter futility/frustration), for what is the point in arguing with someone about something when they haven't taken the time or made the effort to familiarize themselves with the salient claims/facts? It's like debating a religionist about evolution when they know little or nothing about evolutionary theory, and have no interest in remedying their ignorance, because they KNOW that claims countering their beliefs are wrong.

As a result, I will only debate 9/11 with people who've taken the time to perform a thorough and fair-minded overview of the various arguments - OR people who are open to learning new information (which those who make certain declarations absent such knowledge are clearly not open to).

RE: Do you beleive 9\11 was a inside job/?

I'd agree that the big lie is a "conspiracy theory," but would suggest that applies to the mainstream theory).

Well, Garden, I'd ask you the same question that I asked above about a priori-based versus impartial empirical analysis. Shall I assume that you've performed a thorough overview of the arguments and counterarguments for the mainstream conspiracy theory? Because surely it would be impossible to rationally hold a strong opinion on the matter sans such a thorough overview, correct? Which is why I personally did perform such an overview - reading both supporters (e.g., Popular Mechanics/Skeptical Inquirer) and critics.

Personally, I think anyone who doesn't question the Bush Administration conspiracy theory is part of a queue of non-critical thinkers who have little interest in or knowledge of the events in question.

RE: How deep is your love?

Just wanted to say that I think that's a rather nosy question. Her "depth" is a highly private matter.

RE: Why you are Unhappy.

Your welcome G.

Just kidding! You're welcome, G! I appreciate your own well-reasoned thoughts as well.

Perhaps you'll be joining my and Tony and Dio's "man-love club"?

(I'm not holding my breath on that one, though )

RE: Why you are Unhappy.

Well, in all fairness - and in your defense - there was little chance of the kind of confusion illustrated by my example. Basically, the purpose of the comma in these situations is for clarification - to prevent confusion. In some cases, as in "you Ambrose," there really isn't much chance of confusion, but in many structurally identical sentences there are.

"Tony sent a letter to his dad hoping for approval." (Your dad hopes for approval).

"Tony sent a letter to his dad, hoping for approval." (You hope for your dad's approval).

So the basic principle, from which all technical grammar rules are derived, is clarity. In the case where little confusion is possible - for example, "I love you too" - it's a matter of logical consistency that one should write "I love you, too" in order to avoid sounding like "I love you two."

Still, I suppose one could argue that one could omit the comma in cases where ambiguity is non-existent or nearly so.

In any case, T, you're a very good writer, in my opinion.

RE: Why you are Unhappy.

True, Open, and I certainly didn't mean to denigrate his wholesome man-love.

RE: Why you are Unhappy.

Well, instead of citing what would likely seem to be an abstruse grammatical rule, let me try this explanation.

Let's say you wanted to tell your dad about the new love of your life, so you write him the following note:

"I love her dad."

Your dad, understandably, is rather bemused, if not alarmed.

"But, Tony, why haven't you confessed this to me before??" he demands, shocked that you not only like guys but are fond of older men!

Not that I have any necessary objection to that, of course, when there is a suitable object for such love. But I think the above example makes tolerably clear how one comma - or the lack thereof - can completely change the meaning of a sentence.