Re: WTC Towers: The case for controlled demolition

Phil Cartwright wrote:
Iarnrod wrote:
On Feb 23, 7:50 am, Phil Cartwright <pca...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Iarnrod wrote:

Just to satisfy you? No thanks.

[ad hominem response]

[more name calling]

Purest nonsense;

[ad hominem response]


[more name calling]

you'd been calling people names for weeks before I even
jumped in here...

[ad hominem response]

[more name calling]

So far, you've said nothing of substance.

[more name calling]

and your tone with me was hostile from your very first
response to one of my posts.

Not.

Yes it was.

Actually, no it wasn't.

Actually, yes it was.

Actually, no it wasn't. You conceded this point much earlier, time to
move on. Or do you habitually change your positions when the mood
suits? Don't bother answering, hypocrite.

Correct. I didn't try to give you orders.

But you did.

No I didn't.

But you did.

But actually, no I didn't

But actually, yes you did.

Actually, not only did I *not* give you orders, but you were the one
constantly trying to give *me* orders, such as how to post and where
to post and how I should phrase and structure my replies to another
person. You must lie awake at night worrying that people on usenet
aren't obeying your rules. Then you accuse *me* of giving orders when
I never did. Hypocrite.

I even pointed out a further instance in your previous post
in my response to it.

[ad hominem response]

[more name calling]

So far, you've still said nothing of substance.

[more name calling]

I never thought you did. I simply thought that your devil's
advocacy

was based on things that are not possible.

Then you thought wrong.

Not at all

Yes you did.

No I didn't

Yes you did.

No I didn't.

Yes you did.

No I didn't

Yes you did.

No I didn't.

Yes you did.

No I didn't.

Hardly relevant, when I am discussing your replies to other people, and
other peoples' replies to you and other people.

You were.

No I wasn't.

You were.

No I wasn't.

Yes you were.

No I wasn't.

Yes you were.

No I wasn't.

Yes you were.

Who is "we", then, if you're not referring to *all* of the participants
of this thread? (Which set obviously includes Henry.)

That's rather obvious.

No, actually, it is not.

Yes, actually it is

No, actually, it is not.

Yes, actually it is.

No, actually, it is not.

Yes, actually, it is.

[ad hominem response]

How very logical.

[yet more name calling]

That's simply not true. "We" can find anything even if the one moron
doesn't recognize it.

No, then a smaller "we" has found it.

[ad hominem response]

[and another personal attack]

How very logical.

[and another]

Then what are you doing?

I told you, we're bashing Hankie the Wankie.

How very on-topic, worthwhile, and useful.

You do realize this is alt.conspiracy?

But you're not posting about conspiracies, you're posting about some
random person's supposed defects.

That's your opinion, and it's wrong.

Your postings that consist solely of
personal attacks directed against me are not on topic in either newsgroup.

Since you started the personal attacks, by your own tacit admission
since you admitted I was treating you civilly up until the point you
chose to call me an "***," why don't you take this matter up with
yourself, Phillip? Let us know how it turns out.

Uh, excuse me? *You're* the one who keeps trying to redirect replies
*only* to alt.physics.

I have of course done nothing of the sort.

[more personal attacks, mixed with irrelevancies about alt.physics]

[more incorrect summations by Phillip the self-righteous pedant and
wannabe netkop, who by admission, whining and evidence has redirected
replies only to sci.physics]

I still don't see how alt.physics is at all relevant in a thread that is
not crossposted to that newsgroup.

Then, first, why do you redirect replies *only* to sci.physics, which
you whine you must *manually* do and asked me to stop correcting?
Second, you're wrong that it's not crossposted because it has been
included as a ng in this thread from the very start.

Why did you bring up alt.physics?

I didn't. You did. You seem to want this discussion *only* in
sci.physics then whine like a schoolgirl that it's off-topic there. I
must continually re-add alt.conspiracy, the one I read, because of
your cutting it out of reply headers.

and if you're not
trying to debunk his conspiracy theory, you should not be posting to
alt.conspiracy.

[ad hominem response]

[another personal attack]

That would seem to make your posts off-topic in both groups you're
cross-posting them to. Take it to alt.flame.

[ad hominem response]

Actually it wasn't ad hominem; it was a notation that Phillip once
again is trying to give people orders as to how and where to post on
usenet, something he continually denies doing, then snips the evidence
that he in fact does!

[more personal attacks]

Still you've said nothing of substance.

[more personal attacks]

Ever consider that
if every day you "shove" things "in his face" and insult him, and every
day he stubbornly refuses to learn anything, these two things just might
have something to do with one another?

No.

Well, *that* explains a lot.

Yes but

Yes, but nothing.

[ad hominem response]

[more personal attacks]

Still you've said nothing of substance.

[namecalling again]

You must be a newbie. This is usenet.

Neither statement seems relevant, and the former is furthermore
unsupported by any evidence and, indeed, is incorrect.

False.

No, not false.

Yes, false.

No, not false.

Yes, false.

No, not false.

Yes, false. Obviously false since you're still endeavoring to discuss
it. If it were not relevant you would be dropping it.

I've been using usenet for decades...

No you haven't.

Yes I have.

No you haven't.

Yes, I have.

No you haven't.

, and this being usenet
and my not being new to it have no relevance to the matter under discussion.

Yes they do

No they don't.

Yes they do, quite obviously.

No they don't, quite obviously.

Yes they do, quite obviously.

Only a conspiracy nut would believe that
this being usenet might somehow be relevant to the question of exactly
what happened on 9/11. Are you a conspiracy nut?

Your premise is as silly as it is incorrect. This is more evidence of
your newbiehood.

[ad hominem response]

[more name calling]

On the contrary, I know precisely what a flamewar is, and also where
they belong. The newsgroup sci.physics, at the very least, IS supposed
to be an intellectual discussion group, and not a combat arena. Go away.
All of you. :P

[ad hominem response]

[yet more name calling]

No, it was an /argumentum ad-hominem/.

[ad hominem response]

[and still more]

Observe the irony content. Much more and a type II supernova might result.

It would consume you in your petulant anger, Phillip. You said you
were going away. Why don't you just stay away?

Because you forgot to shut up and stop personally attacking me.

I get dibs on replies since you started it. I get to go last.

Now, *you* forgot to shut up. What's your justification? Wait, don't
bother answering that one either.

You should have just let it drop...

No, hypocrite, you should have. Look, "***," you started it, suck
it up and take it. That's what happens when you throw the first punch.
Do you often hit girls?

but instead you tried to stick a proverbial knife in my back.

Responding to your personal attacks is sticking a knife in your back?
Are you always a drama queen? Did you complain on the playground when
some schoolgirl hit you back too?

Why?

Because you're not as special as you seem to think you are? Because
you're not immune to replies-in-kind when you decide to call people
"***" for no reason?

Now I feel the need to point out to
the world when you've made posts consisting of 100% off-topic
name-calling drivel with no substance related to 9/11 whatsoever.

Likewise, Mr. Kettle! How about reading your own posts before you
post? Eh?

And you've just done it yet again.

Because *you* posted a reply "consisting of 100% off-topic name-
calling drivel with no substance related to 9/11 whatsoever" and I am
replying to it. If you get back on topic, maybe replies to you would
be on-topic! Amazing how that would work!

Why don't you stop?

Erm... why don't you? Again with the hypocrisy.

I am now
downwardly revising my estimate of your intelligence and, particularly,
short-term memory function.

[ad hominem response]

[another name calling response by Iarnrod]

No, it has been to try to educate you. This now seems to be futile so I
will probably quit now.

[ad hominem response]

[and another]

Goodbye, this time for good.

[ad hominem response]

And that's it. Nothing intelligent; nothing with any kind of substance.

[an entire paragraph of nothing but namecalling]

If you have nothing better (or more physics-related, conspiracy-related,
or 9/11-related) to write, please do shut up now.

See? Again with giving orders. This seems to be a particular blind
spot for you, Phillip, but I trust that my pointing it out to you
right here and now will shake the cobwebs from your "brain." Why does
it bother you that people on usenet just simply take advantage of the
right to freely speak without paying one bit of heed to your orders?

Nothing to do with physics. Nothing to do with conspiracies.

[yet another pointless and content-free insult]

Nothing, indeed, but name-calling.

[and another]

The only reason I'm responding at all is to point this out...

[and another]

, and to state for the record that a) I'm not a newbie,

Yes you are. You have 193 posts going back to May last year.

Under this news access; I posted under a nickname for years and years
before that.

Prove it. Link us to your first post, newbie.

I was there on day one of endless September; I watched
"AOLers" enter the lexicon; I was there for the whole cancelbunny
controversy. OK, I wasn't there for the great renaming, that was before
my time, but still.

Were you trying to give everyone orders back then too? Did they all
obey you?

And if all that grandiose BS were true, explain why you seem to have
no conception of how this whole thing works?

b) my intelligence is sufficient for me to have long since earned a
university degree in physics,

[snip]

Now this is getting ridiculous.

You can stop anytime you can let go of your compulsion to order people
around, Phillip.

You more or less just flat-out called me
a liar there. I think we can not have any further intelligent
discussion; that would require that you actually be intelligent, and
willing to engage in a civil discourse on a meaningful subject.

Actually it would require you to stop calling people "assholes" for no
reason and then expect that they won't snipe back at you, Phillip. I
have more intelligence than you judging from our exchange back before
you decided to be the abusive netkop.

You no
longer show any interest in debating anything with me except my
shortcomings as perceived by you, a topic I don't find of any interest
whatsoever.

You have an overinflated view of your own worthless contributions to
this exchange, which occasioned my sinking down to your level.

You might prefer to discuss that topic with your
psychiatrist, who's much more likely to be interested and to be able to
help you.

Just because you're in therapy for your god complex doesn't mean all
other people are.

and c) I *was* originally on your side,
until you turned on me like a rabid dog. :P

[a whole lot of namecalling including calling me "boring"]

Well, if I'm boring, why don't you stop pestering me and go find
something more interesting to do?

I already have. I bang this *** out in two minutes. You're not that
good. I've already done three very interesting things just since
starting this reply.

Or do you have an irresistible compulsion to have the last word?

Four.

If so, all I can say is "it figures".

Then let that be the end of Phillip!

Long live Emperor Phil! We will never forget him.
.