Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Jell 0 Biafra

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 59
1
General discussion / Re: The Many Faces of US Politics...
« on: October 23, 2018, 02:24:59 PM »
Any of our American based posters been up to Westchester County lately?

Quote
   An explosive device was found on Monday near the Westchester County home of George Soros, the billionaire philanthropist who is a favorite target of right-wing groups, according to a law enforcement official.

The device did not explode on its own, and bomb squad technicians “proactively detonated” it, the official said.

Federal and state law enforcement officials responded to the scene in Katonah, N.Y., a hamlet in the upscale town of Bedford in northern Westchester.

The Bedford Police Department and the Westchester County Department of Public Safety said Monday night that they were investigating at that location. The police declined to answer questions but said that a hazardous device unit had been requested.

I'm sure Whitey has his alibi sorted out!

Wasn't me officer.  Believe what you want.

2
General discussion / Re: The OFFICIAL FAI Thread.....Roll on France 2016
« on: October 18, 2018, 02:39:28 PM »
I'm gonna start following Gibraltar, never preciously won a game now on the verge of 2 wins in a week.

Glory hunter.

3
General discussion / Re: Movie reccomendations
« on: October 17, 2018, 01:00:25 AM »
Watched The Endless today. Really enjoyed it. Sci-fi /horror. If you know the movie Resolution,  it's a partner piece to that. Stands on its own too though.

4
General discussion / Re: What's your relationship with alcohol?
« on: October 15, 2018, 10:09:42 PM »
Great thread topic.

I have a fairly relaxed relationship with alcohol. No real dependancy or need for it. Have a few when I am out at the weekends, which isn't that often anymore. Sometimes go a few months without a drink. Two weeks since my last.

However, there have been periods, when things have been stressed in my life, where I will turn to drink and have a mad session. The last time was September '17. I had a lot going on in my head and couldn't deal with it. Made a real cod of myself. Since then, I've decided it was happening too often, so made a decision to not drink when under stress. So I now read anxiety books, when things get on top of me.

From January 2019, I am going to cut out drink completely. The last time I did that, I was off drink for 2 and 1/2 years. Hopefully match that and longer.

What anxiety books would they be? As already stated, stress is the cause of my seizures.
There's a book called An End to Panic that I found very helpful.  Don't remember the author, but worth a splurge if you see it on Amazon.

5
The tackle is already defined as
Quote

    The tackle is a skill by which one or more players may dispossess an opponent or frustrate his objective within the Rules of Fair Play.
    A tackle is aimed at the ball, not the player. A tackler may use his body to confront the opponent but deliberate bodily contact such as punching, slapping,
    arm holding, pushing, tripping, jersey pulling or a full frontal charge is forbidden. The only deliberate physical contact allowed is that in the course of
    a Fair Charge one player only with at least one foot on the ground , makes a shoulder to shoulder charge on the player in possession.


Basically if more than 2 players are in the act of tackling a player at the same time it's a foul and a free to the player in possession.

Twohands, I don't understand how you draw this conclusion from the rule as stated.  15 guys could be tackling the one player, and so long as they only played the ball and no more than one shouldered him, it's no foul, as per the quoted rule.

6
General discussion / Re: The Many Faces of US Politics...
« on: September 28, 2018, 03:18:14 PM »
Open season would be progress. Last guy didn't even get a hearing.  But yeah, I take your point.

7
General discussion / Re: The Many Faces of US Politics...
« on: September 28, 2018, 03:02:50 PM »
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/09/27/candidates-for-appointment-to-government-posts-or-judgeships-dont-have-a-presumption-of-innocence/

Good piece.  Kavanaugh isn't on trial, he's applying for a job.  Presumption of innocence applies to trials, not job applications.

8
General discussion / Re: Things that make you go What the F**k?
« on: September 27, 2018, 07:48:15 PM »
I read Laoislad's post without first looking at the quoted material, and I honestly thought he was talking about something Trump did.

9
General discussion / Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
« on: September 13, 2018, 07:37:27 PM »
Building 7 was not hit by any plane.
The Fire commander leading the fight on the day, said that "the fires in WTC 7 were under control and only needed 2 teams to put it out". He called for the area command to assign the teams to fight the fire. They started to put the fires out, only to be told after half an hour to abandon their positions, and evacuate the building. They argued with the commanders that the fires were almost out, but the commanders radioed they had to evacuate immediately as the building was going to collapse and trap them in it. They radioed back saying they (The commanders) were talking rubbish as there was very little damage to the building and there was no way a collapse was imminent. They were then told not to argue but to evacuate immediately. Leave everything, run. About 5 minutes after evacuating the building it collapsed symmetrically to the ground into it's own footprint.
There are dozens of videos on YTube where firemen talk about what they heard and saw, as they evacuated the building. They describe hearing dozens of explosions from the top of the building on every floor all the way to the bottom. They also describe these explosions as exactly like a demolition.
None of this was ever mentioned in the NIST reports, where they completely ignored any and all testimony regarding explosions, not just in building seven but WTC 1 and 2.

As for the assertion that  multiple structural steel support beams were sheered by an Aluminum can, I guess we will never know because the evidence of what happened to the steel was never gathered due to the steel being removed immediately from the scene of the crime. Removal of evidence from a crime scene is a capital offence btw. Coverup anyone....

This is just f**king bananas. Take a break from the internet lad.
Don't think it's that far-fetched myself

Saying that the American government blew up Building 7 is not far fetched? You're on a level with Willie Frazier and Jim Corr. Good company.

Worth noting that Willie Frazer (among plenty of others) maintained that state collusion was a conspiracy theory. There are still those who would accuse you of mad conspiracy theories for suggesting that the British State orchestrated the slaughter of innocent civilians in Dublin & Monaghan in May 1974, for instance.

I'm not suggesting I necessarily believe the 9/11 conspiracy theories, but if the world was made up solely of people who sneered at every seemingly outlandish conspiracy theory, it would be a dangerous world where states could get away with a lot more than what we already now know they have been up to.

Exactly. It's like Bush said once, telling people not to believe these conspiracy theories... You're either with us or you're with the terrorists. So you're not a proper American if you question 9/11. Clever propaganda line.

Can anyone name one outlandish conspiracy theory that was sneered at and has since been proven true?


I don't know how outlandish conspiracies have to be to qualify, but there was the gulf of Tonkin incident, in which US government officials knowingly deceived the public leading to the Vietnam war.  https://www.usni.org/magazines/navalhistory/2008-02/truth-about-tonkin   And for both the Gulf war and the Iraq war, there were orchestrated attempts to deceive the public about the need to go to war. 
When people in power collude secretly to achieve aims that are not in the public interest, what is that only a conspiracy?

Yes - a REAL conspiracy. What is your point?

Simply that the claim that a democratically elected government would knowingly lead its people into war under false premises is/has been regarded as a conspiracy theory.  So they're examples of conspiracy theories that turned out to be true.

To be regarded as a conspiracy theory, does the quality of the supporting evidence not matter?

I've never heard anyone saying that the contemporary claims that the Bush administration, with the assistance of the Blair government, was cooking the books/data to garner support in the run-up to the Iraq War, amounted to a conspiracy theory.

Maybe Bush and Blair were too nakedly fraudulent?

stew, god bless him (whatever happened to him?) used to roll out the Hillary conspiracy theories all the time, often to do with her murdering people, without a shred of supporting evidence.

To me, a conspiracy theory is where someone posits some outlandish explanation for something without offering any evidence beyond some poorly thought-through/half-baked, paranoid nonsense.

Fair enough.  Given that definition, I don't know of any ones that have turned out to be true.  But I wonder if everyone is working with something like your definition.

  If I told a group of people right now that the Gulf war was sold to the American people by a PR company who showcased a woman who claimed to have seen Iraqi soldiers in Kuwait shut off incubators containing babies, and that woman turned out to be the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the US, and that her story was entirely made up, I would be fairly sure some would dismiss it as a conspiracy theory.

Is the conspiracy surrounding the WTC in 2001 also related to the motivation for the first Gulf War 10 years previous?

I wouldn't think so.  The conspiracy about the first gulf war is established fact. I don't see any evidence for the WTC conspiracy.

10
General discussion / Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
« on: September 13, 2018, 05:39:30 PM »
Building 7 was not hit by any plane.
The Fire commander leading the fight on the day, said that "the fires in WTC 7 were under control and only needed 2 teams to put it out". He called for the area command to assign the teams to fight the fire. They started to put the fires out, only to be told after half an hour to abandon their positions, and evacuate the building. They argued with the commanders that the fires were almost out, but the commanders radioed they had to evacuate immediately as the building was going to collapse and trap them in it. They radioed back saying they (The commanders) were talking rubbish as there was very little damage to the building and there was no way a collapse was imminent. They were then told not to argue but to evacuate immediately. Leave everything, run. About 5 minutes after evacuating the building it collapsed symmetrically to the ground into it's own footprint.
There are dozens of videos on YTube where firemen talk about what they heard and saw, as they evacuated the building. They describe hearing dozens of explosions from the top of the building on every floor all the way to the bottom. They also describe these explosions as exactly like a demolition.
None of this was ever mentioned in the NIST reports, where they completely ignored any and all testimony regarding explosions, not just in building seven but WTC 1 and 2.

As for the assertion that  multiple structural steel support beams were sheered by an Aluminum can, I guess we will never know because the evidence of what happened to the steel was never gathered due to the steel being removed immediately from the scene of the crime. Removal of evidence from a crime scene is a capital offence btw. Coverup anyone....

This is just f**king bananas. Take a break from the internet lad.
Don't think it's that far-fetched myself

Saying that the American government blew up Building 7 is not far fetched? You're on a level with Willie Frazier and Jim Corr. Good company.

Worth noting that Willie Frazer (among plenty of others) maintained that state collusion was a conspiracy theory. There are still those who would accuse you of mad conspiracy theories for suggesting that the British State orchestrated the slaughter of innocent civilians in Dublin & Monaghan in May 1974, for instance.

I'm not suggesting I necessarily believe the 9/11 conspiracy theories, but if the world was made up solely of people who sneered at every seemingly outlandish conspiracy theory, it would be a dangerous world where states could get away with a lot more than what we already now know they have been up to.

Exactly. It's like Bush said once, telling people not to believe these conspiracy theories... You're either with us or you're with the terrorists. So you're not a proper American if you question 9/11. Clever propaganda line.

Can anyone name one outlandish conspiracy theory that was sneered at and has since been proven true?


I don't know how outlandish conspiracies have to be to qualify, but there was the gulf of Tonkin incident, in which US government officials knowingly deceived the public leading to the Vietnam war.  https://www.usni.org/magazines/navalhistory/2008-02/truth-about-tonkin   And for both the Gulf war and the Iraq war, there were orchestrated attempts to deceive the public about the need to go to war. 
When people in power collude secretly to achieve aims that are not in the public interest, what is that only a conspiracy?

Yes - a REAL conspiracy. What is your point?

Simply that the claim that a democratically elected government would knowingly lead its people into war under false premises is/has been regarded as a conspiracy theory.  So they're examples of conspiracy theories that turned out to be true.

To be regarded as a conspiracy theory, does the quality of the supporting evidence not matter?

I've never heard anyone saying that the contemporary claims that the Bush administration, with the assistance of the Blair government, was cooking the books/data to garner support in the run-up to the Iraq War, amounted to a conspiracy theory.

Maybe Bush and Blair were too nakedly fraudulent?

stew, god bless him (whatever happened to him?) used to roll out the Hillary conspiracy theories all the time, often to do with her murdering people, without a shred of supporting evidence.

To me, a conspiracy theory is where someone posits some outlandish explanation for something without offering any evidence beyond some poorly thought-through/half-baked, paranoid nonsense.

Fair enough.  Given that definition, I don't know of any ones that have turned out to be true.  But I wonder if everyone is working with something like your definition.

  If I told a group of people right now that the Gulf war was sold to the American people by a PR company who showcased a woman who claimed to have seen Iraqi soldiers in Kuwait shut off incubators containing babies, and that woman turned out to be the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the US, and that her story was entirely made up, I would be fairly sure some would dismiss it as a conspiracy theory.

11
General discussion / Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
« on: September 13, 2018, 05:18:39 PM »
Building 7 was not hit by any plane.
The Fire commander leading the fight on the day, said that "the fires in WTC 7 were under control and only needed 2 teams to put it out". He called for the area command to assign the teams to fight the fire. They started to put the fires out, only to be told after half an hour to abandon their positions, and evacuate the building. They argued with the commanders that the fires were almost out, but the commanders radioed they had to evacuate immediately as the building was going to collapse and trap them in it. They radioed back saying they (The commanders) were talking rubbish as there was very little damage to the building and there was no way a collapse was imminent. They were then told not to argue but to evacuate immediately. Leave everything, run. About 5 minutes after evacuating the building it collapsed symmetrically to the ground into it's own footprint.
There are dozens of videos on YTube where firemen talk about what they heard and saw, as they evacuated the building. They describe hearing dozens of explosions from the top of the building on every floor all the way to the bottom. They also describe these explosions as exactly like a demolition.
None of this was ever mentioned in the NIST reports, where they completely ignored any and all testimony regarding explosions, not just in building seven but WTC 1 and 2.

As for the assertion that  multiple structural steel support beams were sheered by an Aluminum can, I guess we will never know because the evidence of what happened to the steel was never gathered due to the steel being removed immediately from the scene of the crime. Removal of evidence from a crime scene is a capital offence btw. Coverup anyone....

This is just f**king bananas. Take a break from the internet lad.
Don't think it's that far-fetched myself

Saying that the American government blew up Building 7 is not far fetched? You're on a level with Willie Frazier and Jim Corr. Good company.

Worth noting that Willie Frazer (among plenty of others) maintained that state collusion was a conspiracy theory. There are still those who would accuse you of mad conspiracy theories for suggesting that the British State orchestrated the slaughter of innocent civilians in Dublin & Monaghan in May 1974, for instance.

I'm not suggesting I necessarily believe the 9/11 conspiracy theories, but if the world was made up solely of people who sneered at every seemingly outlandish conspiracy theory, it would be a dangerous world where states could get away with a lot more than what we already now know they have been up to.

Exactly. It's like Bush said once, telling people not to believe these conspiracy theories... You're either with us or you're with the terrorists. So you're not a proper American if you question 9/11. Clever propaganda line.

Can anyone name one outlandish conspiracy theory that was sneered at and has since been proven true?


I don't know how outlandish conspiracies have to be to qualify, but there was the gulf of Tonkin incident, in which US government officials knowingly deceived the public leading to the Vietnam war.  https://www.usni.org/magazines/navalhistory/2008-02/truth-about-tonkin   And for both the Gulf war and the Iraq war, there were orchestrated attempts to deceive the public about the need to go to war. 
When people in power collude secretly to achieve aims that are not in the public interest, what is that only a conspiracy?

Yes - a REAL conspiracy. What is your point?

Simply that the claim that a democratically elected government would knowingly lead its people into war under false premises is/has been regarded as a conspiracy theory.  So they're examples of conspiracy theories that turned out to be true.

12
General discussion / Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
« on: September 13, 2018, 02:36:28 PM »
Building 7 was not hit by any plane.
The Fire commander leading the fight on the day, said that "the fires in WTC 7 were under control and only needed 2 teams to put it out". He called for the area command to assign the teams to fight the fire. They started to put the fires out, only to be told after half an hour to abandon their positions, and evacuate the building. They argued with the commanders that the fires were almost out, but the commanders radioed they had to evacuate immediately as the building was going to collapse and trap them in it. They radioed back saying they (The commanders) were talking rubbish as there was very little damage to the building and there was no way a collapse was imminent. They were then told not to argue but to evacuate immediately. Leave everything, run. About 5 minutes after evacuating the building it collapsed symmetrically to the ground into it's own footprint.
There are dozens of videos on YTube where firemen talk about what they heard and saw, as they evacuated the building. They describe hearing dozens of explosions from the top of the building on every floor all the way to the bottom. They also describe these explosions as exactly like a demolition.
None of this was ever mentioned in the NIST reports, where they completely ignored any and all testimony regarding explosions, not just in building seven but WTC 1 and 2.

As for the assertion that  multiple structural steel support beams were sheered by an Aluminum can, I guess we will never know because the evidence of what happened to the steel was never gathered due to the steel being removed immediately from the scene of the crime. Removal of evidence from a crime scene is a capital offence btw. Coverup anyone....

This is just f**king bananas. Take a break from the internet lad.
Don't think it's that far-fetched myself

Saying that the American government blew up Building 7 is not far fetched? You're on a level with Willie Frazier and Jim Corr. Good company.

Worth noting that Willie Frazer (among plenty of others) maintained that state collusion was a conspiracy theory. There are still those who would accuse you of mad conspiracy theories for suggesting that the British State orchestrated the slaughter of innocent civilians in Dublin & Monaghan in May 1974, for instance.

I'm not suggesting I necessarily believe the 9/11 conspiracy theories, but if the world was made up solely of people who sneered at every seemingly outlandish conspiracy theory, it would be a dangerous world where states could get away with a lot more than what we already now know they have been up to.

Exactly. It's like Bush said once, telling people not to believe these conspiracy theories... You're either with us or you're with the terrorists. So you're not a proper American if you question 9/11. Clever propaganda line.

Can anyone name one outlandish conspiracy theory that was sneered at and has since been proven true?


I don't know how outlandish conspiracies have to be to qualify, but there was the gulf of Tonkin incident, in which US government officials knowingly deceived the public leading to the Vietnam war.  https://www.usni.org/magazines/navalhistory/2008-02/truth-about-tonkin   And for both the Gulf war and the Iraq war, there were orchestrated attempts to deceive the public about the need to go to war. 
When people in power collude secretly to achieve aims that are not in the public interest, what is that only a conspiracy?

13
GAA Discussion / Re: New Championship Format
« on: September 11, 2018, 02:42:35 PM »
Might work.  An opportunity to play a final in front of a full house in Croke park might be enough of an inducement.  I'd like to see added that the winner plays in the upper tier competition the following season.

14
General discussion / Re: The Wire (tv drama)
« on: September 06, 2018, 07:31:04 PM »
I agree about the West Wing but similarly season 5 of the Wire is a little too proposterorus for me.

Yeah, season 5 was crap.  Wasn't wild about season 2 either.

Carnivale is another excellent show, but was unfortunately canceled after two seasons.  The two seasons do stand alone though, so you can watch it without feeling like you're not going to get some kind of resolution.

15
The Beatles, Run For Your Life, is definitely the catchiest song about domestic abuse.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 59