U.S. Air Strikes in Syria

[Parts]

If I read anything on wikpedia, I will look around for numerous other sources on the issue, before taking it at face value.

Which is basically what I said. We seem to have a point of agreement.

Of course, you choose your sources far more selectively than that, as made obvious by your Chomsky video in that other thread.

Right.

Meaning?

Meaning that you don't allow facts to get in your way. You're no different from the rest of the tinfoil crowd. I think Pappy and parts made that clear in that other thread.

They, along with you, just have no idea what they're talking about.  What facts?  Tell me some that discredit some of the things i've said?  You ignore any facts i've posted and aren't capable of countering them.  Instead you resort to talking about me, or blabbing on about it being tinfoil stuff, or post the same meme.  You're out of your depth and aren't capable of a serious discussion.

Your just in denial

[odeon]

This has nothing to do with "tinfoil".  It's about what the media hasn't informed you of. 

This is hilarious.

[odeon]

If I read anything on wikpedia, I will look around for numerous other sources on the issue, before taking it at face value.

Which is basically what I said. We seem to have a point of agreement.

Of course, you choose your sources far more selectively than that, as made obvious by your Chomsky video in that other thread.

Right.

Meaning?

Meaning that you don't allow facts to get in your way. You're no different from the rest of the tinfoil crowd. I think Pappy and parts made that clear in that other thread.

They, along with you, just have no idea what they're talking about.  What facts?  Tell me some that discredit some of the things i've said?  You ignore any facts i've posted and aren't capable of countering them.  Instead you resort to talking about me, or blabbing on about it being tinfoil stuff, or post the same meme.  You're out of your depth and aren't capable of a serious discussion.

This is not a serious discussion. You're incapable of one. But I do think you're fun.

Post another Chomsky video and then disagree with the stuff that doesn't harmonise with your tinfoil. Makes me giggle.

[odeon]

If it isn't on wikpedia, it's tinfoil stuff?  Even though anyone can put anything on there?

I bother to explain how this works and this is your understanding if it? Your reading comprehension is as poor as your argumentation techniques.

But seriously: Wikipedia has a lot of tinfoil stuff, too. First of all, it's in the nature of a wiki. Anyone can edit one, which means that there will always be inaccuracies and poorly researched subjects. Wikipedia, specifically, does attempt to address these built-in weaknesses, however. If you're interested, the Help pages do a decent job of explaining how it works.

Second, the tinfoil stuff are valid topics, too. From 9/11 conspiracies to Zionism, the point is always to describe the subject as factually as possible, providing as many sources as possible. Ideally, there should be no bias.

Because you're accusing me of "tinfoil stuff", when you are using a site that you've just said has that kind of stuff on it.

True, there should be no bias, but that's not always the case on there.

Let me try to explain this. Feel free to ask questions if you don't understand.

Wikipedia is basically an online encyclopaedia. It contains articles on just about anything, from the war in Syria to Game of Thrones episode guides and pretty much everything between, including 9/11 conspiracies and ancient aliens. This means that there will be factual articles on the tinfoil stuff, just as there will be factual articles on the IS.

Anyone can add an article or update an existing one. Regular people, the tinfoil crowd, the CIA. Anyone. And anyone can review them.

And there will be sources. Most more controversial articles get a lot of them because they get edited often, and because it's the best way to back up your stuff. An article that lacks them will be flagged as such.

If you're an expert on something, you'll probably check out the topics you're interested in on Wikipedia, to see if they are reasonably complete and correct. It's in your best interests. Take me, for example. I am an acknowledged expert on some topics and so have done just that, because I know that my knowledge will help others, but also because like so many others, I simply think it's very cool that you can look up pretty much anything on the web and get better answers than what a simple Google search will provide.

HTH

It's funny that someone so mentally bankrupt can be so condescending and arrogant.

I don't suffer fools but I do like to see them suffer. Are you going to cry now?

I know what Wikpedia is.  Really it doesn't matter, cause as I said, it will be tinfoil stuff to you if it doesn't fit your beliefs. 

No, apparently you don't know what Wikipedia is. Should I quote all the things you've said about it or can I simply suggest you to reread your own posts?

I agree.  You probably should stick to your expertise subjects and forget politics though.

You're not discussing politics, mate. You're discussing conspiracy theories and general tinfoilism without backing anything up. You're posting videos and hoping it will make you look clever and informed.

[odeon]

Oh, and...

[benjimanbreeg]

Are you OK Odeon? 

Let me know when you're ready for a serious discussion, without acting like a petulant child. 

If you want, please let's discuss what i've said that falls under "tinfolism"? 

[benjimanbreeg]

[Jack]

Didn't the gopher give you crap about posting Wikipedia links with no commentary? Are you siding with the gopher? Happen to like alternative political ideas, though thinking scrapheap was the only one kind enough to mock my world conspiracy theory.  Arguing for an idea which the vast majority of people disagree or see as tinfoilish, is a struggle no matter what the idea or how controversial.

[Gopher Gary]

Didn't the gopher give you crap about posting Wikipedia links with no commentary? Are you siding with the gopher? Happen to like alternative political ideas, though thinking scrapheap was the only one kind enough to mock my world conspiracy theory.  Arguing for an idea which the vast majority of people disagree or see as tinfoilish, is a struggle no matter what the idea or how controversial.

Didn't I also tell him to embrace his foil hat? Are you agreeing with the gopher? 

[odeon]

Are you OK Odeon? 

Let me know when you're ready for a serious discussion, without acting like a petulant child. 

If you want, please let's discuss what i've said that falls under "tinfolism"?

[odeon]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tin_foil_hat

[odeon]

Oh, and in case you're wondering, Benji:

Having read your other recent entries on the board, it's obvious that there's no point whatsoever in attempting a "serious" discussion with you. You are a garden variety kook. You are without any particular talent and certainly without any originality, and as such, the likes of you are being disproved and ridiculed all over the net daily. Legitimising you with anything resembling a serious discussion will therefore not serve any purpose.

Ridiculing you, on the other hand, is fun.

[benjimanbreeg]

   Yeah, keep disproving me by avoiding the issues, calling me names and posting the same meme.   

[benjimanbreeg]

Didn't the gopher give you crap about posting Wikipedia links with no commentary? Are you siding with the gopher? Happen to like alternative political ideas, though thinking scrapheap was the only one kind enough to mock my world conspiracy theory.  Arguing for an idea which the vast majority of people disagree or see as tinfoilish, is a struggle no matter what the idea or how controversial.

The commentary was within the links 

[RageBeoulve]

Flat out: I am always going to have bias when imperialism is involved.

For it or against it?

I'd be against this even if someone was pointing a gun at my head.