Matrix Games Forums

Posted: **Wed Nov 16, 2011 3:56 pm**

I don't see the humour. It's frustrating and scary that fanatics like this ass-hat have access to the Internet. And firearms.

Posted: **Wed Nov 16, 2011 4:09 pm**

As much of a pompass a$$ as Andrew Eldritch is ;(the musician behind the "Sisters of Mercy" band (don't you dare call it a GOTH band.....he'll be annoyed!!!! [:D] )) I have to admit I agreed with a comment he made about the Internet in general.

It went along the lines of equating it with a huge Library in which everyone was shouting at everyone else. The point being is that with the birth of this thing called "the Internet" everyone can voice an opinion about something.......and do so in manner's that would get more than one person decked thx to the saftey and security of typing on a keyboard from a remote location, sometimes in anonmitity.

So I simply don't get upset at one example of someone shouting about whatever has their dander up. He's got lots of company.

just for giggles I looked up three other of his quotes on the subject. He does have a point here i'll admit.

Von's Third Law Of The Internet: "The World Wide Web is the fastest way to get from [where you wouldn't want to be] to [where you wouldn't want to go]."

Von's Second Law Of The Internet: "The World Wide Web is text for people who can't read."

Von's First Law Of The Internet: "The Net is allergic to truth, reason and humour."

-Andrew Eldritch [quotes]

I do get upset about Government level attempts to alter history. The scariest one being that "The Holocaust didn't happen" That touches a nerve with me because of YE OLDE SAYING that Humanity should have tatooed on it's collective forhead: "Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it"

Posted: **Wed Nov 16, 2011 4:49 pm**

The Village People do Roswell [:D]

Posted: **Wed Nov 16, 2011 4:53 pm**

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: Omat

Shame on me ....it is hard for me to desist from these old stuff called science. I promise to improve!
Omat

If i'm reading your sarcasm correctly, and apologies if i'm not......thats a big part of the "problem". I learned this viewpoint from my psychology 101 teacher.....a really smart guy with an imtimidatingly (and at times, infuriatingly) scientific mind. Had he desired it, he could have taken on the typical superior air of the 'research scientist' who (allegedly) bases everything on THE FACTS and looks down his nose at anyone who he feels DOES NOT.

Instead....on subjects like Aliens or religion....life after death etc.....his answer invariabley to questions regarding it was "Science can't answer this question" because as he saw it.....he broke down "science" to it's most basic element......hypothesis.....experiment.....conclusion. If the subject at hand can't be proven....or disproven cleanly by 'The Scientific Method' than the automatic answer is not a negative......nor is it a positive. The current answer is that the question cannot be accurately answered at all. One can theorize....one can believe and form personal views....but from the VIEWPOINT of science.....the question has no answer (as of yet)

I thought this was a very enlightened view. Typically whenever the whole 'religion' thing comes up, you expect a scientist to sneer and say. "There's no such thing because there's no evidence!!!!!" So his view that "This question cannot (currently) be answered by science" was a real eye opener...and he did it without a trace of conceit.

Unfortunately, his view, both in professional as well as amateur circles is more an exception. Usually one gets responses like what Omat's sounds like...."Oh!!!!! i'm sorry.....i was using SCIENCE again.........forgive me. I'll get out the Ju Ju beads and stand on my head"

Just sayin......that hiding behind the "Science" card is no excuse to be an obnoxious prig. Unless someone can provide indesputible "Scientific Evidence" of something....whether it be ALiens on the moon, God, or whether or not the established view of history may not be what we've always been taught.....they have no right to claim the mantle of truth.

As for this guy's website. Yeah, "Personally" I think his theories are way out there......but i'm not going to jump on the nutcase bandwagon. Actually i'd love to hear him speak. I might laugh internally, but it'd be interesting to see on what exactly and what 'documents' he's using to put forward his theories.

Scientists recognize the absence of 'truth' to the extent that it's been removed from the language. But it's a poor scientist indeed that cannot weigh the body of data which does exist to form postulae or, yes, conclusions that are most likely given the body of evidence.

There's only a handful of physical 'laws' for example. Everything else is a theory or a hypothesis. Still, eventually enough evidence stacks on one side to be able to make reasonable conclusions. If you can't, then you fall into the 'paralysis by analysis' camp. Science will never be able to provide experimental and replicative conclusive results to every question that can be asked of it through the scientific method.

So, eventually there's a body of knowledge sufficient to label this guys' quackery as such. He isn't citing any evidence that can be refuted. There's no peer reviewed journal data that he's presenting. He's mixing his stories in a whirling paranoid dervish of conspiracy/counter-conspiracy codswallop. I'm not going to give him the same benefit of the doubt as I would a reasoned and well-constructed statistical experiment trying to evaluate the null hypothesis, mate.

Thus, it is my reasonable conclusion that this guy is a nutjob. Nope, that's not 'truth' (as nonesuch exists), but it is the most likely explanation. You're entitled to your opinion and how you construct your world view.

Posted: **Wed Nov 16, 2011 4:59 pm**

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Thus, it is my reasonable conclusion that this guy is a nutjob. Nope, that's not 'truth' (as nonesuch exists), but it is the most likely explanation. You're entitled to your opinion and how you construct your world view.

If he's not forwarding any evidence, then i'd agree its a reasonable opinion to say he's wrong. On the specific topic i read about on his website, it said that he had uncovered a "document" which piqued my curiosity. I'm betting i know what that document is. Other than that, I only can theorize same as yourself. Either way it doesn't outrage me. The Internet if full of people saying this or that and often being nasty to one another in the process. Nothing new really......i've seen some televised debates that were little better. I do think that the anonimity and protection offered by remote debating increases the nasty factor by about 10 fold. In the end his website has not altered my thinking though it did up my amusement factor just by looking at his portrait. [:)]

Posted: **Wed Nov 16, 2011 5:04 pm**

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Thus, it is my reasonable conclusion that this guy is a nutjob. Nope, that's not 'truth' (as nonesuch exists), but it is the most likely explanation. You're entitled to your opinion and how you construct your world view.

If he's not forwarding any evidence, then i'd agree its a reasonable opinion to say he's wrong. On the specific topic i read about on his website, it said that he had uncovered a "document" which piqued my curiosity. I'm betting i know what that document is. Other than that, I only can theorize same as yourself. Either way it doesn't outrage me. The Internet if full of people saying this or that and often being nasty to one another in the process. Nothing new really......i've seen some televised debates that were little better. I do think that the anonimity and protection offered by remote debating increases the nasty factor by about 10 fold. In the end his website has not altered my thinking though it did up my amusement factor just by looking at his portrait. [:)]

I agree. I'm not angry at him for being a nutjob or for peddling his lunacy to a willing market. There's countless more where he came from. I'm not outraged, but also don't feel the need to restrict my diction, language or tone to cushion the statement. He's a nutjob doing what his variety of nutjob does: peddle non-sensical tripe to a willing (paying) audience. Hooray for him living the nutjob-American dream.

Now as to your clearly blatant bias that you've expressed by looking at his portrait, Nik. Shame, shame. His attire, looks, hair, racial or ethnic background are irrelevant, as is the fact that he's chewing on a crusifix and pointing a beautifully chromed .357 magnum at the camera. We should be beyond such superficialities, my good man. [:-] [;)]

Posted: **Wed Nov 16, 2011 5:11 pm**

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
I agree. I'm not angry at him for being a nutjob or for peddling his lunacy to a willing market. There's countless more where he came from. I'm not outraged, but also don't feel the need to restrict my diction, language or tone to cushion the statement. He's a nutjob doing what his variety of nutjob does: peddle non-sensical tripe to a willing (paying) audience. Hooray for him living the nutjob-American dream.

Ah, but i wasn't promoting restrain on opinions regarding him. I was commenting in general on people belittling other people (like fellow posters) and using the science card as an excuse to act like obnoxious pissants......not saying they shouldnt express strong opinions. You can express a strong opinion without disrespecting another poster. Thats all.

Now as to your clearly blatant bias that you've expressed by looking at his portrait, Nik. Shame, shame. His attire, looks, hair, racial or ethnic background are irrelevant, as is the fact that he's chewing on a crusifix and pointing a beautifully chromed .357 magnum at the camera. We should be beyond such superficialities, my good man. [:-] [;)]

Indeed. Then I say we vote for Johnny for Pres based on this scieeennnteeefic criteria:

Posted: **Wed Nov 16, 2011 5:17 pm**

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
I agree. I'm not angry at him for being a nutjob or for peddling his lunacy to a willing market. There's countless more where he came from. I'm not outraged, but also don't feel the need to restrict my diction, language or tone to cushion the statement. He's a nutjob doing what his variety of nutjob does: peddle non-sensical tripe to a willing (paying) audience. Hooray for him living the nutjob-American dream.

Ah, but i wasn't promoting restrain on opinions regarding him. I was commenting in general on people belittling other people (like fellow posters) and using the science card as an excuse to act like obnoxious pissants......not saying they should express strong opinions. You can express a strong opinion without disrespecting another poster. Thats all.

Gotcha. Well, provided that you don't mind my calling this guy a nutjob and everyone who comes to his defense a nutjob advocate / enabler, then we're fine. Just for the record, were you coming to his defense? [;)]

Now as to your clearly blatant bias that you've expressed by looking at his portrait, Nik. Shame, shame. His attire, looks, hair, racial or ethnic background are irrelevant, as is the fact that he's chewing on a crusifix and pointing a beautifully chromed .357 magnum at the camera. We should be beyond such superficialities, my good man. [:-] [;)]

Indeed. Then I say we vote for Johnny for Pres based on this scieeennnteeefic criteria:

No can do. According to my unscientific criteria, he's playing with 3 jokers instead of 2. All his dogs aren't barking. A sandwich shy of a picnic. Crazier 'n a ****bird.

Posted: **Wed Nov 16, 2011 5:20 pm**

I think we need to consider the possibility that he is not a nutjob and it all is just schtick to sell 21st century snake oil.

He could be a Kiwanis Club President-elect. [:D]

Posted: **Wed Nov 16, 2011 5:26 pm**

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Gotcha. Well, provided that you don't mind my calling this guy a nutjob and everyone who comes to his defense a nutjob advocate / enabler, then we're fine. Just for the record, were you coming to his defense? [;)]

naw. I was curious. after satisfying my scientific curiosity I then satisfied my urge to get my Zen on. Kind of like Phil Jackson.

No can do. According to my unscientific criteria, he's playing with 3 jokers instead of 2. All his dogs aren't barking. A sandwich shy of a picnic. Crazier 'n a ****bird.
[/quote]

Now thats just mean. You should never judge a book by it's cover. Stare into his eyes.....well the eye thats not wandering. You'll see. [:D]

(actually i thought the movie "The Fury and the Filth" was very interesting. Lydon is an interesting guy when he's not trying so hard to offend people.

Posted: **Wed Nov 16, 2011 5:31 pm**

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: Omat

Shame on me ....it is hard for me to desist from these old stuff called science. I promise to improve!
Omat

If i'm reading your sarcasm correctly, and apologies if i'm not......thats a big part of the "problem". I learned this viewpoint from my psychology 101 teacher.....a really smart guy with an imtimidatingly (and at times, infuriatingly) scientific mind. Had he desired it, he could have taken on the typical superior air of the 'research scientist' who (allegedly) bases everything on THE FACTS and looks down his nose at anyone who he feels DOES NOT.

Instead....on subjects like Aliens or religion....life after death etc.....his answer invariabley to questions regarding it was "Science can't answer this question" because as he saw it.....he broke down "science" to it's most basic element......hypothesis.....experiment.....conclusion. If the subject at hand can't be proven....or disproven cleanly by 'The Scientific Method' than the automatic answer is not a negative......nor is it a positive. The current answer is that the question cannot be accurately answered at all. One can theorize....one can believe and form personal views....but from the VIEWPOINT of science.....the question has no answer (as of yet)

I thought this was a very enlightened view. Typically whenever the whole 'religion' thing comes up, you expect a scientist to sneer and say. "There's no such thing because there's no evidence!!!!!" So his view that "This question cannot (currently) be answered by science" was a real eye opener...and he did it without a trace of conceit.

Unfortunately, his view, both in professional as well as amateur circles is more an exception. Usually one gets responses like what Omat's sounds like...."Oh!!!!! i'm sorry.....i was using SCIENCE again.........forgive me. I'll get out the Ju Ju beads and stand on my head"

Just sayin......that hiding behind the "Science" card is no excuse to be an obnoxious prig. Unless someone can provide indesputible "Scientific Evidence" of something....whether it be ALiens on the moon, God, or whether or not the established view of history may not be what we've always been taught.....they have no right to claim the mantle of truth.

As for this guy's website. Yeah, "Personally" I think his theories are way out there......but i'm not going to jump on the nutcase bandwagon. Actually i'd love to hear him speak. I might laugh internally, but it'd be interesting to see on what exactly and what 'documents' he's using to put forward his theories.

Scientists recognize the absence of 'truth' to the extent that it's been removed from the language. But it's a poor scientist indeed that cannot weigh the body of data which does exist to form postulae or, yes, conclusions that are most likely given the body of evidence.

There's only a handful of physical 'laws' for example. Everything else is a theory or a hypothesis. Still, eventually enough evidence stacks on one side to be able to make reasonable conclusions. If you can't, then you fall into the 'paralysis by analysis' camp. Science will never be able to provide experimental and replicative conclusive results to every question that can be asked of it through the scientific method.

So, eventually there's a body of knowledge sufficient to label this guys' quackery as such. He isn't citing any evidence that can be refuted. There's no peer reviewed journal data that he's presenting. He's mixing his stories in a whirling paranoid dervish of conspiracy/counter-conspiracy codswallop. I'm not going to give him the same benefit of the doubt as I would a reasoned and well-constructed statistical experiment trying to evaluate the null hypothesis, mate.

Thus, it is my reasonable conclusion that this guy is a nutjob. Nope, that's not 'truth' (as nonesuch exists), but it is the most likely explanation. You're entitled to your opinion and how you construct your world view.

+1

Science is about proof, or more accurately, about disproof or lack of disproof. Religion is about faith. One can not use scientific process to address religion, because the answer can always be "a miracle", or "the supreme being did it that way", or some such. That is not a slap at either science or religion, they simply operate in different realms. Those on either side of the argument who claim scientific proof or scientific disproof would be more useful computing pi to the last decimal point.

But this guy making the wacky claims - is he saying it's religious and things were done that way by divine intervention? If not, then his claims can be examined in light of evidence. There's an old saying that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". This man's claims go even beyond being merely extraordinary. Citing a piece of evidence, even if it is a 100% factual citation made in appropriate context, does not mean such piece of evidence supports a given conclusion. So, maybe the guy does have some evidence to cite. Maybe he could give an entertaining lecture. But unless proven otherwise, I see the guy as either A) a loon; or B) someone making up all this crap just to have fun (or maybe even profit?).

Posted: **Wed Nov 16, 2011 5:35 pm**

Loquacious loon, isn't he?  

Posted: **Wed Nov 16, 2011 5:47 pm**

ooooo.....i like that word. "Loquacious"

Besides.....the gentleman has it all wrong. As was explained recently on this forum.....all Japan really needed to do was build H8K's en mass and arm them with torpedoes. No other bomber types needed.

1000 x H8K
250 x A6M2

No surface force can win!!!!!

There's a document. somewhere. [;)]

Posted: **Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:01 pm**

You guys think you're all a bunch of experts because you play a VIDEO GAME?!?!?!?! You don't know ANYTHING! Just because your stupid awful game doesn't have a Tokyo-New York recon plane then you think it doesn't exist. Oh yeah, let's all get our historical facts from some Gary guy who just made stuff up as he went along during one of his brief ventures into sobriety!

Not one of you has ever done any original research! Why don't you look at the smoke-jumper logs from 1942 and SEE WHAT WAS HAPPENING FOR YOURSELVES !!!!

Posted: **Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:03 pm**

ORIGINAL: carnifex

You guys think you're all a bunch of experts because you play a VIDEO GAME?!?!?!?! You don't know ANYTHING! Just because your stupid awful game doesn't have a Tokyo-New York recon plane then you think it doesn't exist. Oh yeah, let's all get our historical facts from some Gary guy who just made stuff up as he went along during one of his brief ventures into sobriety!

Not one of you has ever done any original research! Why don't you look at the smoke-jumper logs from 1942 and SEE WHAT WAS HAPPENING FOR YOURSELVES !!!!

[:D][&o]

Posted: **Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:36 pm**

I went to the site just out of curiosity (yes, killed the cat!).
I see this stuff all the time from Wall Street spammers trying to sell me Zambian tin mines!
'Nuff said!

Posted: **Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:47 pm**

you know...they always say "there's a method to the madness" So far i've only looked at small part of his website but now i've taken a closer look at the whole thing.

Hmmm.....wow. You know before this thread i'd never even heard of Douglas Dietrich so if he wants to get attention and his name spread.....he's certainly succeeding. AND YOU THREAD STARTER ARE AN UNWITTING DUPE TO THIS CAMPAIGN. so there! [:'(]

JFB? I'd say he's a fan of truely expressive alternative ideas. I really want to read this one: [:)]

Posted: **Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:55 pm**

Whether or not alien signals are being received cannot be accurately answered by science (as yet), but Dish Network sure is pissed.

Posted: **Wed Nov 16, 2011 7:02 pm**

I always thought that John's inspiration for "Da Babes" was extra-terrestrial in origin.

The math just looked too good.

If you'd like to hear a full presentation of my latest theory. Please visit my website to book me for your next event.

Nikademus
Renegade WitPAE developer and historian.

www.givemeyourmoney.com

Posted: **Wed Nov 16, 2011 7:19 pm**

well shoot. no books. Only a DVD where he speaks on these topics. Do i qualify as crazy for being tempted to give him $25.00 for this entertainment? I've spent more on books that turned out to be lousy. man even has a couple of FB pages as well. More titles than you can shake a stick at.

Internationally Recognized Renegade Military Historian/Global Crisis Analyst, Author, & Motivational Speaker.

Matrix Games Forums

OT -Crazy JFB Fan Boy

RE: OT -Crazy JFB Fan Boy

RE: OT -Crazy JFB Fan Boy

RE: OT -Crazy JFB Fan Boy

RE: OT -Crazy JFB Fan Boy

RE: OT -Crazy JFB Fan Boy

RE: OT -Crazy JFB Fan Boy

RE: OT -Crazy JFB Fan Boy

RE: OT -Crazy JFB Fan Boy

RE: OT -Crazy JFB Fan Boy

RE: OT -Crazy JFB Fan Boy

RE: OT -Crazy JFB Fan Boy

RE: OT -Crazy JFB Fan Boy

RE: OT -Crazy JFB Fan Boy

RE: OT -Crazy JFB Fan Boy

RE: OT -Crazy JFB Fan Boy

RE: OT -Crazy JFB Fan Boy

RE: OT -Crazy JFB Fan Boy

RE: OT -Crazy JFB Fan Boy

RE: OT -Crazy JFB Fan Boy

RE: OT -Crazy JFB Fan Boy