addressalign-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcameraccwchatcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-crosscrosseditemptyheartfacebookfolderfullheartglobegmailgoogleimagesinstagramlinklocation-pinmagnifying-glassmailminusmoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1outlookpersonplusprice-ribbonImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartrashtriangle-downtriangle-uptwitteruseryahoo

Re: [humanism-174] regarding TC3

From: Mark R. O.
Sent on: Sunday, April 7, 2013 11:57 AM
Welcome to the Group, Tom. 

M. Orel

On[masked]:07, TC3 wrote:
It seems obvious that everything any of us could ever say is opinionated. There is literally no way any of us can prove anything about this topic.
It's an exercise in futility, and futility is getting stronger, as a result, of the exercise .  .  .  .

(crickets chirping in the distance)

I'll be here all week folks. Tip your waitresses.

Are any of you scientifically literate in the field of the spheres surrounding Earth? ie atmosphere troposphere mesosphere thermosphere ect

I heard something interesting about the eleven year cycle of solar activity to inactivity. They're saying the effect on the Ionosphere, or more specifically, the creation of the ionosphere as a result of the suns activity, has changed. The sun is no longer producing an ionosphere as in the past.
I want to know if they're saying the ionosphere cycles with the sun or is different now than ever before?

The articles I've read say have said it redundantly. "The solar activity ionizes the ionosphere." Does that mean it becomes an ionosphere once ionized? What sort of sphere is it when it's not ionized?
Can one get water wet?

Either way, the science is saying it is weak compared to the past. Does this effect communication?
We all have access to the same Google but I figure there's more resources in the community. If anyone needs to learn how to research it's me.
Just don't let me turn out like Tim, ok.


On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 3:22 AM, Mark R. Orel <[address removed]> wrote:

Other than: To think of all conspiracies as irrational,
is irrational and dangerous.  and that our government
acts as a closed door system.  Beyond that I've made
no claims. 

Mr. Campbell said that I "do not trust any of the data that
has been made available".  I've seen the conclusions, but
I've not seen the data.  And Mr. Campbell refuses to elaborate
on what this data is. 

He then goes on to say that "I (Mr. Campbell) accept CONDITIONALLY,
the conclusions of the N.I.S.T. regarding the attack on and the collapse
of the WTC..."  and he give two reasons.  The problem here is a
sense of dissonance.   If he does accept the conclusions conditionally,
regardless of the reasons, and he admits that he is not qualified
to demand more data from the N.I.S.T. or any other investigative
agency.  Then why does he insist that anyone who asks questions,
qualified or not, is irrational, a loon, crazy, balderdash, conspiracy
whackos, whackos, nuts, pissant malcontents &c? He began this
attack from the start and continued throughout this conversation.

If he accepts the report conditionally, then I would think, at the very
least this implies an openness to discuss the matter.  But his
statements are more in line with someone who accept the N.I.S.T.
reports unconditionally.  

All of his comments have been emotional with anyone he disagrees. 
In addition he intuited statements I never made or intended to make.
All of this shows a very real cognitive bias. 

M. Orel

On[masked]:27, Randy Pelton wrote:

Please clarify exactly on what basis it is that Tim is the claimant in this exchange. What claim(s) has he made that places the burden of proof on him? Are you asserting that you have made no claims in this exchange?


From: Mark R. Orel <[address removed]>
To: [address removed]
Sent: Saturday, April 6,[masked]:23 AM
Subject: Re: [humanism-174] regarding TC3

Mr. Campbell: 

I agree, the proof is on the claimant.  I am not the claimant, you are. 
In this case you are the typical fundaloon [sic].  You offer an opinion,
supply no evidence and claim it as fact.   I've demonstrated how your
convoluted  your thinking is.  You've admitted to being out of your
depth.    And you intuited statements I never made, showing an
intense cognitive bias. 

Your accusations are correct, it just that they all apply to you. 

M. Orel

On[masked]:15, Tim Campbell wrote:
The burden of proof is on the claimant. Orel sounds like the typical fundaloon. No evidence, no logic, no sense, and way out of his depth.

-----Original Message-----
From: [address removed]
To: humanism-174
Sent: Thu, Apr 4, [masked]:27 pm
Subject: Re: [humanism-174] regarding TC3

Mr. Campbell: 

Campaign, an operation energetically pursued to
accomplished a purpose. 

I felt and feel that TC3 should be removed from the group.  It is my right to think so and to
propose that action

So, yes you did mount a campaign.  It just didn't go as
far as you hoped. 

As for not commenting on things that I do not agree with or on comments I do not like, once again,
none of your damned business.  I will comment when I like and about whatever interests me enough
to comment.  The only limit on me is the constraints of 25 posts per day.  Other than that, I will do
whatever I please and whatever pleases me.  Should my comments offend the group or roll into the
absurd and insane, then anyone can complain and Mark and Marni have the right to chastise me or
toss me.  You have the same right as I do.  Comment away, whine away, or keep your opinions to
yourself--all up to you!  But if you make an absurd comment, expect to be called on it.  Whether by
me or by Randy or by anyone else here. 

Now Here we have good example of pretzel logic.   At first you say it's "none of
my damned business"  Then you whine for a bit and admit to being a hedonist. 
And then you say it's okay for me to comment.  

You and TC3 offered separate scenarios to explain the collapse of the WTC towers that I
(and most everyone else in the group, btw) found absurd. You admittedly offered no evidence
for implausible explanations 

You have a keen ability to see the irrelevant and ignore the salient. 
And you offered no evidence either.  Had you read the words I wrote
you might have understood that was in fact my point.  You gave me
your opinion, you shared no evidence. 

I like the 'Valley Girl' impression, or maybe that's the real you...

M. Orel

Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Mark R. Orel ([address removed]) from The Cleveland Freethinkers.
To learn more about Mark R. Orel, visit his/her member profile
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]

Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by TC3 ([address removed]) from The Cleveland Freethinkers.
To learn more about TC3, visit his/her member profile
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]

Our Sponsors

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy