Agenda 21

[Fweethawt]

Ha-ha!!! No! No! DON'T shut this down! This is gonna get good!

[florduh]

 

Ha-ha!!! No! No! DON'T shut this down! This is gonna get good! 

 

 

I wouldn't dream of it. That's just what they would want me to do.

[Vigile]

 

Dude,  I barely know who you are. 

 

You have been on this site on this screen name for less than 25 posts and you start in with the personal attacks. 

 

I have to say you get a -1/10 for troll creativity.

 

Personal? I would have said the same to anyone who has a way of automatically trotting out the predictable, zombified, packaged-thinking, rhetoric. Don't take that as a personal insult, just an indication of how you might be in danger of coming across, whether it's an accurate representation of you or not.

I am seriously not going any further down this road as I am only interested in the issues.

 

So you come on here and make a lot of wild claims, including the extraordinary claim that the CIA and Mossad have secret evidence that xians are prone to pedophilia, don't provide any extraordinary evidence to back up your claims and then argue that those who question your claims are head-in-the sand hoi polloi types. Got it.

 

What medication are you on? Might want to look into increasing the dose.

[Vigile]

 

 

it certainly wouldn't conclude that we should commit ourselves to the best-packaged, most widely distributed of belief systems

Neither should one automatically discard the accepted, conventional wisdom. Often it's right, but rarely are paranoid crackpot theories right. Usually it's those who become immersed in fringe scenarios who have been duped.

 

 

I can trump you with the following: what about the theory that what you call 'fringe' is deliberately engineered *to be* fringe, purely to make independently minded researchers vulnerable to the kind of comments you make above?

 

Those evil bastards! They've foiled us again.

[SciWalker]

So you come on here and make a lot of wild claims, including the extraordinary claim that the CIA and Mossad have secret evidence that xians are prone to pedophilia, don't provide any extraordinary evidence to back up your claims and then argue that those who question your claims are head-in-the sand hoi polloi types. Got it.

 

 

 

Misrepresentational.

[Vigile]

[Vigile]

 

So you come on here and make a lot of wild claims, including the extraordinary claim that the CIA and Mossad have secret evidence that xians are prone to pedophilia, don't provide any extraordinary evidence to back up your claims and then argue that those who question your claims are head-in-the sand hoi polloi types. Got it.

 

Misrepresentational.

 

 

Really?  Because I can't see where you've done anything but make some claims and then drop a link.  Where's the evidence?

 

I take that back, the link wasn't even yours. You just made some claims.

[Fweethawt]

 

Misrepresentational.

We might wanna listen to this guy...

 

After all, he's using words that dictionary.com doesn't even recognize.

[JamesG]

 

So you come on here and make a lot of wild claims, including the extraordinary claim that the CIA and Mossad have secret evidence that xians are prone to pedophilia, don't provide any extraordinary evidence to back up your claims and then argue that those who question your claims are head-in-the sand hoi polloi types. Got it.

 

 

 

Misrepresentational.

 

completely accurate

[JamesG]

pretty sure he is either a troll or bat-shit crazy cant quite tell yet...

[SciWalker]

 

 

So you come on here and make a lot of wild claims, including the extraordinary claim that the CIA and Mossad have secret evidence that xians are prone to pedophilia, don't provide any extraordinary evidence to back up your claims and then argue that those who question your claims are head-in-the sand hoi polloi types. Got it.

 

Misrepresentational.

 

 

Really?  Because I can't see where you've done anything but make some claims and then drop a link.  Where's the evidence?

 

 

 

 

 

If you go back and read what I said, you'll see I was being tentative in my wording and was only expressing it as a tangential point. I shan't write the obvious reply though, which makes reference to the Catholic priesthood. Take what I have said, or leave it -- it's up to you.

[Fweethawt]

 

He said "shan't"...

[Vigile]

 

 

 

So you come on here and make a lot of wild claims, including the extraordinary claim that the CIA and Mossad have secret evidence that xians are prone to pedophilia, don't provide any extraordinary evidence to back up your claims and then argue that those who question your claims are head-in-the sand hoi polloi types. Got it.

 

Misrepresentational.

 

 

Really?  Because I can't see where you've done anything but make some claims and then drop a link.  Where's the evidence?

 

 

 

 

If you go back and read what I said, you'll see I was being tentative in my wording and was only expressing it as a tangential point. I shan't write the obvious reply though, which makes reference to the Catholic priesthood. Take what I have said, or leave it -- it's up to you.

 

Ok, but you still came on here telling us that we should be gravely concerned about this particular Agenda 21 issue without providing any valid reasons why. Then when you were questioned on it you decided to frame the questioners as the problem.

 

There are a lot of problems in the world and this one may or may not be one of them, but you have to give people evidence before you can expect them to side with you. Otherwise you just come off like a paranoid case.

[Fweethawt]

Otherwise you just come off like a paranoid case.

Or a christian... I'm guessing, pro-christian / anti-catholic.

[SciWalker]

 

 

 

 

So you come on here and make a lot of wild claims, including the extraordinary claim that the CIA and Mossad have secret evidence that xians are prone to pedophilia, don't provide any extraordinary evidence to back up your claims and then argue that those who question your claims are head-in-the sand hoi polloi types. Got it.

 

Misrepresentational.

 

 

Really?  Because I can't see where you've done anything but make some claims and then drop a link.  Where's the evidence?

 

 

 

 

If you go back and read what I said, you'll see I was being tentative in my wording and was only expressing it as a tangential point. I shan't write the obvious reply though, which makes reference to the Catholic priesthood. Take what I have said, or leave it -- it's up to you.

 

Ok, but you still came on here telling us that we should be gravely concerned about this particular Agenda 21 issue without providing any valid reasons why.

 

 

One respondent has already said how at least one state has banned some aspects of Agenda 21. That in itself says something.

[SciWalker]

 

Otherwise you just come off like a paranoid case.

Or a christian... I'm guessing, pro-christian / anti-catholic.

 

 

Not by a long chalk.

[Vigile]

It does? What does it say? We seem to have very different ideas about what constitutes valid evidence.

 

I bet I can find a state that has banned whistling on Sunday if I had the urge to do a search.

[SciWalker]

It does? What does it say? We seem to have very different ideas about what constitutes valid evidence.

 

I bet I can find a state that has banned whistling on Sunday if I had the urge to do a search.

 

Whatever I put forward as evidence, I suspect you'll say it's of the wrong kind. I assumed from what you said that you wanted evidence that we should be concerned. But perhaps what you consider 'valid evidence' is actually some lab-tested, peer-reviewed, assessment of some cause-and-detrimental-effect resulting from Agenda 21. Sorry, but...

 

I can see the cycle: You will continue to ask me for evidence which, when given, then becomes a demand for *valid* evidence (or proof) and I will (if taking the bait) give you something in reply and you will say it's not peer-reviewed material but fringe, and I will (if taking the bait) say that you won't get anything in peer-reviewed literature because when academic reputations and large amounts of money are at stake this sort of thing doesn't see the light of day and you will say that this confirms my bat-shit-crazy paranoia and I will (if taking the bait) say no it just confirms that you haven't seen the full picture... and so it goes on.

I shan't, I shan't, I shan't!

[Vigile]

You like the cop out that's for sure. 2nd time you've blatantly used it in this thread alone.

 

Yeah, that sciency, logical-smogical evidence, who needs it?

[JamesG]

 

It does? What does it say? We seem to have very different ideas about what constitutes valid evidence.

 

I bet I can find a state that has banned whistling on Sunday if I had the urge to do a search.

 

Whatever I put forward as evidence, I suspect you'll say it's of the wrong kind. I assumed from what you said that you wanted evidence that we should be concerned. But perhaps what you consider 'valid evidence' is actually some lab-tested, peer-reviewed, assessment of some cause-and-detrimental-effect resulting from Agenda 21. Sorry, but...

 

I can see the cycle: You will continue to ask me for evidence which, when given, then becomes a demand for *valid* evidence (or proof) and I will (if taking the bait) give you something in reply and you will say it's not peer-reviewed material but fringe, and I will (if taking the bait) say that you won't get anything in peer-reviewed literature because when academic reputations and large amounts of money are at stake this sort of thing doesn't see the light of day and you will say that this confirms my bat-shit-crazy paranoia and I will (if taking the bait) say no it just confirms that you haven't seen the full picture... and so it goes on.

I shan't, I shan't, I shan't!

/puts tin-foil hat on and fingers in ears while screaming lalalalalalalallalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala

Tenesse banned agenda 21 because they have fundamental neo-con Christians running their state-legislature that also believe they are living in the final days o revelation. Itsnot suprising really.

[SciWalker]

 

 

It does? What does it say? We seem to have very different ideas about what constitutes valid evidence.

 

I bet I can find a state that has banned whistling on Sunday if I had the urge to do a search.

 

Whatever I put forward as evidence, I suspect you'll say it's of the wrong kind. I assumed from what you said that you wanted evidence that we should be concerned. But perhaps what you consider 'valid evidence' is actually some lab-tested, peer-reviewed, assessment of some cause-and-detrimental-effect resulting from Agenda 21. Sorry, but...

 

I can see the cycle: You will continue to ask me for evidence which, when given, then becomes a demand for *valid* evidence (or proof) and I will (if taking the bait) give you something in reply and you will say it's not peer-reviewed material but fringe, and I will (if taking the bait) say that you won't get anything in peer-reviewed literature because when academic reputations and large amounts of money are at stake this sort of thing doesn't see the light of day and you will say that this confirms my bat-shit-crazy paranoia and I will (if taking the bait) say no it just confirms that you haven't seen the full picture... and so it goes on.

I shan't, I shan't, I shan't!

/puts tin-foil hat on and fingers in ears while screaming lalalalalalalallalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala

Tenesse banned agenda 21 because they have fundamental neo-con Christians running their state-legislature that also believe they are living in the final days o revelation. Itsnot suprising really.

 

 

It surprises me because if I was living in the last days of Revelation I wouldn't waste my time fighting to institute bans on aspects of prescribed agenda on the basis that they impinge upon the local environment.

 

One more thing: what's the game on the MB, to hound out people who have a viewpoint that challenges orthodoxy? Where the f**k is your anti-xtian liberalism??

[Vigile]

There's nothing orthodox about the views of people on this site. We just have a low tolerance for bullshit and poor evidentiary standards. We had too much of that when we were in church.

[JamesG]

yeah we all have different view points and I am not skeptical of JUST religion. I am a conservative atheist  American, agenda 21 will have 0 effect on Americans if you or your country has a problem with it write your politician. But I think whats really happening is you read a book called agenda 21 and believed it you and that nut job Glenn Beck have a lot in common except what he does is entertainment.

 

also shan't doesn't make you more intelligent just make you sound like a tool.

[SciWalker]

yeah we all have different view points and I am not skeptical of JUST religion. I am a conservative atheist  American, agenda 21 will have 0 effect on Americans if you or your country has a problem with it write your politician. But I think whats really happening is you read a book called agenda 21 and believed it you and that nut job Glenn Beck have a lot in common except what he does is entertainment.

 

also shan't doesn't make you more intelligent just make you sound like a tool.

 

Sleep posting?

[JamesG]

?