What did Edgar Rice Burroughs know?

[Hazzard]

Um

You not understanding what I am saying does not mean I am making it up.

Sharp as a bowling ball aren't you.

If you are ever struggling with the information I have offered, just ask, I shall endeavour to assist your understanding.

What would be the point,... when a mind favor the cool fantasy instead of rational mundane explanations there is not much you can do.

[quillius]

My impression (obviously entirely seen from my particular perspective) was that "Slave2Fate" began posting just as I was being ganged up on by two other (normally not all that unreasonable) posters over my view that usually one should dismiss conspiracy theories and arrogant scientist theories out-of-hand -- that the authorities are generally more expert than we are and what they say can be accepted at face value, with occasional exceptions. He sort-of came to my rescue just in time as I had to go to bed (my time zone is very different from most here).

I still hold that view; we have to accept authority if we are to function efficiently. We can't do it all. Indeed, we can personally be expert in very few things.

dont take it so personally Frank. My impression is that this thread is in quite good jest and allows for some friendly banter and sparring..........I dont think anyone 'ganged' up on you at all......go look at the earlier Best Evidence threads and have a look at Skyeagle....then you will see real 'ganging up' or what about Zoser on the Rock thread? him versus 10 at any one time. I am not implying that he was correct or incorrect just that the thread 'tone' was aggressive and seemed to be in a 'ganging up' style.

edit to bold: woops I thought this was the ODD thread over in the conspiracies section

Edited April 18, 2013 by quillius

[Frank Merton]

It's hard to not take things personally when one is accused of dishonesty.

[psyche101]

of course I do, that doesnt mean that should someone claim to be an expert or if the Government says something....that I should instantly believe it, why should I?

Because the "truth" can be tracked down.

hasnt it been proven that many 'experts' are not that at all and many things that the Government has said has been loaded with 'other' agendas?

that is a multi faceted question.

[Space Commander Travis]

I think otherwise; the Romans dealt with the Barbarians quite well for many centuries until Christianity came to dominate. Then within a generation it was all over.

The coming of Islam (and especially its conquest of Egypt and Antioch) finished the job because it cut Europe off from critical imports and learning centers.

you don't think that it's a natural process that nothing can remain for ever, and everything gradually declines and crumbles into dust, and that was bound to happen to the Roman empire eventually, whatever the dominant belief system may have been? I mean, however mighty it may have been militarily, the Roman empire was not always noted for the culture and values of civlisation it upheld, was it? All those Gladiators being torn apart by bears in the arena, their charming favoured method of making an example of those who were a danger to the State (crucifixion), the fact that the whole Empire was built on hundreds and thousands of slaves, the fact that a good proportion of their Emperors were psychopaths ... The Romans may have dealt with Barbarian incursions, but perhaps that was because they were pretty barbaric themselves. Perhaps if Christianity did hasten the decline, it was because it softened some of the more barbaric aspects.

[Space Commander Travis]

dont take it so personally Frank. My impression is that this thread is in quite good jest and allows for some friendly banter and sparring..........I dont think anyone 'ganged' up on you at all......go look at the earlier Best Evidence threads and have a look at Skyeagle....then you will see real 'ganging up' or what about Zoser on the Rock thread? him versus 10 at any one time. I am not implying that he was correct or incorrect just that the thread 'tone' was aggressive and seemed to be in a 'ganging up' style.

I really don't think it was. he was clearly enjoying himself immensely.

[quillius]

Because the "truth" can be tracked down.

ok that still doesnt mean we should take it at face value...if we did we would never need to 'track' things down? that action would only be processed if we didnt accept all that is said at face value

that is a multi faceted question.

indeed

[Frank Merton]

Christianity effectively brought an end to slavery in its classical form, almost completely unnoticed, with no Papal Bulls or even any explicit banns. It just simply disappears (eventually of course replaced by serfdom, a very different thing, and much later by racist slavery, so it can't be said that Christianity per se is the reason). This was a major disruption in the economy and lead to the ending of large holdings and grater localization of production and the breakdown of trade.

Christianity also carried a to a distinctly anti-intellectual tone, closing the academy and libraries and so on. This was accompanied by a general loss of literacy and many technologies. There was also the massive movement to monasteries, bringing about a reduction in both the labor force and the pool of young men available for recruit into the army.

[quillius]

I really don't think it was. he was clearly enjoying himself immensely.

? do you mean Zoser? he may well have done.....everyone gets off on different things, that doesnt mean he wasnt ganged up on IMO, whether he brought it on himself or even enjoyed it is a seperate issue, I was merely pointing out the actions that were taking place.

[psyche101]

ok that still doesnt mean we should take it at face value...if we did we would never need to 'track' things down? that action would only be processed if we didnt accept all that is said at face value

That des not mean said information is incorrect though, I think the blame for this mindset lies with McDonald.

indeed

No way to answer that question in its current format. Too many answers exist.

[Frank Merton]

On the broader philosophical question of whether or not it is possible for human beings to so arrange their affairs that a given society and persist indefinitely, I see no particular reason to say it is impossible, although of course in the past exogenous events such as volcanoes and droughts and foreign invasions have made the experiment impossible to carry out.

The present world family of nations is working on such a project now, although of course the extremists consistently attack such efforts. Sustainability of the economy and resource use and stability of the population are essential, and wonderful progress toward both can be seen.

[psyche101]

? do you mean Zoser? he may well have done.....everyone gets off on different things, that doesnt mean he wasnt ganged up on IMO, whether he brought it on himself or even enjoyed it is a seperate issue, I was merely pointing out the actions that were taking place.

I think he just tried to get too many people to agree with him, but did not take into account that he stood alone.

[quillius]

That des not mean said information is incorrect though, I think the blame for this mindset lies with McDonald.

indeed it doesnt mean its correct, my point was that all should be questioned. If we use this model for Lazar then we would have to accept a -he is an expert and b - what he claims....and I think neither is good.

No way to answer that question in its current format. Too many answers exist.

I guess you are too old in the tooth to walk into those ones

[quillius]

I think he just tried to get too many people to agree with him, but did not take into account that he stood alone.

I think you will be surprised Psyche in that he didnt stand alone....I am sure there were a number of thread followers that agreed with him, they were the silent voices....did the actions of the 'ganging up' help keep them in silence? quite possible me thinks

[Space Commander Travis]

Christianity effectively brought an end to slavery in its classical form, almost completely unnoticed, with no Papal Bulls or even any explicit banns. It just simply disappears (eventually of course replaced by serfdom, a very different thing, and much later by racist slavery, so it can't be said that Christianity per se is the reason). This was a major disruption in the economy and lead to the ending of large holdings and grater localization of production and the breakdown of trade.

Christianity also carried a to a distinctly anti-intellectual tone, closing the academy and libraries and so on. This was accompanied by a general loss of literacy and many technologies. There was also the massive movement to monasteries, bringing about a reduction in both the labor force and the pool of young men available for recruit into the army.

i think ti was the Barbarians that were responsible for that, Christianity (and Islam, as has been observed above) were about the only things that kept knowledge, and certainly literacy, going after the Barbarian Onslaught. It was the monasteries that kept these things alive, they weren't reponsible for the decline in civilisation. Do you think the great mass of the people were literate before Religion came to dominate?

[Frank Merton]

It's interesting that nowadays Christians never admit their role in the fall of Empires. At the time St. Augustine gloried in it.

[bee]

I got accused of participating in a "less-than-honest" but "effective" debating practice called "misrepresentation." When I challenged this, there was no answer, so I still don't know what this is, although it looks like everyone else is now being accused of the same thing.

It is to do with the Strawman logical fallacy.....misrepresenting a person or a person's 'argument'....then using the misrepresentation

to aid your own 'argument'....something along those lines anyway...

http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Straw_Man

.

[bee]

All the more stupid claims have been blasted away, the woo woo crowd then uses this information for their next attack on logic. I wish we could isolate and eradicate the woo woo gene. It severs no purpose other than blocking further development in every area.

http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Straw_Man

The most prevalent use of strawmen argumentation today involves sweeping generalizations and labeling people as being part of pre-demonized ethnic, cultural or social groups: liberals, illegal immigrants, "Socialists", blacks, Jews, etc.

'woo woo crowd'....is another example of the above....

.

[bee]

brilliant. I love some of these connections you find Bee, whether there is anything to it or not is besides the point, the fact remains that should there ever be anything conspiratory in any of these claims then I am sure if they leave the slightest breadcrumb out there..you will find it

lol...cheers quill...I do enjoy a bit of research and detective work when a subject grabs my attention...

.

[Frank Merton]

I know what a straw man is; you never showed me where I did that.

Accusing people in general terms of committing logical fallacies without being specific is a nice little tactic too if you want to avoid the real issue, since it diverts the discussion to whether or not the logical fallacy was real or not. I accuse you of doing just this here.

[bee]

.

I remembered the name of the report I couldn't think of last night......the Brookings Report

http://en.wikipedia....rookings_Report

While not specifically recommending a cover-up of evidence of extraterrestrial life, Proposed Studies on the Implications of Peaceful Space Activities for Human Affairs does suggest that contact with intelligent extraterrestrial life (or strong evidence of its reality) could have a disruptive effect on human societies. Moreover, it does mention the possibility that leadership might wish to withhold evidence of extraterrestrial life from the public under some conditions

I stumbled on this old 1952 movie....and although it is dated, hilarious and over-dramatic a lot of the time...it perhaps illustrates

some concerns of the Brookings Report...???

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnYlEijFe6o&list=PL55B28EDDCA186EE4[/media]

When all we had was telly, radio, films, magazines and books...it was easier to control information but the Internet is a whole new ball game....

And that's why things get a bit frantic and confrontational on forums such as this one...IMO.

[bee]

I know what a straw man is; you never showed me where I did that.

Accusing people in general terms of committing logical fallacies without being specific is a nice little tactic too if you want to avoid the real issue, since it diverts the discussion to whether or not the logical fallacy was real or not. I accuse you of doing just this here.

ok....

talking about talking always reaches this kind of impasse....

edit....an example would be your post about the doctor...implying that because I question or speculate about some things then I don't believe

anything that is presented by those in authority...which was misrepresenting me and what I have said on this thread...

.

Edited April 18, 2013 by bee

[Frank Merton]

Well I wouldn't call that a straw man, and I have no recollection. We all question authority sometimes, and accept it other times; the impression I was getting from you is that you just wanted to assert that authorities should always be questioned, and I thought that absurd. Now you seem to be saying the same thing.

[quillius]

so Frank, do you think that the Government covered up UFO's?

[Frank Merton]

Well I see the two are back. Don't ask stupid questions just so you can have some sort of battle; I'm not interested.