Ya think, daggett?

>>I think a reasonable person would understand that there is a big difference between on the one hand not knowing all the answers and on the other hand "not having a clue".<<

But you don't even have any answers either. So "without a clue" stands, I'm afraid.

The rest of your post is a direct copy/paste of one you posted on another thread

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10034#169311

So if it's all right with you, I'll simply copy/paste my reply.

"Which part of "it ain't lost, daggett", did you fail to comprehend?

No amount of flummery will get you past that simple fact.

Nor will sending the poor long-suffering addicts of this thread on a wild goose chase through your previous posts.

You have the entire transcript of Rumsfeld's speech available to you, but you insist on sending people to a YouTube video instead. That alone should indicate to you the weakness of your case.

Here it is. That speech. Again.

http://www.defense.gov/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=430

Read it all.

Then encourage everyone else to read it too - after all, there's nothing like the original, when it comes to forming an opinion about what someone said nine years ago."

I'm pretty sure I've seen this one before too.

>>I note that Pericles has still failed to explain to us how he knows for a fact that all the stories reported in http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/829.html were untrue<<

Ah yes - in your last-but-one post on this thread.

So I'll just copy/paste my response to that, too.

"Not 'learned', daggett.

'Came to a conclusion based on the clear balance of probabilities' is a more accurate description."

Anyway, couldn't you just pick one thread, rather than repeat yourself on two? It could get very tedious.

Pericles wrote, "But you don't even have any answers either."

Yes I have and a lot, lot more than you have.

As I wrote, if you weren't paying attention before, when I answered those questions then that's too bad.

Pericles continued, "So 'without a clue' stands, I'm afraid."

Of course Pericles is entitled to express an opinion and (unfortunately) entitled to restate that opinion over and over and again, but as I said, I don't believe that reasonable people will share that expressed opinion.

Once again, I think they will agree with me that "there is a big difference between on the one hand not knowing all the answers and on the other hand 'not having a clue'."

---

I could attempt to respond to the remaining claptrap in Pericles' post, but I believe I already have responded many times before to any of the arguments there that actually warrant a response.

I would be happy to help anyone should they need to find where.

In the abstract, of course you are right daggett.

>>Once again, I think they will agree with me that "there is a big difference between on the one hand not knowing all the answers and on the other hand 'not having a clue'."<<

But when you apply it to a specific case, such as your having no answers at all to the key questions addressed to your conspiracy theory (like, who, and how), any difference disappears like morning mist.

>>I could attempt to respond to the remaining claptrap in Pericles' post, but I believe I already have responded many times before to any of the arguments there that actually warrant a response.<<

What you believe, daggett, and what constitutes reality, are two diametrically opposed concepts. As I think you have proved many times over, and continue to prove with each "new" post.

I use quotes for "new", because none of your ideas is actually new. Just borrowed, for purposes that remain obscure.

>>I would be happy to help anyone should they need to find where.<<

I doubt that you will be bowled over in the rush to take up this offer. Constant repetition of the same droning noise tends to be soporific, so it is unlikely there's anyone out there still awake.

But there may be some mischievous souls who would consider it a fun exercise, to have you chase your tail trying to find some appropriate references.

We'll see.

Pericles attempts to 'win' the argument by repeating a lie:

"But when you apply it to a specific case, such as your having no answers at all ..."

As I wrote, I have answered most of those questions that he claims I have not, which is a lot, lot more than he has done.

I don't intend to put myself again through the trouble of providing answers that Pericles knows perfectly well are already in this forum.

I believe anyone who reads Pericles' repeated claims that I have not answered any of his questions and then takes the trouble to go read this discussion for themselves (unfortunately massively bloated on account of Pericles' persistent and disruptive attempts at obfuscation) will know that he is time-wasting liar.

I have absolutely no wish to "win" anything, daggett.

>>Pericles attempts to 'win' the argument by repeating a lie:<<

You have your opinion, I have mine.

On the question of the actions on 9/11 being the culmination of a conspiracy by person or persons unknown to murder their fellow-citizens for no discernible reason, you and I will inevitably differ.

It is certainly my strong opinion that your ability to articulate your version of events is significantly hobbled by a lack of evidence, rationale and logic.

But it is only my opinion. You have the same ability as I to put your case, and you should take the responsibility for doing precisely that. If you don't, it's no-one's fault but your own.

>>As I wrote, I have answered most of those questions that he claims I have not, which is a lot, lot more than he has done.<<

Sorry, as far as I can tell you have answered none, let alone "most". The disconnect is likely to be that what you consider to be "answers" are merely fodder for new questions. So my contribution to the debate has been predominantly to ask those questions.

>>I don't intend to put myself again through the trouble of providing answers that Pericles knows perfectly well are already in this forum.<<

Fair enough. But don't expect that to change my view.

>>I believe anyone who reads Pericles' repeated claims that I have not answered any of his questions and then takes the trouble to go read this discussion for themselves (unfortunately massively bloated on account of Pericles' persistent and disruptive attempts at obfuscation) will know that he is time-wasting liar.<<

Of course you do. It's your default position.

But it's hardly convincing, is it.

Here is something that a poster pointed to on another thread.

I read it and it echoes so well some of the back and forth here about conspiracy theories.

Bonus: I didn't know that we had our own home grown conspiracy on this topic. Martin Bryant is an innocent who has been gaoled to hide a conspiracy to take guns off Australians (or summin)!

Note especially the language - such as the use of the word "swiveled".

http://www.whale.to/b/viallspam.html

http://members.iimetro.com.au/~hubbca/port_arthur.htm

Just a thought. Daggett if you are an expert on this one perhaps you can set me straight on this question that has arisen for me:

If someone was there to witness him "swiveling" and "shooting from the hip" and report that; I imagine the same witness would be able to identify the shooter as Martin Bryant.

It's great reading in a quirky sorta way.