Is this a load of crap?

[k-robjoe]

http://www.rense.com/general60/dhe.htm

"It sounds like the stuff of science fiction: a brain nurtured in a Petri dish learns to pilot a fighter plane as scientists develop a new breed of "living" computer. In ground-breaking experiments in a Florida laboratory, however, that is exactly what is happening."

The article is supposed to come from : http://www.telegraph.co.uk/error_page.html;sessionid=FCSZN4WXZEVPVQFIQMFSNAGAVCBQ0JVC?_requestid=90386 , but clicking here you´ll get "file not found".

[AZCat]

1. Nope. Here's a link to a Discovery Channel web site article

Brain in a Dish Flies Plane
By Jennifer Viegas, Discovery News

Oct. 22, 2004 — A University of Florida scientist has created a living "brain" of cultured rat cells that now controls an F-22 fighter jet flight simulator.

Scientists say the research could lead to tiny, brain-controlled prosthetic devices and unmanned airplanes flown by living computers.

And if scientists can decipher the ground rules of how such neural networks function, the research also may result in novel computing systems that could tackle dangerous search-and-rescue jobs and perform bomb damage assessment without endangering humans.
<snip>

I've also seen it other places, but the Discovery Channel article has basically the same info.

[elehhhhna]

2. So that's what's in GW's back-bulge.

[tk2kewl]

4. Can you say "SkyNet"?

:scared:

This is too spooky. Don't use stem cell research to cure disease. We have more important uses for it.

[tngledwebb]

3. If teenage cavemen can fly

so can other stuff.

( But they couldn't fly!)

Btw shouldn't this be in GD or the lounge?

[MercutioATC]

5. Wow! Another "caveman" devotee?

You really don't find that term offensive, inaccurate and....well....just silly?

[Abe Linkman]

6. What I find silly, is the PC version of caveman...

"caveperson" Neither that nor "cave dweller" has the same cache as "caveman".

"Personhattan" (some OCT supporters prefer it to Manhattan, but I don't)

[MercutioATC]

7. Agreed, "caveman" is the classic form.

...it's still offensive, misrepresentative and silly, though.

[tngledwebb]

8. Silly. Yes, perhaps so. Inaccurate and offensive...not really.

You see, when I get my hands on the evildoers they'll long for the day when the worst they could expect was to be labelled 'teenage cavemen' in the DU archives. Don't you feel the same?

[Abe Linkman]

9. Yes. Those evildoer cavemen do hate us for our freedoms

Or, if you prefer: "evildoer caveteens".

[MercutioATC]

11. Our opinions differ. (I'm shocked!)

We usually see everything so similarly...

:eyes:

[Abe Linkman]

10. Musnt' offend the evildoers. That's what you're saying.

Certainly don't want to offend one of the CIA's most useful assets: OBL,
do we?

[MercutioATC]

12. Not at all. I just think it makes the poster look juvenile.

[tngledwebb]

13. Why is that?

Wasn't it you and that nice Mr. Woodrow- 'would like to see a fellow DU'er hit in the head with a sledgehammer'-Fan who first spun the ironic usage of the 'caveman' term into some BS issue of political correctness? That wasn't juvenile? Please, my sides are hurtin'.

[MercutioATC]

14. You're mistakenly attributing quotes to me.

I didn't make that statement.

Here are my thoughts:

1) "Caveman" implies a lack of sophistication. Organizing a global terrorist network (while hiding in a cave or not) doesn't fit this image. The label is misleading and trivializes the competence of the terrorists.

2) Some find the practice of calling terrorists of Middle Eastern descent "caveman" akin to other slurs that stereotype racial groups...poor African-Americans or illegan Mexican immigrants, for example.

It's a cutesy name that really isn't accurate and some find it offensive, which is why I think that posters who choose to use it sound childish.

That's my opinion. I understand yours differs.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Abe Linkman]

17. "Evildoers" -- "Cavemen" -- "Conspiracy Theorists" --"Crappola"

Immature, childish, pejorative?
It all depends on whose ox is being gored, doesn't it?

[MercutioATC]

19. Not in my view.

"Evildoers" is a silly Bushism.

"Cavemen" is a silly Linkmanism.

"Conspiracy Theorists" is an accurate label for those who have a THEORY that a CONSPIRACY was perpetrated.

The difference is that "CTists" is an accurate term. It's not perjorative, it's descriptive (and accurate).

(conversely "OCTists" is also an accurate descriptive term...it just sounds a little hokey to me)

[Abe Linkman]

20. Cavepeople/Caveman/Cavemen samey same. Any will do, and ALL...

are based on descriptions by the very people whose 9/11 fairy tale you support (sort of, partly, in whole or in pieces, depending on what works at the moment).

[MercutioATC]

22. Was that supposed to make sense?

I agree. "Cavepeople/Caveman/Cavemen" are all the same.

...and none of them accurately represent terrorists.

[Abe Linkman]

23. Right. The cavepeople bushco points to are CIA assets, not terrorists...

so, you tell me, why does he and his crowd (and followers and supporters) try to sell the public on such a lie? Do YOU know why?

[MercutioATC]

24. I see. Anybody ever trained by the CIA is a "CIA asset"?

The organization that OBL was associated with recieved money and training from the CIA in the 80's to fight against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. That means that he's still a "CIA asset"?

Hmm...that makes Saddam Hussein a "CIA asset" too, doesn't it?

[tngledwebb]

25. Yep, you got it, SH was an asset

more or less, till the cost-benefit analysis said otherwise.

[MercutioATC]

26. I'm not denying that he was an "asset" at one time.

However, he ceased being one when he didn't listen to us any more.

Much in the same way, I feel it's accurate to say that OBL was once an "asset", but it's ridiculous to say that he's still doing the CIA's bidding.

[tngledwebb]

27. Questions are: if, or when, or why, did the asset status change?

Before or after 9/11? What do you think? And did Corpse media broach the issue in the past 4 years, or did the official investigations touch it with a 18 foot pole?

[MercutioATC]

28. I'd say the "asset" status ended when he started blowing our stuff up.

9/11 was not his first act against the U.S. I think he was WAY beyond "asset" status by 9/11.

Broach which issue specifically? I had no trouble getting info on U.S. support for OBL in the 80's. Did the mainstream media run big stories? I don't recall seeing any...but, then again, I don't recall them showing many pictures of Rumsfeld and Saddam Hussein shaking hands either.

[Abe Linkman]

29. I'd say your claim MIGHT have merit if you had any evidence for it

Someone must have told you that he is no longer an asset. Mind telling us? Did it end the day after our Presidential election last month? The day the latest alleged videotape message was released during the campaign?

Claims made without substantiation are worthless.

[MercutioATC]

30. Abe, YOU'RE making substantiation an issue????

:eyes:

Give me some evidence that OBL is actually still a CIA "asset" (or was on 9/11).

[Abe Linkman]

31. ATC - YOU implied a relationship between OBL & the CIA. What's YOUR

evidence for that? You also said that you "believed" that relationship ended when "he attacked U.S. targets". That's funny. As you well know, Osama was visited by his CIA friends LONG after that. The CIA knew where he was on 9/10/2001, too.

In light of the above, what is the basis for your claims that OBL's relationship with the CIA has ended?

In your "charming", egotistical phrasing; Give ME some evidence that OBL is no longer associated with the CIA, and the (approximate) date when that relationship was severed, along with whatever evidence you are basing your claims on with regard to THAT and also as to WHEN the CIA severed its relationship with OBL.

Fact-free claims, insincere sincerity, and phony arguments are beneath you. Leave them to disinfo agents, cavepeople, and OCT sales reps.

I'll take you at your word (wink) about the ATC stuff. Stick with that will you? Or, at least come up with a way to alert us that you're about to make a statement based on credible, specific evidence, not propaganda
talking points.

[MercutioATC]

32. Are you disagreeing with me about a CIA/OBL relationship or not?

First, you want me to prove a relationship ("YOU implied a relationship between OBL & the CIA. What's YOUR evidence for that?").

Then, you tell me "As you well know, Osama was visited by his CIA friends...".

Can we agree that we both believe that OBL and the CIA had some type of relationship dating back to the 80's, the "evidence" being the U.S.'s semi-covert support of the Mujhadeen in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union?

Let's take this one step at a time...

[Abe Linkman]

33. OBL's relationship w/CIA was UNbroken right up to the 9/11 conspiracy

Just because someone's agenda (NOT you, of course. I know that YOUR sole interest is in being helpful) requires them to try & undermine the credibility of a respected (CONSERVATIVE) newspaper whenever they reported that OBL had been visited by the local CIA Station Chief in July, 2001...a time in which the newspaper would have NO reason to lie
about merely reporting that a well-known figure in the M.E. was visited in the hospital by a representative of the U.S. Gov't...just because there are some people whose agenda requires them to try to get us to not believe that news account which came out two months before 9/11 - is no reason for YOU to imply that it's untrue.

And, again on September 10th, it was widely reported that OBL was in a military hospital in Rawalpindi, Pakistan and received visitors while there. The fact that the U.S. HAD to have known about that (and may have even sent Osama's CIA contact to visit him while he was there) is more evidence that OBL was still very much a CIA asset.

Osama's recent, well-timed "elect boosh" videotape is the latest evidence of his on-going relationship with the CIA.

You may choose to not believe the above described news accounts, but unless and until you can prove they are inaccurate, fair play requires you to provide proof if you contend that they're untrue. After all, why should anyone believe an anonymous poster on the internet, but not news reports in mainstream media.

[MercutioATC]

34. We'll never see eye to eye on this issue.

Do I have PROOF that the LeMonde article is untrue? No.

By the same token, you have no PROOF that the hundreds of articles stating that the CIA was trying to apprehend OBL are untrue, either.

[Abe Linkman]

35. But, facts are facts, ATC. You can ignore them, but they're still facts.

You said you can't disprove LeMonde's article about OBL & the CIA visit to him in JULY, 2001.

You ignored the mainstream media reports about OBL and his whereabouts on 9/10/2001.

You ignored the recent "elect boosh" OBL tape..released conveniently in time for the recent U.S. elections.

You DID try to change the subject from whether or not OBL was and still is a CIA asset. But, you end up looking even more foolish because obviously the CIA had opportunities to apprehend OBL right up until the
perps carried out their 9/11 attacks.

You have no "eye" to SEE on these issues, mainly because the facts and the truth are not on your side. And, I can't feel sorry for you, but you surely know why I can't tell you here. Woudn't be prudent.

[MercutioATC]

36. No, they're stories.

The LeMonde article is a story. It MIGHT be true - it might not. The same holds true for any piece of journalism.

You've chosen to believe that our government engineered the events of 9/11, possibly using OBL as an "asset".

I believe that our government had information prior to 9/11 that they could have used to stop it, but they chose not to (due to incompetence, not a LIHOP scenario). Nothing I've seen has proven to me that this isn't the case.

I've never tried to "change the subject". You just don't agree with the answers I've given you. I've tried to make the discussion clearer by handling the issues one at a time...something you've resisted.

The offer still stands. Any time you want to have a civil exchange and take turns answering questions one-for-one, I'm willing.

[Abe Linkman]

37. Yes, mine are facts from mainstream media. Yours are propaganda points.

Wouldn't it be better if you could respond to facts with something other than propaganda points? Don't you wish the facts and the truth were on your side? Since they aren't, and since no amount of spinning will impress anyone HERE except naive readers, why don't you just stop the masquerade and start dealing with reality?

You have failed utterly to even attempt to refute or rebut the factual evidence that OBL was and still is a CIA asset. That must be really disappointing. For the right money, I could come up with a better story line for you than what you've shown so far.

Wouldn't it be better (and less embarassing, too) to just stick with the original idea of only posting about ATC things you know something about?
Wouldn't that be better than trying to argue against facts by simply dismissing them as "claims"...EVEN when they are from respected CONSERVATIVE media outlets?

Your knowledge about 9/11 events and your capacity for understanding them and using logic to draw conclusions seems oddly and strangely stuck back where you (or at least your handle) were two years ago.

[RH]

38. And you are of course aware that

the Le Monde (not LaMonde) "fact" was derived from eye witness testimony.

Correct?

.... just wondering what would account for your preference for that against for instance the mainstream media eye witness testimony from the Pentagon on 9/11.

[Abe Linkman]

39. And YOU are aware of what Nico had to say about your points.

Who could disagree with such an on-target observation? You certainly
don't, do you?

[RH]

40. Huh?

:shrug:

[RH]

41. I have no idea

of what your riddle is about.


Is it supposed to be some sort of veiled personal attack?

:eyes:

That would be par for the course wouldn't it, the old ad hominem blame the messenger stand by?

[k-robjoe]

18. Am I psychic?

In choosing the title for this thread I mean.
Is this a load of crap?
Oh yes!

[RH]

21. You reap what you sow.

Or was "Is this a load of crap?" supposed to induce a serious attitude?