Better than counting stickies

[whatchamacallit]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4519654

[Make7]

1. So, 83 recommendations and 81 replies represents what percentage of the tens of thousands of DUers?

A majority?
 

[spooked911]

27. 133 recs now

ironically enough

[SDuderstadt]

32. And how many user registrations has DU...

achieved now?

[spooked911]

58. actually, the proper question is how many DUers have seen that post?

I bet it's a small fraction of the total.

[SDuderstadt]

59. No shit, dude...

which means it is garnering very little attention...duh.

[DrSteveB]

61. How many stickies per registration are there here?

?

[DrSteveB]

60. tens of thousands did not read that thread

We can only go by the percentage of views in relation to the rec's. And the fact that someone doesn't rec. a thread doesn't necessarily mean that person doesn't agree with the original post. Some people are just lazy and do not want to rec.

[Make7]

62. I think you are actually making my point for me.

If the vast majority of DU members never even look at a thread, how can it possibly be indicative of the viewpoint of the majority of DU members? A small, self-selected group of members that are interested enough to read, comment and/or recommend a thread cannot be construed as anything close to a useful statistical sample.
 

[SDuderstadt]

63. You might as well count stickies...

I KNEW the parody would go over the "truthers" heads.

[greyl]

2. Please post the evidence our comrade was depending on

for the statement that the Wikileaks documents(released by someone who says "9/11 conspiracies annoy him", btw) "effectively proved he(bin laden) was a CIA agent".

On Julian Assange:

"I believe in facts about conspiracies," he says, choosing his words slowly. "Any time people with power plan in secret, they are conducting a conspiracy. So there are conspiracies everywhere. There are also crazed conspiracy theories. It's important not to confuse these two. Generally, when there's enough facts about a conspiracy we simply call this news." What about 9/11? "I'm constantly annoyed that people are distracted by false conspiracies such as 9/11, when all around we provide evidence of real conspiracies, for war or mass financial fraud."

www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/lifestyle/features/wanted-by-the-cia-wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-14880073.html

You might also try to explain why you don't think Fidel Castro is a deep-cover CIA agent.

[BeFree]

3. What he is saying is...

...that the false bushco OCT about 9/11 should not be believed because of all the other evidence of bushco's faults and their other well known conspiracies for war and financial fraud.

[SDuderstadt]

4. And, what we're saying is...

produce some hard evidence of your goofy bullshit and quit pretending information about 9/11 is provided solely by "Bushco".

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

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

[SDuderstadt]

6. Thanks for the drive-by, dude...

when you have evidence that we're "spitting on the victims" because we reject your goofy bullshit, let us know.

[greyl]

7. To save me some hassle, please just reread post #2 and post the evidence.

Changing the subject is not a persuasive response.

[SDuderstadt]

8. "Changing the subject" is what BeFree does...

precisely because he has zero evidence for his goofy bullshit claims. You should know that by now.

[BeFree]

9. The subject is

the false bushco OCT about 9/11 should not be believed because of all the other evidence of bushco's faults and their other well known conspiracies for war and financial fraud.

[SDuderstadt]

10. No, it's not, dude...

that's what you're trying to change it to rather than answer greyl's question.

Instead of getting a straight answer, we're getting the usual BeFree two step, which is why you have zero credibiity here, dude.

[BeFree]

11. Yes it is

the false bushco OCT about 9/11 should not be believed because of all the other evidence of bushco's faults and their other well known conspiracies for war and financial fraud.

[SDuderstadt]

12. So, you can't or won't answer Greyl's query....

wouldn't it be easier to admit it rather than to tap-dance all about?

This is why no one takes you seriously here, dude.

[BeFree]

13. I can make it bold for you

the false bushco OCT about 9/11 should not be believed because of all the other evidence of bushco's faults and their other well known conspiracies for war and financial fraud.

[SDuderstadt]

15. Dude...

read the fucking OP. You're off-topic and trying to hijack the thread.

Why don't you start your own OP and see if anyine responds? The question here concerns Castro and his take on bin Laden. Leave your goofy bullshit out of it.

[BeFree]

14. Y'know what, SDud?

You are right. It seems I have totally given up trying to have an honest discussion with any of you. Shame on me, huh?

I mean, the subject of this forum is, and is why we are in the dungeon:

the false bushco OCT about 9/11 should not be believed because of all the other evidence of bushco's faults and their other well known conspiracies for war and financial fraud.

[SDuderstadt]

16. Read the fucking OP, dude...n/t

[BeFree]

17. This? Castro nails it.

Edited to add link:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=293145&mesg_id=293145

Fidel Castro says al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden is a bought-and-paid-for CIA agent who always popped up when former President George W. Bush needed to scare the world, arguing that documents recently posted on the Internet prove it.

"Any time Bush would stir up fear and make a big speech, bin Laden would appear threatening people with a story about what he was going to do," Castro told state media during a meeting with a Lithuanian-born writer known for advancing conspiracy theories about world domination. "Bush never lacked for bin Laden's support. He was a subordinate."

Castro said documents posted on WikiLeaks.org — a website that recently released thousands of pages of classified documents from the Afghan war — "effectively proved he was a CIA agent." He did not elaborate.

The comments, published in the Communist Party daily Granma on Friday, were the latest in a series of provocative statements by the 84-year-old revolutionary, who has emerged from seclusion to warn that the planet is on the brink of nuclear war.

[SDuderstadt]

18. Repeating the claim is not...

posting the evidence, dude.

[BeFree]

19. What are you babbling about now, SDud?

Every time buchco got into trouble, OBL popped up. That is evidence that is factual.

And you can't contradict it. So you are reduced to babbling?

[SDuderstadt]

20. Dude...

what about when OBL "popped up" during the Clinton administration?

And, no, I'm actually responding to your babbling, dude.

[BeFree]

21. When OBL popped up around Clinton

He fucking sent missiles at the SOB.

And the pubbies got their panties in a twist.

Fuck them SOBs they have ruled and fucked us up.

Those are the facts. You don't seem to be aware of those facts, so you babble?

[SDuderstadt]

22. So, you're claiming that Clinton...

launched missiles at a U.S. agent?

Do I have that right?

It's so much fun to watch you flailing all about.

[BeFree]

23. bushco agent

Not all of bushco is American. Clinton, for example, is not bushco. Duh!!

Maybe you never read about poppy bush being CIA, and VP, and being involved in the Middle East with all that oil and the Saudi's?

Back to square one with you all the time.

And here I am trying to have an honest discussion with you. At least you do remind me of the history.

[zappaman]

24. How was Clinton allowed to launch missiles at a US agent?

We all know the guys pulling the strings would not allow that,right?
I miss Spooked who is soooo much more entertaining than BeFree.
Where is he?

[BeFree]

25. One down, another pops up

And I long ago quit trying to discuss anything with you.

But.... Clinton was the president. He didn't need to ask permission. See, that's what Presidents do. Until the w, then he just forgot and let Cheney do his thing.

Do you trust Cheney?

[SDuderstadt]

26. "One down, another pops up"

Are you referring to your goofy bullshit claims, dude?

[SDuderstadt]

29. Does anyone have any idea wtf...

BeFree is babbling about here?

[LARED]

30. Not a clue nt

[SDuderstadt]

31. "Not all of bushco is American. Clinton, for example, is not bushco. Duh!!"

I think we should start giving out awards or ratings for non sequiturs. Of course, that means someome will have to try to explain what a non sequitur is to BeFree.

Despite his lack of knowledge about them, I would say his post above has got to rank in, at least, the top five.

[greyl]

33. Wrong. The subject was a quest for the evidence Castro was depending on

for the statement that the Wikileaks documents "effectively proved he(bin laden) was a CIA agent".

The claim that bin laden popped up every time Bush was in trouble is exceptionally false. To prove it, you'd need to list the times Bush was in trouble, and the corresponding appearances of bin laden. The claim is also pretty vague, since Bush was "in trouble" constantly, beginning months before he was sworn in. Bin laden appearances were quite rare. The Bush admin's incompetence was constant and pervasive.

Additionally, you're acting as though you believe the Fox news/right wing spin that bin laden's statement soon before the 2004 election was good reason not to vote for Kerry. Of course, most bullshit from the 9/11 Truth Industry includes the ridiculous idea of an all-powerful Bushco, so I know where you get it from.

So, back to that evidence Castro said was in the Wikileaks documents proving that bin laden was a CIA agent.
If you want to argue Castro's point, you'd better start quoting the Wikileaks documents and stop squirting squid ink.

edit: bolding

[SDuderstadt]

34. Be prepared for BeFree to strike back by accusing all of us of...

being "Bushco apologists".

I would recommend that everyone deal with this smear forthrightly. It's time BeFree was held accountable for his despicable "debate tactics".

[greyl]

35. I'm prepared for most anything. He'll either produce the evidence

or I'll go on being skeptical of what Castro said.

[SDuderstadt]

37. BeFree won't produce evidence of anything...

he never has...why would he start now?

[greyl]

38. Your post is most likely accurate. Maybe whatchamacallit will rejoin the discussion

with some kind of an honest reply to post #2.

[SDuderstadt]

39. I wouldn't count on it...

facts, evidence and reasoning are not their strong suit.

[BeFree]

40. Greyl asked in post #2

""Please post the evidence our comrade was depending on
for the statement that the Wikileaks documents(released by someone who says "9/11 conspiracies annoy him", btw) "effectively proved he(bin laden) was a CIA agent".

You might also try to explain why you don't think Fidel Castro is a deep-cover CIA agent.""

**********************

First, if you go read the wikileaks secrets you can make up your own mind. Better to do that than beg others to answer your stupid questions, eh?

And second, why even attempt to answer your other stupid, out of nowhere, made up bullshit question, something about ''Castro is or isn't CIA''? Why? There is not one good reason to respond to that goofy bullshit and you know it. Except here, now, and only to get you to think for one second about how ignorant you may or may not be, greyl.

[greyl]

41. You aren't required to back up your claims.

It just looks bad and wastes time, fyi. Adios.

[BeFree]

42. ????

WTF are you babbling about now?

[SDuderstadt]

45. "only to get you to think about how ignorant you may or may not be"

I hereby nominate the above post as BeFree's most unintentionally ironic ever.

[spooked911]

28. what does intel agent Assenge have to do with Castro's statement?

not at all clear what you are referring to.

[zappaman]

36. see?

even Spooked is confused.
BeFree,why are you an Al Queda apologist?

[BeFree]

43. Eh?

The fake zappa accuses me:: "BeFree,why are you an Al Queda apologist?"

Point to one, just one instance of me apologizing or making excuses for this al queda of which you people have a hard-on. Just one. You sit there and demand evidence of all kinds of history that is well known, and them you flip and accuse me of something you can't find one link to.

Really, you ought to be ashamed of yourself.

[SDuderstadt]

44. Because you accuse others of being...

"Bushco apologists". Duh.

Surely you shouldn't take offense if someone accuses you, in return, of being an "al Qaeda apologist", dude.

Simple question: do you deny we were attacked by al Qaeda on 9/11, dude? I don't understand why you're having such a difficult time giving a straightforward answer to the numerous questions that have been posed to you.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

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

[SDuderstadt]

47. No, dude.

Another one of your stupid, dishonest questions.

Quit playing games and answer the question. Do you deny that we were attacked by al Qaeda on 9/11?
It's a simple question, dude. Have you ever read the 2008 Democratic Party platform?

[BeFree]

48. No.

It appears that members of al queada, a group that Clinton attacked, and bushco
allowed to roam free on American soil, did attack the US.

The question is: How much help did they get from Clinton?

And how much help did they get from bushco?

[SDuderstadt]

49. Why does your subject line conflict with the body of your post?

Your subject line says "no", but the body of your post says "yes", we were attacked by al Qaeda on 9/11, right?

[BeFree]

50. Can you even think? Are you daft?

You asked:
"Do you deny that we were attacked by al Qaeda on 9/11?"

I answered you NO. Meaning I do NOT deny.

Then you reply:
"Your subject line says "no", but the body of your post says "yes", we were attacked by al Qaeda on 9/11, right?"

No, I do not deny, I admit it appears that members of a group that Clinton attacked and bushco allowed to roam free did play a part in the 9/11 attack.

Time for you to issue another of your famous; "Oops Mr. dude laid another dud", eh?

Bwahahaha!!

[SDuderstadt]

51. My mistake...

it's so hard to get a straight answer from you that I forgot how I phrased the question. However, you still appear to be equivocating later in your post when you say, "I admit it appears that members of a group that Clinton attacked and Bush allowed to roam free did 'play a part in the 9/11 attack'.".

So, to clarify, precisely what group are you talking about? By "some members" are you trying sever them from the overall al Qaeda organization? What do you mean "played a part in"?

Can you answer a simple question without resorting to weasel words?

[BeFree]

52. Heh. You can read?

Why you continue to ask stupid fucking questions is crazy, and would only be exceeded in craziness by my continuing to actually attempt having an honest conversation with the likes of you.

Suffice to say that until such time as there is a complete and truly independent investigation of 9/11, I reserve judgment. That is the American way. The way we are now living is the bushco way and I grant bushco no quarter. NONE.

[zappaman]

53. HINT: can you answer a simple question?

Did 2 hijacked passenger planes hit the WTC, one hijacked passenger plane hit the pentagon, and one hijacked passenger plane crash in a field in PA?
Take your time.

[BeFree]

55. I don't know

There is evidence that leans either way. IOW, it is inconclusive.

That's why we are in the dungeon, zippo.

[zappaman]

56. "There is evidence that leans either way."

Actually there is only "evidence" that leans one way.
The other way is full of suppositions, irrational "theories" and speculation.
But flail away.

[SDuderstadt]

57. It's only "inconclusive" to you and a handful of others who share your delusion, dude.

Again, this is why you're not taken seriously here.

[SDuderstadt]

54. Dude...

you are hardly trying to have an honest conversation. You twist people's actual words until they are nearly unrecognizable, as evidenced by the rather large number of members taking exception to your sleazy tactics. If you cared anything at all about honesty, you'd refrain from smearing people as "Bushco apologists".