Now, I am not bringing this up to go over the points in question so much as to demonstrate a tactic commonly used in debate on the internet to watch for. First, let me post what he said:
UPDATE, this group was recently deleted.
"David Indubitable Szemerda
I must say, it is terribly amusing that once again TVP in general think that our opposition is such a problem that they must advise their members to block us and attempt to discredit us using 'ad hominiem' attacks.
Is that not what religious cults attempt to do? Ban people, burn books, tell their members not to listen to certain things. Oh wait, they aren't a cult. So what are they? I have NEVER suggested people block or ban ANYONE... I ENCOURAGE people to spend some time in TVP and see what they are really like. Seriously, what kind of people recommend LIMITING available knowledge? Are they telling their membership that they are too stupid to make their choices? Perhaps that they aren't smart enough to make their own choices?
Anyhow for those who are interested in the facts.
VTV Really has no concept of what he is talking about...
"Now it's important to note that we shouldn't add people to this list who simply disagree with us. It's actually good to be able to have constructive dialog. "
See, each and every one of us, has tried, and tried, and tried to have a debate with TVP members. However, it is not possible. They disregard facts that are inconvenient, they never actually address valid points, they have a double standard in almost every aspect. They continually do things like 'demand you provide evidence' yet they do not 'demand evidence' that any of Jacques theories have any validity. The list of contradictions is far too numerous to list, and I am quite sure most have experienced such contradictions.
The end result is, you CAN'T debate a TVP member. I have attempted it for almost 2 years. Eventually even the most calm well balanced person shall resort to swearing to them. That is WHAT THEY WANT. They wish to use childish tactics to avoid addressing issues until they finally drive you to the point that start swearing and calling them morons. THEN they can 'justifiably' say, "Oh they are just ignorant bullies, they don't DESERVE our recognition." Or some other trivial excuse. Then they NEVER have to actually accept that there is NO debate.
For example VTV continually brings up the concept that:
"When one of them insisted that the "Promethean Workers" were working on the RBE before Jacque Fresco, they also said that TZM members never provide any proof of any of their claims, etc. So when I asked for them to prove that Promethean Workers was older, they told me it was founded in 2006. I found this ironic, considering in another post they were talking about Socio-Cyberneering, which if they actually knew anything about the fact that it was founded way back in the 70's would of been obvious to them. I proved by linking them to the corporation information on Socio-Cyberneering which was the company Jacque had back then (now inactive) that they were obviously wrong. By a lot. "
That would be me. I did not bother to address the issue because it is a stupid claim. There is no evidence that Jacques had even understood the concepts of an RBE when he first formed The Venus Project. There is no writing, there are no documents, it is all hearsay, FROM BOTH SIDES. I acknowledge my evidence is hearsay, however I am not basing my argument on it. My argument is that Jacques has provided no evidence therefore his claims are JUST as inadmissible in a debate. Without valid evidence to prove his claims, his claims are simply that, CLAIMS.
Using this example, which is THE ONLY example thus far that VTV has been able to provide, is to attempt to highlight that he was unable to respond to our numerous lists of problematic issues with the TVP concept. The latest being VTV incapability to directly answer the question if he understood the concept behind self-emergence of intelligence through complexity. THREE TIMES I DIRECTLY asked him that question without any other issues... Just the facts... And THREE TIMES VTV AVOIDED answering a simple yes or no question.
I ask you, if you ask someone a DIRECT QUESTION with a yes or no answer THREE TIMES, and they avoid each time, yet still open their mouths and spew crap... aren't you going to feel like punching them in the face?!?!? It is only human that if you are given such incredible amounts of claims, and ZERO ability actually answer a simple question, you are going to look at the person as a moron.
Thus it goes back to presentation that VTV encourages discussion.... How the hell can you discuss anything with a person who continually acts like a complete idiot, and then gets all defensive when you call him one?
If you are someone who actually does look at facts, it shall not take long to understand that all claims made by VTV are simply 100% false. Of course if you are someone who looks at facts, you shall already be out of the TVP groups. If you are not, no amount of fact shall sway you from your cultish belief system."
So, brace yourself, because here comes my reply: IMPORTANT NOTE: I was far more harsh in my reply then I would generally be, and certainly more harsh when we allow on this forum. I permitted myself a bit of indulgence because this particular group of trolls have been rather crass to multiple members of the movement.
So let us take a little while to break down the outright lies in your post. When I first came here, was around December 3rd. The first posts I noticed were you attacking Doug Mallette for having the same birthday as you.:
"David Indubitable Szemerda: Good God... Doug Mallet has the same birthday as I!?!? So much for any validity to Astrology."
Along with a picture of Doug. This is just an attempt to troll Doug based on nothing. Fairly common troll tactic.
Then we move on to the next post I participated in. It has a link to someone else's facebook you were spying on and you felt the need to troll them:
"David Indubitable Szemerda:
God sometimes it really opens your eyes to see what ZMer and TVPers do in private. I guess it not so much a cult, as a bunch of pathetic teenage groupies. Read the comments like :"Monica Mona peter is yummy and Jacque is ...daddy ♥ " Talk about 'Idol worship'... I think I shall go vomit now. www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=17466138...00000519755138"
This I might add, is more childish bullshit. Anyway, the exchange that takes place afterward is someone from TZM pointing out how childish you are being. And you going on to say that they behave like they are in a cult. Etc. etc. Saying any group of people is cult-like is a pretty easy thing to do. By the definition alone you could say the Republican Party is a cult. Just because they happen to like Peter and Jacque doesn't make them cult members. I know people who admire Wayne Gretsky or Muhammad Ali. They are not cult members.
As the exchanges go back and forth I watch as you become more and more belligerent as most trolls do. Right now in this post your trying to pretend that you were nice to me initially and then only retaliated. This is a blatant lie.
You are also suggesting that I have suggested that people should block you from their facebooks because I am scared they will "see through our evil cult". It really has nothing to do with that. If I was a cult member worried about that I would not of bothered telling anyone you existed.
That being said, lets go over the reasons I suggested to people that talking to you is a waste of time, and why they should probably block you from their Facebook accounts.
You post a photo of Doug Mallette. Someone you do not know. For the purposes of mocking him. You obviously got the photo from one of Doug's Facebook photos.
Then you posted a link to this:
(Prabhu Duraiswamy's photos)
Solely for the purpose of trying to twist someone's nice post about Jacque and Peter into some sort of proof that they were cultists because they happened to admire the two men in the picture. It's pretty clear you are not friends with this person or you wouldn't be talking about them that way. This is just trolling. There is no reason for you to be looking at this person's FB account other then for as you put it to entertain yourself at their expense by "mocking" them. Anyone who thinks that mocking others is a past time worthy of the amount of time and energy I see you put in here calling people names has already proven intellectually inferior.
So lets move on.
You went on to say that you have been in TZM longer then me. As if this was in any way relevant. I pointed out this was an appeal to authority fallacy. You failed to grasp what that meant. I had to explain it to you about three times. How long you have been in TZM was not a relevant point to what we were discussing at all. That's why it was a fallacy.
In the debate about that you say:
"Seriously man... you are fucked in the head. You ARE fat as well. Go on a diet and learn something about reality."
Because clearly, my weight is SOOO relevant to the topic of whether or not the length of time you have been allegedly involved with or aware of TZM. Clearly because I am fat, you are therefore more knowledgeable on the topic of appeal to authority fallacies. This would be ad hominem in it's most base form. Lets distract the audience from the fact that you just made an idiot out of yourself by calling attention to the weight of the person your debating with. This is clearly sound logic.
So I point out the absurdity of this and you say:
"It IS a valid tactic if that person cannot deal with reality and accept they are fat. That means the person in question has no real perception of reality.
You are fat... Obese if you prefer... that is a fact... you co not accept it. Point made... you cannot accept reality."
At no point in any conversation I have ever had on Facebook let alone here in your little "debate" group have I ever denied that I am in fact overweight. I brought this up several times. You always seemed to ignore it. So now, according to you we have proof that I cannot accept reality, because I will not accept that I am fat. Even though I have never once at this point denied that I am in fact overweight. Not a single time. But hey, if you repeat that a few dozen times it might gain some traction with people who are not actually paying attention. "SEE? That VTV guy is full of shit! He denies that he is fat!" the other person might say "Really?" and the first guy would say "Oh yeah, I read that a bunch of times on the internet. Obviously it must be true."
So, aside from the fact that my weight is a complete Non Sequitur to the issue of the RBE, energy consumption, etc you and your troll friends spend a great deal of time reminding everyone reading that I am fat. This might work with people who have not matured out of grade school. And it certainly works a lot better from the safety of your keyboard. But it doesn't prove any validity to your statements at all. Or your credibility. In fact, it demonstrates the opposite.
So here in my favorite obvious proof that most of the time you talk out of your ass in debate:
I point out that the people who were contesting TVP's attempt to trademark the RBE concept were people who wanted to corrupt the idea, you say:
"Fuck you, you stupid moron... the Promethean Workers were working on a Resource Based Economy Theory long before Jacques showed up with his stupid vision. Don't fucking try to manipulate reality."
Interesting that I supposedly cannot accept reality because I never denied that I am overweight. But you try to manipulate reality by claiming that the Promethean Workers were supposedly working on the idea long before Jacque showed up. Now, that being said, lets quote some of your above diatribe:
"That would be me. I did not bother to address the issue because it is a stupid claim. There is no evidence that Jacques had even understood the concepts of an RBE when he first formed The Venus Project. There is no writing, there are no documents, it is all hearsay, FROM BOTH SIDES. I acknowledge my evidence is hearsay, however I am not basing my argument on it. My argument is that Jacques has provided no evidence therefore his claims are JUST as inadmissible in a debate. Without valid evidence to prove his claims, his claims are simply that, CLAIMS. "
So it is a stupid claim? Which was the stupid claim? (It was a stupid claim. made by you.) I am leaning towards the stupid claim being that the Promethean Workers were working on the idea before Jacque. But hey, lets go with you as the source to when the Promethean Workers were founded:
This is DIRECTLY from you:
"We had one of the organizers there, I think they started their organization in 2006,"
So you said there is no proof? Lets go over the proof then.
Jacque Fresco's first Co-authored book was "Looking Forward" written in 1969.
ISBN 0498067521. OCLC 21606
If you look at this PDF, the picture on the very first page is obviously a TVP city design.
(Oh, and FYI, there is an acknowledgments section, since you also stated that Jacque never gives credit I figured it might be prudent for you to check that out.)
Socio-Cyberneering was founded in 1971.
"Incorporated by Fresco, Jacque, Gillette, Don A., Meadows, Roxanne, Sociocyberneering, Inc. is located at 21 Valley Ln Venus, FL 33960. Sociocyberneering, Inc. was incorporated on Monday, February 22, 1971 in the State of FL and is currently not active."
Socio-Cyberneering was a proposal for an RBE community. As this video interview with Larry King dated in 1974
He wrote a book about it called "An introduction to Socio-Cyberneering" in 1977
First film in 1994: "The Venus Project: The Redesign of a Culture"
Another in 2001: "Welcome to the future"
Then his book "The best that money can't buy" in 2002
"Cities in the Sea" and "Self Erecting Structures were both in 2002 as well.
Then "Future By Design" in 2006. Which also contained videos of Jacque's early work on the trend home. Among other things.
So all of this before the "Promethean Workers" came onto the scene. And there is plenty of documented proof.
This proved that you made "CLAIMS" that were unfounded. As trolls often do. Your purpose is not to prove anything, but to rely on the hope that people will be persuaded by your personal attacks and ridicule.
I would link you to the Promethean Workers website, but they don't have one. They are down to just a MySpace now: www.myspace.com/prometheanworker
The reason they broke off is because they wanted to add spiritual mumbo jumbo to their beliefs. Among other things. I would link you to that stuff but it was on their website that is now gone.
So, sometime before this you linked this nutjob, Peter Whitlock:
And this is what you had to say about him:
"I like this guy... It gives a good history of how Jacques Fresco formed SocioCyberneering and shafted everyone out of there investment in the creation of The Venus Project. All that stuff is verifiable, PDR and I tracked down and verified most of independently."
So when it was in your favor to quote him, you were all about him. I pointed out that he makes a lot of silly claims so I wouldn't call him credible. One of which being that supposedly Jacque and Roxanne are criminals and that the police are after them. I never at any point state that he said this in the video you linked. I just said that the as a source made a lot of crazy claims.
In that video at 2:30 after you and Paco repeatedly insisting that I was wrong, lying, or stupid, or fat, or whatever other excuse I proved that the nutcase you are using as a credible source on Jacque Fresco insists that he is a criminal and that the police are after him. Even going so far as to say that he is going to call the police on him. (That video was made August 25th. You would think the police would of apprehended a 94 year old man who has lived at the same address for decades by now.
Now, as I stated in the previous debate about the validity of the claims about Socio-Cyberneering the Wikipedia entry which I had to dig to find erroneously links to a known Anti-ZM troll's blog as a "source". The "source" even quoted by Paul Jones A.K.A "Anticultist" (Who is really into UFO stuff by the way) is from a random anonymous person who called himself "Euripide Sneed". That's not proof. As I pointed out in my debate with you. I could just as easily make a Wikipedia entry about you claiming that you have sexual relations with sheep, and link it to a blog where some anonymous person claims to of witnessed you doing it and then say SEE!??? I PROVED IT!
This is not the sort of proof that would hold up in a court of law. Because it is what is known as "hearsay".
The funny thing is, even in Sneed's testimony he says:
"He doesn’t solicit money from people to buy fancy cars (as do some religious leaders), almost ALL the money he receives goes back into his art work, and toy models."
Which is obviously contradictory to Mr. Whitlock's accusations. But hey, as I pointed out when trolling you "cherry pick" whatever you want and discount whatever doesn't suit your agenda.
Any anonymous individual hiding behind a fake name can make any accusation they want. There is a reason this is not admissible in court.
You claimed that you were able to find documented proof of all of these allegations but dubiously and I must say predictably you refused to give such evidence. Proof of the claims of Euripide Sneed would come in the form of actual documents confirming his story. Not a link to a blog where a known troll cut and pastes stuff from an anonymous source.
(Note: It's interesting that earlier in a different conversation you were totally OK with demanding to know where Jacque's military records are. Because for some reason you think the burden of proof is on the accused not the accuser.)
Oh yeah, here is the quote I think:
""lied bout his military career" it does not change anything, he claims to have worked in development... I guarantee you he was a toilet cleaner... and a poor one at that."
This is an example of the sort of unsubstantiated claims you make all the time. Since obviously you have no documentation to prove this or else you would not be asking me to dig up Jacque's military records, you just throw this out there hoping the readers will be naive enough to just accept your ASSumption.
That same guy with the video you liked so much also has his own "plan for the future" that he built with what looks like children's blocks. He claims there is this mystical force called the "seals" that will save mankind. This kind of further proves my point that you really don't investigate past what looks appealing to your agenda.
Anyway, moving on.
To further give examples of why I suggested that people block the people here:
"Ilira Walker: from the tzm fb wall, 12/11/10.Niccolo Grant: According to Zeitgeist, on the winter solstice Orion's belt lines up with
Sirius and this is symbolic of the Epiphany. Everything about that claim is wrong. Don't believe me? Go outside on the 21st and see if Orion's belt lines up with Sirius then. You will find you've bee..."
Ilra is obviously not interested in TZM beyond the need to quote things out of context to make fun of people.
And from Mario Brotha:
More cult worship. As a doctor, this bothers me.
He is trolling the TZM forums again, only to look for things to poke fun at or use to humiliate or insult people.
He does so again in what I think is the single most damning thread here that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt the lengths that the trolls will go:
"This is how VTV raises his children and this is horrible and scary. I should know, because I'm a doctor."
Then he links this video of me playing with my son on a web cam, and you along with the other "intellectuals" go on to twist the video into an example of what a terrible father I am supposed to be. And how my son is stupid.
"Paco Hernandez: I'm just as interested regarding how the father is more mesmerized by the screen and keeps staring at it like a zombie, than the child playing in the screen."
That is because I was checking to see how the picture was coming out. What I was staring at was in fact my son. Genius.
"What is he teaching his kid? How to be indoctrinted by images on a screen."
So you surmised in a less then two minute video that I am teaching my child to be indoctrinated by pictures on a screen? My kids barely get to watch TV at all. But clearly, all the intimate knowledge you gained and the insight you got here proves this theory of yours. This is further proof that the people here are full of shit. This is like a FOX news spin.
"The father looks like he's on some sort of drug-sitting there stoned "zoning out." Even at my most tired, I'm more animated than this guy when it comes to his interactions with his kid."
I was again watching the screen to see how the picture was turning out. You have no idea how I interact with my son outside of this brief video. None. But to the uneducated who might read this and assume you must be right or you wouldn't be saying it...
Then you David basically claim my son is stupid:
"Wow... that is scary. My kids understood that videos, cams, and mirrors were actually them about the same time they learned to walk."
My son asks sometimes to interact with himself on the screen. It's a game we play. But hey, you watched a two minute video, and you don't like me so therefore you must be an authority on my son's mental faculties.
You later try to excuse this despicable behavior by saying that because I mentioned to you that I was not going to answer your question right away because I was going to spend time with my son that it was proof that I was a bad father. The reason I explained why I was leaving and was not answering right away is because in several of your conversations you would try to "declare victory" if I didn't answer you right that very second. It was another stupid contrived accusation on your part. And further proof that you are a total intellectual failure.
So taking a video of me and my son playing together and then using it to attack me is in your opinion acceptable. Again, a good reason for people to block you and the people who participate in that sort of thing here on Facebook. The same thing is true of the picture taken from my personal photos. Nothing about my hobbies is in any way relevant to the RBE, or energy, or anything actually relevant. Yet you guys acted like because I have this hobby it fully discredited the idea. This is also further ad hominem. It really has no basis in fact. But smear campaigns are common to liars with an agenda.
I could quote pages and pages and pages of useless comments from you. But I will settle with just a few:
"I would say I was just kidding when I said you were fucking stupid.... but I wasn't kidding. I am just like that."
"Fuck you VTV, there is no ad hominem... you are a 'tard, it is YOUR job to prove otherwise... Thus far you are quite obviously deficient."
"No... you have not... yes I am sure with your little spock ears on you THINK you have proved something.. but to us who are not fucking 'tards... you have not. "
"Address anything you fat fuck."
"Fuck you are stupid... 'tard. Me calling you names stems from the fact you are stupid, NOT because I am incapable of defending my position intelligently. YOU on the other hand, think you can diminish the facts by trying to point out irrelevant facts (and yes they are facts) that I call you a fat fuck and 'tard. THAT has nothing to do with anything regarding a valid defense. It just means you are so pathetic that you can't debate with fact, you must simply find that which you find trivially offensive and pretend it discredits me. "
"Seriously.. you are a fucktard with the brains of a child. Go put on your ears and pretend you are logical."
"Is it possible all your fat has infected your brain? I am not sure if it is possible, but you provide some indication."
"You obviously do not understand what I said, nor do you understand Project Brain Brain. You are far to stupid."
"See how fucking stupid you are?"
"Man are you fucking stupid."
"You don't fucking 'install' self emergence.... it just occurs... that is what self emergence means... fucktard."
Ok so I lied, that's more then a few. And there were plenty more where that came from. This proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that you were utterly incapable of rational debate. Just a hint, rational people don't call people tards, or stupid, or fat every other sentence during any form of intellectual discourse that anyone would actually consider credible.
Then you go on to LIE and say I never answered you about AI. You are suggesting that AI will just do it's own thing. I pointed out more then a few times that when we install such systems in TVP systems we absolutely will put failsafes in to prevent any anomalies.
You basically created a strawman by suggesting that TVP will fail because according to your research AI will always just become self aware on it's own. I pointed out that we would not install any system capable of doing that in anything critical. This was all in response to Paco's silly concept that somehow machines were going to turn into "Terminator" someday. It's science fiction. I didn't avoid you. I for a while said I would get back to you. Then you demanded I answer you right away. By spamming over and over again to try and get me to answer. So, for the sake of again proving you wrong:
"That's quite a wall of text. You will have to give me some time to look at it. So far you are the only anti-ZM poster here who is not just flinging poo." (Which was given to Paco)"
Second answer, also to Paco:
"Paco, Doug Mallettte is an Engineer who worked for the space shuttle program. If you would actually be wiling to talk about this somewhere absent morons like the one above me here I could persuade him to talk to you about this stuff. I am still going to answer it to the best of my ability but he is better with the tech then I am. I am not avoiding this I just feel it deserves my full attention and dealing with endless stupidity is a distraction we removed from our forums for a reason. (They also became much more productive.)"
"The reason I haven't taken the time to get to more of a response yet goes back to the first post I made, which was asking if you could debate without ad hominem. I pointed out that I doubted it. Then I proved it. Your answers were basically full of little more then personal attack. Just like you posting pictures of me and making fun of those as well. The fact that you guys spend so much time looking for things to personally attack someone shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that you have no real argument of substance. I will get to the rest of this later, but the replies you have given so far prove exactly what I set out to prove. This is not a place for debate, it's just another haven for cowardly trolls. It's not special. The whole internet is full of them. Full of little cowards pretending to be men. When I typed out the first part only to have Paco reply with nothing of substance it just proved to be a waste of my time. If there is no intellectual value then it is only interesting when I take a mind to humiliating trolls. I have humiliated the trolls I set out to. And didn't even bother with the last one because discrediting him wasn't even nessacary.
If I get bored and don't have anything else to do I will get to the rest."
"I already said I would talk to you about the rest later. That is, when I feel like it. My motivation to interact with ignorant people who behave the way you are is not very high. The short answer is I do not see why we would not place fail safes in computers with AI. It is kind of obvious. Your building the brain of a machine, you have complete control over what goes in it and what is hard wired. That's why that stuff is all science fiction. Machines do what you program to do. No more. No less. And even if you left a program able to develop on it's own there is no reason you could not hardwire fail safes to keep it from doing something you didn't want it to."
Oh and for solidarity's sake, this is what you said in return:
"Seriously.. you are a fucktard with the brains of a child. Go put on your ears and pretend you are logical."
"Is it possible all your fat has infected your brain? I am not sure if it is possible, but you provide some indication."
So I give you a real answer, only to have you spew grammar school nonsense back at me. Then you wondered why I was not very inclined to waste a lot of time on it?
I also notice that your number of times that you supposedly asked me this question and I supposedly dodged it keeps going up and down.
"I have now asked you 4 times to address the AI argument... you STILL have not done so. Are you incapable of understanding that? Or simply incapable of defending that?"
But here in your above essay, it was only three times. Hmm...
So have to copy and paste my previous answer to again prove that you are lying when you say that I have refused to answer you. This would be the fifth time I answered you.
Three posts ago, I posted this:
"The short answer is I do not see why we would not place fail safes in computers with AI. It is kind of obvious. Your building the brain of a machine, you have complete control over what goes in it and what is hard wired. That's why that stuff is all science fiction. Machines do what you program to do. No more. No less. And even if you left a program able to develop on it's own there is no reason you could not hardwire fail safes to keep it from doing something you didn't want it to."
And your answer, which contained no counter points or counter data, and nothing that would indicate that I was somehow wrong about the notion that we can build AIs with fail safes was this little gem of immaturity:
"Seriously.. you are a fucktard with the brains of a child. Go put on your ears and pretend you are logical. "
So, your saying I "STILL" have not answered you. When I have.
Thank you for playing son.
"The only reason AI is even relevant to the issue of the RBE is because we plan to use some aspects of AI to help us with certain tasks. We have no intention to just build AI machines and let them run loose when they are in control over resources and conditions that are critical to human life. "
"Why would we install a self emergent intelligence in a system that is critical to be reliable? This is just common sense. "
"The point is that none of the research your talking about is even relevant. No we wouldn't destroy existing research. But the concern was supposed to be that TVP was a bad idea due to some danger that the AI's involved could somehow decide to turn on us. I pointed out that this is science fiction. If self-emergent AI's exist obviously we wouldn't be installing them into critical systems. This is where you make assertions or ASSumptions as to our intentions and then try to claim to of discredited us based on your own conjecture and nothing we have said."
"When you design a machine, you define the parameters it operates at. If you don't want it to develop attributes that are outside of your scope then you design it that way. It's really not that hard. All you manged to do was call me more names and fail to address anything. "
So after you badgered me a dozen or so times for answers on this. I gave them to you over and over. Which would make this bullshit statement by you bunk:
"I ask you, if you ask someone a DIRECT QUESTION with a yes or no answer THREE TIMES, and they avoid each time, yet still open their mouths and spew crap... aren't you going to feel like punching them in the face?!?!? It is only human that if you are given such incredible amounts of claims, and ZERO ability actually answer a simple question, you are going to look at the person as a moron."
So, now I have utterly crushed this post made by you. I demonstrated that you in fact do little more then troll. That we do in fact use evidence and documentation to make our arguments. That I did not in fact dodge your question about AI. And that despite your attempt to claim that this place is totally credible and that I made everything up about it in my suggestion that people should avoid this place, and you...
So, now to go over his replies to my well researched reply:
Yawn... that has been done VTV... quite boring... aren't you supposed to be blocking us? I thought that was your new edict. Why don't you heed your own words and not bother.
Yes Tim, they generally have no clue about many things, most far more important that the one I chose. However I simply chose something simple VTV was working on in his response to Paco's post. Basically you can randomly pick virtually anything regrading TVP and disprove it.
Instead of the movie "Field of Dreams" envision the TVP version... "Field of Delusions". One of my friends posted a tour of a former TVP concept. Ever hear of Earth Centre, Doncaster? (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Centre,_Doncaster) 41.6 Million British pounds scammed for the purpose of a 'theme park' to demonstrate 'sustainability'. It is now a derelict. But the people who conceived it are doing well.
This is an attempt to sidestep everything that just totally crushed what he said. He does this several times and then just tries to limp away.
The conversation continued in a different thread wherein he is weighing whether or not he will debate Doug Mallette. I suggested that they should bring the debate to V-RADIO. So he said:
You are not 'fair' here. you continue to claim 'checkmate' despite the fact you have no idea what you are talking about. How would I ever give you even the slightest confidence that you could be 'impartial' as the 'official spokesman' for TVP? I am not the 'official spokesman' for anything aside from David Szemerda.
Interesting... I think I demonstrated I certainly knew what I was talking about...he also demonstrated that he was completely incapable of handling that. But lets move on.
So I reply to him with this:
David. Please tell me how any of the things that I proved with actual documentation in your last attempt to debate me were wrong? This is the problem. Perhaps in the troll world people can pretend that they are still neck and neck in a debate. But in an intellectual world it doesn't work that way. The way I destroyed your point about how there is in fact documented proof of Jacque's work pre-dating the Promethean workers that I did in great detail is a perfect example of that.
The person who is generally not "fair" is the one slinging insults all the time. As the people on my facbook group who have read the debate are now remarking, your failing to address my last point because you were completely trounced. You made several statements that were simply wrong. Or lies. Or both.
As for debates on my show, I will basically shut up the whole time other then to prevent you guys from interrupting each other. And I say that plurally. I have moderated Presidential debates as well. The integrity of the conversation is most important. Honestly I think your probably worried that you won't be able to get away with trying to bury Doug's points like you try to do with mine here. It's a weakness of text debates.
So now here I have asked him to explain how I didn't know what I was talking about. I ask him to defend his statement that my claiming victory over his unfounded claims which I proved were utterly incorrect was somehow wrong. This is the best he could come up with:
"Please tell me how any of the things that I proved with actual documentation in your last attempt to debate me were wrong"
Perhaps your constant whining about 'ad homenium'? And you did not prove anything with documentation. Your normal strategy is to avoid answering questions. Even with your debate with Tim, you respond "I am no agricultural expert". Well, you do not have to be an agricultural expert to see the flaws, nor do you have to be a science expert to see the flaws, nor do you need to be psychology expert to see the flaws.
The only things you appear to be an expert at are saying 'checkmate', declaring victory, avoiding answering questions and whining about people who make fun of you.
"It's a weakness of text debates. "
The only type of person who would think there is a weakness in text debates are people who cannot think properly. Writing, when you make the effort to do it properly, which I admit I do not bother to often, is FAR superior. One has the time to do proper research and documentation, link to references, detail analogies, have the space to provide alternate analogies for different perspectives. There are no time limits, there are no interjections, no heckling. Writing is a far superior medium for actual informational presentation. Unfortunate most people lack the attention span to read and write these days. Although it can lack the emotional appeal and drama. I would think the standard radio debate would be suitable for political topics, or perhaps a 'mock' debate for entertainment purpose in science fields. But far too limited for actual debate.
Hmm...interesting. So apparently all of the data that I provided that crushed his claims was not relevant, because apparently I whined about people making fun of me. Note that he doesn't talk about any of the data I provided that proved that Jacque Fresco was not just making "claims" about working on the RBE concept. Notice that he left out any of the data I presented that proved that I had in fact answered his question about AI multiple times. I reply to this a few times.
Ah I see David. So your debate style here is to say because I complain about Ad hominem, I am therefore wrong in the factual replies I gave to you with documentation to prove them. Dubious. (Actually it's simply bullshit.) I am not whining about it David. The fact is that you were utterly wrong. And I proved it. And now your trying to dodge it.
And no, I think properly. The reason that text debates are a problem is because they allow you to do things like your attempting to do right now. There is no value to any of what you just said so far as defeating my points. I asked you the question "Please tell me how any of the things that I proved with actual documentation in your last attempt to debate me were wrong?"
And your reply was to say I was whining about ad hominem. As if that has anything to do with it. As if that in any way disproves anything I said in my reply. That is weak at best. And in an audio debate you would sound very foolish for attempting to do this.
I also answered all of your questions. And pointed out how I answered one of them no less then nine times.
"One has the time to do proper research and documentation, link to references, detail analogies,"
Yes, I did all of that too. And you are simply trying to dodge the very real truth.
"There are no time limits, there are no interjections, no heckling."
No heckling? Is this you whining about ad hominem now? That's just funny.
So over the course of this sham of a reply you have given you have actually proven everything I said about weakness of text debate. Because in text you can attempt to hide from the mountain of data I just smashed your half assed statements with. And act like you are still somehow on top.
Actually to further point this out, lets actually re-add the context to my statement that you attempted to debunk and truly expose just how incompetent your reply was:
"The integrity of the conversation is most important. Honestly I think your probably worried that you won't be able to get away with trying to bury Doug's points like you try to do with mine here. It's a weakness of text debates."
And your reply to that was to say:
"The only type of person who would think there is a weakness in text debates are people who cannot think properly. Writing, when you make the effort to do it properly, which I admit I do not bother to often, is FAR superior. One has the time to do proper research and documentation, link to references, detail analogies, have the space to provide alternate analogies for different perspectives. There are no time limits, there are no interjections, no heckling. Writing is a far superior medium for actual informational presentation. Unfortunate most people lack the attention span to read and write these days. Although it can lack the emotional appeal and drama. I would think the standard radio debate would be suitable for political topics, or perhaps a 'mock' debate for entertainment purpose in science fields. But far too limited for actual debate."
Note that you fail to address what I pointed out was the weakness? That being an attempt to bury his points under a mountain of irrelevant data? Just like your trying to do here? The best you could come up with was to say I was whining about ad hominem when the subject of ad hominem is barely even mentioned in my reply. You left out all of the links, data, structured replies and everything else that I used to crush your statement.
So apparently according to you, in order for me to be "thinking properly" I should be completely OK with my opponent in a given debate being free to simply ignore the total destruction of their argument?
And you say this place is fair?
Paco had to come in and try and rescue you. And even he was not able to address even a tenth of what I said that destroyed what you said.
Thank you for helping me prove my point about the weakness of text debate further.
Now, this is already a long post. So lets sum up.
Right now, this person is banking on the fact that within the culture of the "Zeitgeist Debate" Facebook group, a group that has a mission statement of:
There are many flaws in The Venus Project, and the Zeitgeist movement. There are those who would still like to continue the discussion off of different walls and boards of various groups, so I say let's discuss the ins and outs here.
That the fact that he was utterly defeated will just slide by the wayside. And for the most part it has. His allies there of course will not confront him for avoiding all of the data I provided. Another user stepped in just a little bit to talk about the video argument. But that was it. They will continue to treat him like someone who had credibility. And certainly more credibility then me. This is where the debate leaves science, and moves into politics. The fact that I was right on all counts is not relevant. What is relevant is that this person has kissed the right asses and backed them up when they were equally proven wrong in different debates. So therefore they will get together like a good "pack" of trolls often do to continue to gang up on me and post links to pictures of members of the movement and make fun of them.
Now, in contrast. If I fail to answer even a single point they have made all of the "pack" will be sure to remind me in every single exchange. If I were to ever post a picture or video from their personal lives they would be quick to attack me for it. If I ever say anything crass to any of them then they of course will call me on that.
So what we have here is thus:
1. The trolls in question rely on the idea that they can distract the audience with endless witty and sometimes not-so-witty insults to keep them entertained while they give poorly researched arguments. They will engage in endless vicious attacks on their opponents so as to also hopefully unbalance them.
2. When confronted with actual evidence (even when they claim we never give any) they will simply try and pretend it never happened. And cover up for each other when it does. They will give replies that convieniently leave out any points they have no reply for. (And in this case, he simply didn't have a reply for anything I said.)
3. The trolls in question run in a "pack" so they can always seem to be "winning" because after all there are so many more of them then there are of you. They tend to isolate one person at a time. And since rarely does a large group of members of TZM ever go to their forum (and why would we?) they can do this. For a while last night me and one TZM member ganged up on one of their guys who's specialty is taking pictures from your facebook and calling you names based on it. When we collectively were not impressed it put him off balance. With no one around to talk about how great his efforts were it left him exposed to being the troll he was.
4. And finally (And this is the best part) they will continue to dismiss any data you offer as "trite" and offer ad hominem analysis into how you are obviously intellectually inferior. They will do this with rare posts like the one I destroyed above where they try to conduct themselves as civilized debate experts for just a brief moment to assure everyone that they were completely justified in all of their name calling, and that the truth is that their opponent really didn't have any leg to stand on. Etc. etc.
5. It never ends. The cycle repeats.
Something that rarely happens which can put these guys off balance is when you can invade their groups with a larger group of people then they have. And turn things around on them just a bit. (Which is what I did in my post.) While entertaining, there is a reason that Peter says stuff like this is a waste of time.
So that begs the question, why did I waste my time with it?
Multiple members of the movement asked me to go here and debate these people. So I did. And my goal was never to change their minds. I know that will never happen. I proved why it can never happen. They are so wrapped up in hurting their opponents that they have lost any and all interest in actually having real debates. I gave him a real debate, his solution was to bury his head in the sand. So I proved beyond a shadow of a doubt why it is a waste of time to debate with any of these people. I do it as amusement sometimes because it is slightly more constructive then playing video games. But at the end of the day, it is very important to recognize that these people should have no power over you. But to demonstrate how they take that power.
This has the added benefit of proving beyond a shadow of a doubt the reasons we moderate this forum the way we do. Every tactic I just described, the personal attacks, avoiding the points, etc we just don't put up with that here. And as a result we have real communication with no politics.
I hope you enjoyed what should be a book. I am working on making a documentary about this stuff.