A whoosh. I get it.
Well done, sir.
The irony of trying to expose the OP as some kind of double-secret troll with multiple sock accounts while mocking people who get roped in by conspiracy theories is very entertaining to me.
It’s like rain on your wedding day, isn’t it.
It’s…like…man…when someone tells you what to do…and you’re like ‘fuck that shit, I’m doin what I want’…and then they turn out to be right! It’s…what’s the word…totally sarcastic, man.
Dude. Double feature night! We can get some beer and some popcorn and stuff. And with any luck our minds will be, like, totally blown.
Next weekend: Plan Nine from Outer Space, followed by Ed Wood, as part of our continuing series - the worse double features of all time.
You know what… You caught me. Bravo. Nothing gets past you guys I sincerely underestimated your troll sensing abilities. As to all those who showed me any form of sympathy you are all fools and are lucky to have people like Sitnam to watch over you and protect you from the evil trolls that lurk in the shadows. :rolleyes:
Is this the point where you throw me in the water to see if I sink or swim or do I go straight to being burned at the stake…
For me it’s the opposite. Someone who has lurked as long as the OP claimed wouldn’t have started a pit thread over a short snarky response, he would have addressed it (if at all) in the original thread. I don’t have the enthusiasm of Pitnam, but his logic is sound. I’ve seen it on these boards many times.
I’m all for giving Buddha_Clause the benefit of the doubt, but what else have you got other than defending your first post (which to me sounds like an ad for the movie)?
[sup]Freely admitting I could be wrong[/sup]
ETA (after reading BC’s last post):
OK, my Spidey senses are twitching. As mentioned upthread, it’s the internet - move on.
No, I think it’s the part where Sitnam sticks a carrot on your nose and claims you turned him into a newt.
I stand by my initial judgement. Of course, I could be wrong, but the whole thing screams of disingenuous promotion of this film.
Nothing I have seen in this thread or the original suggests otherwise. I was pretty blunt in my post because many people here are easily taken in.
Then I will just move my box to another grate. Hah!
I’ll make my own mind up who I think is trolling - I’m more interested in the “white elephants trunk” reference. What was that all about?
In his OP he makes the “mistake” of saying that the film is “still a bit of a white elephant in the room when we are hanging out”. It’s part of giving the impression of being a bit of a thickie who relies excessively on conventional opinion (so you’d better check out the film he has given up trying to convince his friends about).
Suggesting that he could *utilize *the website that looked great on paper by wielding the white elephant’s trunk was just a raised eyebrow at his obviousness.
I actually saw Zeitgeist about a year ago, and saw it’s merits and lack of, hammered out in great detail on the JREF. Personally, on a “food for thought” scale I found it more of an appetiser, than the 3 course meal it was on the menu as.
If that’s the case, he’ll show his true colors soon enough, and then we all get to roll our eyes and move on.
If it’s not, however, you’ve made a royal ass out of yourself.
Benefit of the doubt wouldn’t have hurt anyone.
And I don’t get Sitnam’s act at all, I suspect it’s some sort of whoosh, since nobody would seriously claim that a poster around since 2000 could be a sock for a poster that’s here since June this year, but it doesn’t seem obvious enough to be effective.
I think this is the funniest goddamned thing I’ve read all week.
Can you explain it to me? I don’t get it.
Well gee, thanks for protecting me from my own gullibility. :rolleyes:
I think in my OP I wrote one paragraph that didn’t come off in the way I intended. My paragraph where I talked about how the website I went to (which I believe is a thorough, well-informed debunking of the entire movie) had some questionable sources. What I meant to say in that paragraph was that they were questionable sources ACCORDING TO MY FRIEND. I know I threw in the broken link statement and the geocities type links in the paragraph and I will admit that that was a mistake, I had read through the site a couple of months ago and I had a vague memory that some of the links weren’t the best source material available. On second reading I didn’t find a broken link, I found a lot of links that were very thick and had a lot of information to wade through before you found the information you were looking for.
My friends are simpletons, they need their facts in bullet point form that is quick and easy to digest. They like their information in a talking points style so they can easily throw it back at others and seem well informed. The links I had weren’t this easy, hell even the ones that were this easy that refused to believe.
Here’s a good example, one of my friends came at me with this idea that the federal income tax is unconstitutional and that there is no law that states that you have to pay income tax (It’s in the movie). I was perplexed so I decided to do some research and found this site. I later explained to him that he was wrong, but he didn’t take my word for it, so I showed him the site. He said he looked it over and there was nothing said that states that I have to pay taxes, it just outlines how the paying of income tax would be conducted. WHAT? That makes ZERO sense I thought. He wanted where it explicitly states that all US citizens are required to pay income tax. So I showed him where it says it, it’s the first thing cited on the page.
26 U.S.C. § 1
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual . . .
It wasn’t good enough for him. He stated that the wording could be interpreted a number of ways. He also questioned the website itself. How does he know that the site is reliable? How does he know that the people who wrote up the site are not rewriting the law. He wants the original documentation. He needs this absurd amount of verification to disprove his claim.
This was the intent of that paragraph. I wrote it bad and made my intentions unclear and I apologize for that. If some of you guys still want to believe that I have a pro zeitgeist agenda that’s fine I am a bit curious to those that think I have this agenda when do you think I am going to finally spring it upon you? and how would it work? Would I do it in the same thread or like 10 months from now do I make a new thread about this one that nobody will remember and say that my friends are right and we have all been duped. This is what has really been irking me about the troll claims they seem to lack any form of logic.
Was this a joke? Batty’s been a member of these boards for far longer than you, and many Dopers have hung out with him IRL, and for those of us who have, your quote here sounds incredibly retarded. I’ll assume it was a joke and you’re not really that big an idiot. Unless you think he actually waited 8 years so BC could start posting before revealing himself. If, were it true, would be worthy of Andy Kaufman.
He’s right though. Both about people being taken in easily, and, in my opinion, his assessment of the OP and his purpose for being here.