The WoV Thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smurgerburger

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterV

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smurgerburger

Any theories on why redietz is so unhinged on this point?

---

More than a theory: I'll give you the answer.

Redietz correctly believes that the failure of a casual google to find proof that Alan interviewed a plethora of presidents is not determinative.

---

And you think that belief sufficiently explains the tone and vehemence of his post?

---

It's the combination of arrogance and laziness that blows my mind. Plus just accepting the prioritization of whatever pops in what order on google, which is determined by a whole bunch of things other than topic interlinkage and available information.

It's appalling that people believe "I googled it" means something other than "I pushed a couple buttons, hit some keys, and spent 10 minutes becoming expert."

Secret VCT codeword, RIP ... +

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

Coach Belly < GARNABBY (And THIS folks should tell you everything you need to know)

---

---> How A Bunch of Nobodies Created The World's Greatest Encyclopedia.

https://anagram-solver.net/%20Secret...0?partial=true


Hey, well, I should run that line about talking about ideas, not, people.

Quote:

---

Great Minds Discuss Ideas; Average Minds Discuss Events; Small Minds Discuss People.

---

---> Universidad de Especialidades Espiritu Santo.

https://anagram-solver.net/%20Great%...e?partial=true

Quote:

---

... a non-profit private university in Guayaquil, Ecuador. Its campus is in Samborondón, Greater Guayaquil. One distinctive program of UEES is the College of International Studies, home to the International Careers Program (ICP), which offers courses entirely in English, the School of Translation and Interpretation, the School of Foreign Languages and Applied Linguistics, and the Center for International Education.

---

Hey, there, Mr. (distr-)Action, shovel your bullcrap somewhere else.



Today, 06:41 PM #8902
Garnabby
Garnabby is online now
Gold
Garnabby's Avatar

Join Date
Aug 2020
Posts
693 ----------> Old Tesla would be proud.

Well, what else can we do but google?

Good luck finding a current version of World Book or Encyclopedia Britannica.

Google results aren't even the issue here.

Wouldn't interviewing a President (let alone 4 Presidents), a Queen and other heads of state be a crowning achievement for a TV reporter? :confused:

I would think a reporter would get copies of these crowning achievements, if for nothing else to show family, friends, grandchildren later in life. Alan seems to have failed to do that, not once, not twice, not three times, but at least 4 times, or we wouldn't be talking about what Google results show. Alan could have shown the video. Hell maybe counting Queens and other heads of state he failed to get copies much more than 4 times....maybe as many as 18. :D THAT seems to be his number.

You stupid turd, from Portland, you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterV

Well, what else can we do but google?

Good luck finding a current version of World Book or Encyclopedia Britannica.

---

---> Asia Pacific Regional Internet Conference on Operational Technologies.

https://anagram-solver.net/%20Secret...0?partial=true

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Garnabby

Secret VCT codeword, RIP ... +

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

Coach Belly < GARNABBY (And THIS folks should tell you everything you need to know)

---

---> How A Bunch of Nobodies Created The World's Greatest Encyclopedia.

https://anagram-solver.net/%20Secret...0?partial=true

---

Quote:

---

The Encyclopaedia Britannica, which has been primarily an online product for almost 20 years, will cease to be available in book form for the first time in 244 years when the current stock runs out. It was originally published in Edinburgh, Scotland in 1768 and has been in print continuously ever since.

CHICAGO, March 14, 2012—Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., announced today that it will cease publication of the 32-volume printed edition of its flagship encyclopedia, continuing with the digital versions that have become popular with knowledge seekers in recent decades.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smurgerburger

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterV

More than a theory: I'll give you the answer.

Redietz correctly believes that the failure of a casual google to find proof that Alan interviewed a plethora of presidents is not determinative.

---

And you think that belief sufficiently explains the tone and vehemence of his post?

---

It's the combination of arrogance and laziness that blows my mind. Plus just accepting the prioritization of whatever pops in what order on google, which is determined by a whole bunch of things other than topic interlinkage and available information.

It's appalling that people believe "I googled it" means something other than "I pushed a couple buttons, hit some keys, and spent 10 minutes becoming expert."

---

google r00lz lololol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

It's appalling that people believe "I googled it" means something other than "I pushed a couple buttons, hit some keys, and spent 10 minutes becoming expert."

---

--->

United States House Armed Services Subcommittee on Intelligence, Emerging Threats and Capabilities.

https://anagram-solver.net/SecretVCT...0?partial=true


Red, science, physics per se, on the internet is fifty to a hundred years ahead of any textbook out there now. Not talking homework questions. Besides, experts are overrated. It's about taking the information that's out there, and, then, improvising, etc, to deal with it in different ways. Not with sites like this, of course.

Look at all the information being stolen from country, to country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Garnabby

Secret VCT codeword, RIP ... +



---> How A Bunch of Nobodies Created The World's Greatest Encyclopedia.

https://anagram-solver.net/%20Secret...0?partial=true


Hey, well, I should run that line about talking about ideas, not, people.




---> Universidad de Especialidades Espiritu Santo.

https://anagram-solver.net/%20Great%...e?partial=true

Quote:

---

... a non-profit private university in Guayaquil, Ecuador. Its campus is in Samborondón, Greater Guayaquil. One distinctive program of UEES is the College of International Studies, home to the International Careers Program (ICP), which offers courses entirely in English, the School of Translation and Interpretation, the School of Foreign Languages and Applied Linguistics, and the Center for International Education.

---

Hey, there, Mr. (distr-)Action, shovel your bullcrap somewhere else.



Today, 06:41 PM #8902
Garnabby
Garnabby is online now
Gold
Garnabby's Avatar

Join Date
Aug 2020
Posts
693 ----------> Old Tesla would be proud.

---

Quote:

---

Great Minds Discuss Ideas; Average Minds Discuss Events; Small Minds Discuss People.

---

What sort of minds discuss anagrams and nonsensical numerology?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

Quote:

---

Great Minds Discuss Ideas; Average Minds Discuss Events; Small Minds Discuss People.

---

What sort of minds discuss anagrams and nonsensical numerology?

---

There are scientific, numerological models of the periodic table of elements. At the other end, to do with the age of universe. And, everything between. The greatest theoretical physicists of our time.



Today, 07:36 PM #8909
Garnabby
Garnabby is online now
Gold
Garnabby's Avatar

Join Date
Aug 2020
Posts
696 <-------------

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Garnabby

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

Quote:

---

Great Minds Discuss Ideas; Average Minds Discuss Events; Small Minds Discuss People.

---

What sort of minds discuss anagrams and nonsensical numerology?

---

There are scientific, numerological models of the periodic table of elements. At the other end, to do with the age of universe. And, everything between. The greatest theoretical physicists of our time.

---

Ok that is science. That is not what you do. So what sort of mind obsesses over anagrams and numerology which have no relevance to anything?!

I spent the last six months putting together about four legal cases. Two were trivial, one a fraud case. One was about 3500 pp, an appeal case. The other, about 2500 pp, a judicial review case. Single pdf documents with bookmarks, and hyperlinks. Superior Court cases.

No time for "what sort of mind obsesses over anagrams and numerology which have no relevance to anything". This is the only place I put 'em up, anymore, as if I were ever at it for any length of time. However, I consider myself a gematria-with-anagram expert. Nothing else, like what I can do, out there. As Monet would say, the real deal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

He seems to irritate everyone.

---

I only target punks.

---

You target this whole forum with your idiocy.

---

He only targets little boys in the locker room.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jbjb

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

I only target punks.

---

You target this whole forum with your idiocy.

---

He only targets little boys in the locker room.

---

Who the fuck gives a shit? Just ignore it. The only persons who read the KJ, Singer, MDawg, et al, stuff is them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Garnabby

I spent the last six months putting together about four legal cases. Two were trivial, one a fraud case. One was about 3500 pp, an appeal case. The other, about 2500 pp, a judicial review case. Single pdf documents with bookmarks, and hyperlinks. Superior Court cases.

No time for "what sort of mind obsesses over anagrams and numerology which have no relevance to anything". This is the only place I put 'em up, anymore, as if I were ever at it for any length of time. However, I consider myself a gematria-with-anagram expert. Nothing else, like what I can do, out there. As Monet would say, the real deal.

---

You are an attorney? Paralegal?

So you can post like a sane person....

Paralegals aren't allowed to practise in Superior Court. Sanity is only a legal definition. Beyond that, no one tries to define it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Google results aren't even the issue here.

Wouldn't interviewing a President (let alone 4 Presidents), a Queen and other heads of state be a crowning achievement for a TV reporter? :confused:

I would think a reporter would get copies of these crowning achievements, if for nothing else to show family, friends, grandchildren later in life. Alan seems to have failed to do that, not once, not twice, not three times, but at least 4 times, or we wouldn't be talking about what Google results show. Alan could have shown the video. Hell maybe counting Queens and other heads of state he failed to get copies much more than 4 times....maybe as many as 18. :D THAT seems to be his number.

---

Kewlj this will be hard for you to believe... but there was a time when people didnt have cell phones to take selfies, and there weren't digital home recorders or even VCRs, and there was one film that took 35 minutes to process with a magnetic stripe to record sound on and it was stored in a tin can in a warehouse after its use...

And people in the business worried about the next newscast and not about showing something to their kids who maybe weren't even born yet...

Maybe yesterday's news always was yesterday's news.

Here's a shocker for you: the last time I had to prepare an audition tape was 1975. In it, was an interview with Jim Bouton about his vasectomy and a report when I was one of the first reporters to have the Zapruder film.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterV

Well, what else can we do but google?

Good luck finding a current version of World Book or Encyclopedia Britannica.

---

Well, let's say you're an anonymous dude posting on a forum and disbelieving a well known television reporter who says he did something. And you feel it necessary, using "I googled it" as evidence that you know he didn't do it, to publicly doubt what the reporter said.

You could admit that you have no access to the information you need to make a determination, or you could keep shoveling speculative crap, based on your having "googled it" without providing number of items read or time spent or combinations of search terms used for your having "googled it." Because if you provide those details, instead of looking like someone who knows something for having "googled it," you look like someone who did next to nothing, but is still spouting anyway based on your having done next to nothing. It's hard to look expert when you admit that you read six items and spent 11 minutes and have decided you, as an anonymous dude, should be calling the reporter a liar.

So what is an anonymous dude on the internet to do? Well, you could stick to your guns based on nothing while basically slandering the reporter, who by the way is using his real name. Or you could:

1) Contact the stations involved and see if they have anyone there who could verify the interviews. Now if they don't, it still doesn't confirm your disbelief, but it's a starting point. And if they do, it shoots down your speculation.

2) Do the legwork. Make the calls, write the emails, track down who worked with the reporter during that time period, contact them, see if you can get confirmation or not.

3) In the case of newspapers, you would have to go onto those old scrolling machines to go day by day through newspapers to see if any stories were written about it at the time. Or, if you pin down ballpark dates for the days and locations of the interviews, you could go through the microfiche local papers to see if they mention the interviews. This would require hours and hours of work, of course, but it would provide some due diligence.

4) What you would be doing is working hard to debunk what you appear to prefer to believe -- that is, that the reporter did not do as he said. Any evidence you find will likely affect your argument more than his. So you are working to debunk your own argument, but you are in search of the truth, which is what one would owe a reporter who you are publicly looking askance on.

But instead, I guess an anonymous dude could just keep speculating without basis, not spending any time or effort to debunk your own speculations, being intellectually and legally lazy, preferring to believe what you prefer to believe, and writing 50 posts while taking a stance for which you have no evidence and are likely wrong.

Now some things I can point to directly. For example, when Alan Mendelson says he wrote for the Columbia Journalism Review, that I can check by going to a major university research library and tracking down the actual paper copies. Of course, you have to call around various major universities to pin down who has it, and then you have to go there, and find it, and read it. And then you'll have proved you were wrong to doubt him.

Far better for the anonymous dude to just post and spout and feel good about having "googled it."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Google results aren't even the issue here.

Wouldn't interviewing a President (let alone 4 Presidents), a Queen and other heads of state be a crowning achievement for a TV reporter? :confused:

I would think a reporter would get copies of these crowning achievements, if for nothing else to show family, friends, grandchildren later in life. Alan seems to have failed to do that, not once, not twice, not three times, but at least 4 times, or we wouldn't be talking about what Google results show. Alan could have shown the video. Hell maybe counting Queens and other heads of state he failed to get copies much more than 4 times....maybe as many as 18. :D THAT seems to be his number.

---

Kewlj this will be hard for you to believe... but there was a time when people didnt have cell phones to take selfies, and there weren't digital home recorders or even VCRs, and there was one film that took 35 minutes to process with a magnetic stripe to record sound on and it was stored in a tin can in a warehouse after its use...

And people in the business worried about the next newscast and not about showing something to their kids who maybe weren't even born yet...

Maybe yesterday's news always was yesterday's news.

Here's a shocker for you: the last time I had to prepare an audition tape was 1975. In it, was an interview with Jim Bouton about his vasectomy and a report when I was one of the first reporters to have the Zapruder film.

---

The kids have no sense of their own narcissism. And that people just 40 years ago were not necessarily the same self-obsessed creatures.

It is mind blowing.

What was the name we're supposed to google for proof of handicapping prowess ? Was it "Bob Dietz" ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Google results aren't even the issue here.

Wouldn't interviewing a President (let alone 4 Presidents), a Queen and other heads of state be a crowning achievement for a TV reporter? :confused:

I would think a reporter would get copies of these crowning achievements, if for nothing else to show family, friends, grandchildren later in life. Alan seems to have failed to do that, not once, not twice, not three times, but at least 4 times, or we wouldn't be talking about what Google results show. Alan could have shown the video. Hell maybe counting Queens and other heads of state he failed to get copies much more than 4 times....maybe as many as 18. :D THAT seems to be his number.

---

Kewlj this will be hard for you to believe... but there was a time when people didnt have cell phones to take selfies, and there weren't digital home recorders or even VCRs, and there was one film that took 35 minutes to process with a magnetic stripe to record sound on and it was stored in a tin can in a warehouse after its use...

And people in the business worried about the next newscast and not about showing something to their kids who maybe weren't even born yet...

Maybe yesterday's news always was yesterday's news.

Here's a shocker for you: the last time I had to prepare an audition tape was 1975. In it, was an interview with Jim Bouton about his vasectomy and a report when I was one of the first reporters to have the Zapruder film.

---

The kids have no sense of their own narcissism. And that people just 40 years ago were not necessarily the same self-obsessed creatures.

It is mind blowing.

---

Pots and kettles and what not ya jabroni.