I don't like the fact they find it acceptable to mock the disabled in order to show how correct they are. I reckon it's best to blithely accept them as fake now to spite them.
The continual ignorance that noggin and dosxuk are two of the most knowledgeable and reliable members on here seems to have passed them by as well.
Apparently everybody who knows anything about the source of the video will immediately lose their jobs and livelihoods if they even breathe a word about said source.
Can't they do what most other insiders do on here and speak in short, abbreviated sentences with few pronouns or verbs, as if it makes any difference to the fact that they're leaking info?
There's a difference between explaining exactly how they got hold of it, and explaining in generic terms where the footage comes from. If someone is that annoyed at it being leaked, just posting "I'll get sacked if I explain anything" would be more than enough grounds to investigate that poster.
It all smacks of [MMTV - A troll who is banned from TVForum] to me...
I never knew you didn't have to use Twitter to get involved in a Twitter spat. If anybody doesn't believe me, then you're all wrong and I don't like you.
Seriously though, "I'd like to provide more information about this footage but I'm afraid I'm obliged not to divulge any information. I hope you can understand that." Is that harder to say than "oh my god what is wrong with you why won't you believe me i was there you must be an idiot?"
I once saw Elvis and Genghis Khan ride the Nemesis at Alton Towers in 1998. It's true because I was there.
This is the internet. Skepticism is a thing. Deal with it.
RJG is a more trustworthy and rounded individual than almost anyone on here, and "blithely accepting" something to "spite" him is the action of a spiritual eight-year-old.
Last edited by Araminta Kane on 24 February 2016 3:02am - 2 times in total
RJG is a more trustworthy and rounded individual than almost anyone on here, and "blithely accepting" something to "spite" him is the action of a spiritual eight-year-old.
RJG is a more trustworthy and rounded individual than almost anyone on here, and "blithely accepting" something to "spite" him is the action of a spiritual eight-year-old.
No, the actions of an 8 year old are to mock the disabled. Did you read what was said in that link?
EDIT: For those who didn't see the link the first time round:
Jeez, proof if ever it were needed, that we no longer live in a democracy, but an idiocracy.
Accepting falsehood as fact, and denying fact as falsehood is the actions of the right wing idiocracy these days, and it's shameful to think that you don't trust people who have worked hard to actually verify the provenance of something, even if they can't reveal how they can prove it, on pain of actually losing their jobs. That's no different a situation to some of the times Skygeek has had to bat away questions that he couldn't answer.
This forum is being mocked, because it is becoming like Donald Trump and the modern right wing of politics worldwide. You've become more Rush Limbaugh and rush to judgment than actually concerned with the actual history. And all you can do is build your walls, and say the equivalent of "Nah Nah Nah, Can't Hear You!"
Having an opinion is fine, but accepting falsehood over fact, is not.
Oh, and Billy Asko, if you can point to a tweet that you claim is offensive to disabled people, perhaps you might consider pointing what is actually offensive and link to a real definition, because I can't find anything offensive in that tweet.
Surely accepting falsehood over fact is what this whole "debate" is about?
Given how Transdiffusion's whole reputation is built on accuracy, I'm a little surprised that RJG's stance (and I have a lot of respect for him and Transdiffusion in general) isn't more sympathetic to people who are looking for some provinence to this material, especially in the age of CW1976 and his ilk muddying the waters with crap mocks which, with the greatest of respect, is what some of the material in this thread looks like.
That said, I'm personally happy to take the word of people like RJG, Al Dupres etc at face value. If they are saying they know where this stuff has come from and it is genuine, that is good enough for me.
But I don't think a bit of skeptcism is a bad thing. Enough people have been caught out by mocks in the past that trying to corroborate whether something that has appeared out of the blue and doesn't look quite right is genuine is no bad thing.
Oh, and Billy Asko, if you can point to a tweet that you claim is offensive to disabled people, perhaps you might consider pointing what is actually offensive and link to a real definition, because I can't find anything offensive in that tweet.