Posted on 06/21/2013 12:35:07 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
This is a distasteful subject to write about. But Los Angeles talk radio is obsessed with the death of Michael Hastings and the insinuations that somehow he was killed by unknown forces attempting to silence him.
Yesterday afternoon, I drove to the scene of the car crash. Several bouquets of flowers ringed a tree. I saw candles and notes. It's very sad.
Trutherism (the catch-all term for instant conspiracies based on extreme mistrust and/or unfounded supposition) makes me angry.
I would much rather have Hastings' life work be the subject of discussion and criticism than to hear L.A. radio jocks gawk at Hastings' personal history and demons.
Maybe it's a little too personal for me.
1. Cars don't often crash and burst into flames. Especially not cars that are new and well-made, not Mercedes, and especially not cars that are designed to eject their engine blocks when a major compression is detected. So the fact that Hastings' car burst into the flames on impact is unusual. But it is not impossible. It happens.
2. If you were attempting to engineer a death by making a car burst into flames, you would probably not know a heck of a lot about how hard it is to rig a car to explode like this, absent propellants and ordnance. (There were none detected at the scene.) If you wanted to make a homicide look like a suicide, you wouldn't rig a car to explode on impact precisely because it is out of the norm and doesn't often happen. It draws attention.....
(Excerpt) Read more at theweek.com ...
Whew! Ask a simple question about what your subjective definition is and you start spewing insults left and right!
You see, there is a distinct difference between someone not comprehending the English language and being curious as to your intent in choosing how to use that language. My inquiry was in the latter category, not the former.
I did glean from your reply, though, that your definition of a “real word” is that it has common usage, and is recognized in a dictionary. Still, that leaves the question as to whether a word which has common usage is not a “real word” until it is recognized by a dictionary. After all, dictionary editors do not invent words, they simply compile them.
So, do words require a dictionary’s stamp of approval to be real or is common usage enough?
I didn’t make any claim of that nature. I just said that, if the engine did break loose somehow, as it obviously did, it wouldn’t require any addition force to go flying like that. That’s just basic physics, the same as if the car stops but you keep flying through the windshield, which happens quite a lot.
Still more handwaving. I’m getting bored. I never claimed to have evidence. In fact, I claimed I have no evidence. That’s the problem, dumbazz. I don’t know squat. And after reading about the “jackknifed car,” I still don’t know squat.
If people say my observations of this silliness are insulting, well it sucks to be them, is all I can say.
Good times.
Too bad, because I had this 18-size font waiting for you, saying “You’re Here, You Dummy!” But no, you come along and spoil it. You’re BSing me when you say you recognize me, probably, but it’s good to see someone who remembers Fred. You can see I’ve been here a while. I remember when Fred was a nOOb. Since Jim was too, we all were.
Therefore, I was never a nOOb. That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.
Pissing everybody off. The detective isn’t playing the crime scene very well, is he?
The word in the article, “truthism” is made up by the author to create an insult, a nonexistent condition and something that the author says he hates. It is not in any standard dictionary. It is not a commonly used or recognized word. It is not by any definition a real word.
Post 43 “I don’t know squat.”
First you make a definitive statement saying something didn't happen. Then you say you don't know squat. Can you see you are contradicting yourself?
If you say it is difficult to understand what happened based on the accounts I agree with you. If you say you don't know but you think there are contradictions that is fine.
From post 22 I thought you were saying you knew what happened and what didn't happen. I disagreed with your contention. If I was rude I apologize.
>> But it is not impossible.
What a dick.
It’s very simple. There were no clues left at the scene indicating foul play.
Therefore it is obvious the perps were highly skillful professionals. Only possible explanation. /s
Left out of all this paranoid discussion is the fairly obvious fact that the way this accident happened is creating all the suspicion. Would not a simple and obvious heart attack make more sense for a secret killer than a spectacular crash?
If it looks like nothing was wrong with his car, it is clearly a flawless professional assassination.
If someone dies unspectacularly, then clearly it was an assassination that carried a very subtle message.
If someone dies spectacularly, then clearly it was an assassination with a very overt message.
If two deaths occur that have any similarity, then clearly it is a pattern of targeted assassinations.
If two deaths are dissimilar, then clearly it is a clever method of avoiding a pattern in one's targeted assassinations.
But I haven’t seen anything regarding this technology of engine ejection.
I honestly think this witness meant “fishtailing” for “jackknifing.”
Here is one.
http://autofluence.com/media/photos/car-gore-wrecked-gt500-launched-its-engine-into-another-car/
It could be, it makes a lot more sense than what I’ve heard so far. There is a lot of incomplete, unintelligent reporting on this story, and that’s the sort of stuff that leads to wild conspiracy theories.
Just BELIEVE in God!
“The word in the article, “truthism” is made up by the author to create an insult, a nonexistent condition and something that the author says he hates. It is not in any standard dictionary. It is not a commonly used or recognized word. It is not by any definition a real word.”
Ah, you see there is where you’re mistaken. The author did not invent the word “trutherism”. That word (and its variations, like “truther”) have indeed been in common usage for years now, as a simple google search can verify. It may be insulting to those who don’t like being described by it, but that is immaterial, since there are countless words in the dictionary that were invented as a derogatory label, which are all “real” words, under your definition.
A small group of people that questioned the 9/11 attacks referred to themselves as the Truth Movement. Some people referred to this small group as “truthers”. It became a lazy and dishonest slang among a very small number of people to refer to anyone who questioned any of the official explanations of 9/11 as “thuthers”. That is what you are referring to. Normal people do not use the word. It is used dishonestly by a very small number of people.
The word was used dishonestly. It had no meaning. It meant whatever the user wanted it to mean.
Now this author makes up the word trutherism which he says he “really hates” to describe something that has nothing to do with 9/11.
It is a made up word. It means whatever the author wants it to mean. It is not in a standard dictionary. It has no common usage or commonly accepted meaning.
Just BELIEVE in God!
I’d like to get close to Him, too.
I’m sorry, but you’re wrong. The word “truther” has been in common usage for years now, used by a great many people to describe the various “instant conspiracy” movements that keep popping up. It is not limited to a small, politically motivated group. When I use the word in conversation, I’ve never gotten a blank look, because it is pretty universally understood. That alone makes it a legitimate word, and it is not going away, even if you don’t like people using it.
If you and your friends choose to use the word that is fine. Let me guess, you only use it to describe people you dislike or disagree with.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.