Bonkey, Diogenes et al, Misinformation Agents or **** Modding??

Kernel

Well, it's been a long time since I bothered posting anything in this forum, since anybody genuinely interested in such matters usually posts somewhere that you can be reasonably assured that you will in the least get a fair hearing and a response from someone who is mildly interested in the 'conspiracy' side of political debate. But, just from reading the posts in this forum, it seems that it is not being modded properly, and that there are a persistent few who constantly belittle any poster who wishes to post their take on conspiracy theories.

I therefore ask, are the likes of Bonkey and Diogenes et al misinformation agents or are they simply those people who have a psychological make up to be contrary and argue with others? The people who have a psychological need to argue any point since within their own lives they have perhaps supressed anger to the point that they must 'vent' such emotions wherever they possibly can? Like on an internet forum, par example? Or are they possibly misinformation agents, whose sole job is to debunk any anti-agenda theory? It's quite possible that they are, since it's been officially revealed that the CIA and other American intelligence agencies have employed people specifically for the purpose of carrying out such COINTEL as this on the internet. They seem very vehemently to continue to attack posters in this forum.

Either way, that's why I am selective on what I say on the internet nowadays and also why I think the mods are letting down this forum. What do you think? This environment (the forum) isn't a positive one for any 'conspiracy theorist' so why bother having it?

Move to feedback if you feel the need, or start doing your job properly... either way, I'm probably banned, but I've long ago stopped posting on this forum, so....

So Glad

You double posted :P

And I agree.

Diogenes

Kernel wrote:

Well, it's been a long time since I bothered posting anything in this forum, since anybody genuinely interested in such matters usually posts somewhere that you can be reasonably assured that you will in the least get a fair hearing and a response from someone who is mildly interested in the 'conspiracy' side of political debate. But, just from reading the posts in this forum, it seems that it is not being modded properly, and that there are a persistent few who constantly belittle any poster who wishes to post their take on conspiracy theories.

I therefore ask, are the likes of Bonkey and Diogenes et al misinformation agents or are they simply those people who have a psychological make up to be contrary and argue with others? The people who have a psychological need to argue any point since within their own lives they have perhaps supressed anger to the point that they must 'vent' such emotions wherever they possibly can? Like on an internet forum, par example? Or are they possibly misinformation agents, whose sole job is to debunk any anti-agenda theory? It's quite possible that they are, since it's been officially revealed that the CIA and other American intelligence agencies have employed people specifically for the purpose of carrying out such COINTEL as this on the internet. They seem very vehemently to continue to attack posters in this forum.

Reading between the lines it seems like you're annoyed that this isn't some back slapping heartily agreeing with each other conspiracy theorists forum. Where every conspiracy theory is greeted with naive belief, sources are never required, experts never consulted, and anything remotely offical is sneered it.

Would that be about right?

I find it odd that you think there are only two options. That posters on this forum are paid to be here. (And I'm still waiting on the cheque) Or that the forum is in some way broken.

I would think people would like to have their "theories" met with robust responses, critical thinking and logic, so their theories can be refined and false or eronous theories can be disregarded. What do you want Kernal? A forum were no conspiracy is rejected or anaylsis, or no critical voice of dissent from the "majority" can be heard.

Hey aren't you supposed to be fighting aganist censorship and oppression?

I think the forum you are looking for isThe Loose Change Forum They tend to ban anyone who doesn't conform to the theories. Hell they ban dissenting voices on whimsy.

jessop1

Actually Kernel, you are right on both counts.

You have bonkey, diogenes, oscarbravo and a few others to a lesser extent constantly pouring scorn and ridicule on everything posted here and very obviously so.

This is their chief tactic as it is the most effective at killing debate.

Quoting the link I posted in my debunkers guide thread
"Ridicule, ridicule, ridicule. It is far and away the single most chillingly effective weapon in the war against discovery and innovation. Ridicule has the unique power to make people of virtually any persuasion go completely unconscious in a twinkling. It fails to sway only those few who are of sufficiently independent mind not to buy into the kind of emotional consensus that ridicule provides. "

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055060048

Please take a look at the link posted, you will no doubt recognise that quite a few of these dirty tactics have been used here.

Now you have to wonder why the mods dont recognise something amiss about the motivations of incessant "debunkers" and the obvious obfuscating tactics they use - and do something about it.

I fully welcome critical debate but when you take the stance/tactics that these guys do from the getgo, you know this is not conducive to ongoing discussion.

Mods: please tell me do you want this to be an active and open forum or do you want it to continue as it has been for some time: ie the forum is quite for a time, someone posts something for discussion, the disinfo crew pounce on it and attack and ridicule it relentlessy using the dirty tactics mentioned above until the debate is killed off, forum goes quiet again.

With respect mods, it seems like ye dont care about whether there is discussion here or not, which begs the question as to why you are modding this forum in the first place.... no offence is intended but I think these question need to be asked.

jessop1

Kernel wrote:

Or are they possibly misinformation agents, whose sole job is to debunk any anti-agenda theory? It's quite possible that they are, since it's been officially revealed that the CIA and other American intelligence agencies have employed people specifically for the purpose of carrying out such COINTEL as this on the internet.

This article goes into some detail on this and other aspects of psyop tactics used
http://wagnews.blogspot.com/2005/08/cias-internet-fakes.html

Kernel wrote:

They seem very vehemently to continue to attack posters in this forum.

This is what I find very suspicious about the incessant debunkers here on boards....along with their persistence in discussing matters they say they think are BS. WHy bother wasting your time discussing what you believe to be BS with loon believers? whats the motivation?

As a truth seeker my motivation is clear, I want to discuss and decipher the information openly with others. Of course I dont believe everything, especially knowing that there is so much disinfo out there about conspiracies, interspersed with the truth. Along with riducle/debunkery, this is another chief tactic of the conspirators - to muddy the waters and exasperate truth seekers into giving up.

oscarBravo

jessop1 wrote:

This is what I find very suspicious about the incessant debunkers here on boards....along with their persistence in discussing matters they say they think are BS. WHy bother wasting your time discussing what you believe to be BS with loon believers? whats the motivation?

I note that you conveniently ignored this post by bonkey that perfectly addresses your question. Allow me to quote it for your benefit:

bonkey wrote:

If you believe yourself to be a "truth seeker" and you post in this forum, ask yourself why you do it. Could it be that you want to try and convince others of the truth you believe in? Could it be that you wish to ensure that those who believe differently to you are not given an open platform with no dissenting voices? Could it be that you want to see how your beliefs stand up to challenges from those who have differing beliefs and/or different information on a subject? Could it be that you believe in learning through the challenging of other's beliefs, to see how they can justify them?

Now consider....I presented those questions about people seeking truth. Unlike Jessop1, I did not once suggest that people seeking truth can only be those who believe in Conspiracy Theories.

Unlike Jessop1, I won't ascribe motive to his actions. I aill allow the weakness of the action to speak for itself.

For the record, I agree completely and couldn't have put it better myself.

jessop1 wrote:

As a truth seeker my motivation is clear, I want to discuss and decipher the information openly with others.

...as long, of course, as they agree with you. I mean, why would anyone ever bother debating with someone who disagrees with them? That's not what debating means, is it?

oscarBravo

Kernel wrote:

But, just from reading the posts in this forum, it seems that it is not being modded properly, and that there are a persistent few who constantly belittle any poster who wishes to post their take on conspiracy theories.

I'm going to reply as a moderator here - not of this forum, but of three others.

If you want to accuse a moderator of not moderating properly, you'd damn well better have your facts straight. In this case, you need to show that this forum is for the purpose you believe it to be for, and you need to be able to link to the relevant portion of the charter in order to do so.

You're obviously unhappy with the fact that open debate is allowed in this forum - that's fine, if open debate is something you've a problem with. You're implying, however, that open debate is something that's explicitly forbidden by the nature of the forum, and that the moderators are being lax in their implementation of the guidelines. That's out of order, frankly.

Kernel wrote:

I therefore ask, are the likes of Bonkey and Diogenes et al misinformation agents or are they simply those people who have a psychological make up to be contrary and argue with others? The people who have a psychological need to argue any point since within their own lives they have perhaps supressed anger to the point that they must 'vent' such emotions wherever they possibly can? Like on an internet forum, par example? Or are they possibly misinformation agents, whose sole job is to debunk any anti-agenda theory? It's quite possible that they are, since it's been officially revealed that the CIA and other American intelligence agencies have employed people specifically for the purpose of carrying out such COINTEL as this on the internet. They seem very vehemently to continue to attack posters in this forum.

The other possibility, whether you're comfortable accepting it or not, is that much of the information posted to support conspiracy theories is tenuous, illogical, or just plain factually incorrect. When you have someone like bonkey who has a qualification in mathematics (correct me if I'm wrong, jc) pointing out logical fallacies, or a fire safety engineer like civdef pointing out factual inaccuracies in discussions of collapsing buildings, or a freelance journalist like Diogenes pointing out misunderstandings about how the world of journalism works, or an aviation enthusiast and all-round pedant like me pointing out blatant untruths about what airplanes are capable of - I'm bewildered as to what, exactly, is so compelling about conspiracy theories that you're prepared to cling to them in the face of a preponderance of evidence against them?

Diogenes

jessop1 wrote:

This article goes into some detail on this and other aspects of psyop tactics used
http://wagnews.blogspot.com/2005/08/cias-internet-fakes.html

Lets look at some of those disinfo sites.
Aljazeera, move on, monbiot.com, prisonplanet (hang on Prison planet? Alex Jones is psyops?) Half the twroofer 911 sites on the internet are on there as well.

Now here's the kicker, does it give any evidence to back up the claim that they are run by intelligence operatives? Does it my arse.

Jessop1. Off the top of my head, you have in the past few months;

Claimed the NWO controlled the media. But failed to offer any proof to support this claim, nor gone into any of the actual logistics of how they maintain this control.

Claimed Channel 5 in the UK was an independent television station. It's not its owned by a major German media conglomerete.

Claimed Professor Alan Armitage of Brightam Young University, a structural engineer of half a centuries experience was "An Illuminati Shill". You offered no evidence to support this claim.

Claimed that the 911 truth movement had "loads" of demolitions experts, structural engineers, explosives experts, and ex-military types supporting their side of events. When pressed on this you could only name one, Steven E Jones, a retired professor.

Called the Popular Mechanics article "Debunking 911 myths" a pack of "NeoCon Lies". You failed to expand on what parts of the article were false.

And you wonder why you get ridiculed? Take Cockmynut, a reasonable poster who was met with a reasonable response. He backed up what he said, and explained why he believed something.

You don't really seem willing to expond upon a theory, you just come here, shout whatever you believe. Don't back it up, and then get in a huff when thats pointed out to you?

Nick_oliveri

Disinfo agents, ha. I belive Diogenes is Larry Silverstein and Bonkey is Rudi Guiliani. (you guys can switch if you want.)

jessop1

oscarBravo wrote:

I note that you conveniently ignored this post by bonkey that perfectly addresses your question. Allow me to quote it for your benefit: For the record, I agree completely and couldn't have put it better myself.

I didnt ignore it, I have been busy of late so hadnt got to it yet. Of course truth seekers naturally dont have as much time and energy at our disposal to post here as paid debunkers/shills would. Anyhoo, I have replied to it on the original thread.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055060048

oscarBravo wrote:

...as long, of course, as they agree with you. I mean, why would anyone ever bother debating with someone who disagrees with them? That's not what debating means, is it?

As I have repeatedly said, its not the disagreeing I have a problem with. Its the dirty tactics. (see the debunkers guide thread)

civdef

Summary of original post:

"Those nasty bigger boys are making my cherished iseas look silly, so I want them banned."

Boo friggin hoo.

jessop1

oscarBravo wrote:

You're implying, however, that open debate is something that's explicitly forbidden by the nature of the forum, and that the moderators are being lax in their implementation of the guidelines. That's out of order, frankly.

No he's not. Its mod bias/discretion he's questioning here I believe.

oscarBravo wrote:

The other possibility, whether you're comfortable accepting it or not, is that much of the information posted to support conspiracy theories is tenuous, illogical, or just plain factually incorrect.

You dont seem comfortable accepting that much of the information posted to support the official version of events (eg 911) is tenuous, illogical, or just plain factually incorrect.

oscarBravo wrote:

When you have someone like bonkey who has a qualification in mathematics (correct me if I'm wrong, jc) pointing out logical fallacies, or a fire safety engineer like civdef pointing out factual inaccuracies in discussions of collapsing buildings, or a freelance journalist like Diogenes pointing out misunderstandings about how the world of journalism works, or an aviation enthusiast and all-round pedant like me pointing out blatant untruths about what airplanes are capable of..

Woooh. Are we all supposed to be cowed into silence by you and your pals qualifications? Even if we can clearly see that your approach and arguments are disingenuous and deliberatly obfuscating? what a joke.

oscarBravo wrote:

I'm bewildered as to what, exactly, is so compelling about conspiracy theories that you're prepared to cling to them in the face of a preponderance of evidence against them?

[/QUOTE]
More debunkery by association. But looking at some specifically, eg 911, why we "cling" to them is that the official story does not add up while evidence which contradicts the official story is swept under the carpet or down played. We think thats worthy of discussion. Why do you cling to attacking and ridiculing everything that contradicts the official story of just about every conspiracy posted here??

jessop1

civdef wrote:

Summary of original post:

"Those nasty bigger boys are making my cherished iseas look silly, so I want them banned."

Boo friggin hoo.

=

Debunkers bible tactic wrote:

Ridicule, ridicule, ridicule. It is far and away the single most chillingly effective weapon in the war against discovery and innovation. Ridicule has the unique power to make people of virtually any persuasion go completely unconscious in a twinkling. It fails to sway only those few who are of sufficiently independent mind not to buy into the kind of emotional consensus that ridicule provides.

In practice. It doesnt work though. Now that we can see through it its just plain laughable.

jessop1

Diogenes wrote:

Lets look at some of those disinfo sites.
Aljazeera, move on, monbiot.com, prisonplanet (hang on Prison planet? Alex Jones is psyops?) Half the twroofer 911 sites on the internet are on there as well.

absolutely possible. The web of deceipt is intricate and interwoven greatly with truth.

Diogenes wrote:

Jessop1. Off the top of my head, you have in the past few months;

Claimed the NWO controlled the media. But failed to offer any proof to support this claim, nor gone into any of the actual logistics of how they maintain this control.

There is much evidence that warants further investigation. I never claimed to have absolute proof. dirty debunker tactic here again dio, re evidence vs proof (see my reply to you on the wt7 thread)

Diogenes wrote:

Claimed Channel 5 in the UK was an independent television station. It's not its owned by a major German media conglomerete.

My mistake. I hold my hand up now and say I got that wrong.

Diogenes wrote:

Claimed Professor Alan Armitage of Brightam Young University, a structural engineer of half a centuries experience was "An Illuminati Shill". You offered no evidence to support this claim.

Yep, based on his classic shill modus operandi, I'm confident that he is- ie attack jones while ranting about his own qualifications all the while offering nothing to challenge the detail of jones' report - based on his few paragraphs that you posted. Has he provided a detailed analysis of the report? if so can you post it?

Diogenes wrote:

Claimed that the 911 truth movement had "loads" of demolitions experts, structural engineers, explosives experts, and ex-military types supporting their side of events. When pressed on this you could only name one, Steven E Jones, a retired professor.

It does, and I posted links with plenty of experts. see 911scholars website, 911pilotsfortruth etc and Professor Jones detailed report which I posted (and you or professor/shill armitatage havent been able to challenge the detail of) refers to a number of experts and whose views support the report.
And your attempt to smear jones here is not lost on me. So what if he's retired, didnt he retire amid the whole reaction to his report?? you should change your moniker from diogenes to disingenous.

Diogenes wrote:

Called the Popular Mechanics article "Debunking 911 myths" a pack of "NeoCon Lies". You failed to expand on what parts of the article were false.

As I said, an objective person only has to read the report itself to see how pathetic it is, but if you wish to discuss any of the evidence it presents, I'm confident I can expose the lies. I think there were about 16 odd points it made is that right? Pick one and I'll gladly discuss with you. In the meantime, here are a couple of reports that expose its fallacies

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pop_mech/reply_to_popular_mechanics.htm
http://www.rense.com/general62/ppop.htm

Oh, and dont try to smear the rense report just because of the website it appears on (like you disingenuously did on the other thread) - try to challenge to substance of the report please.

Diogenes wrote:

And you wonder why you get ridiculed?

No I dont - your tactis are very clear to me.

Diogenes wrote:

Take Cockmynut, a reasonable poster who was met with a reasonable response. He backed up what he said, and explained why he believed something.

Yep and he blew your arguments out of the water. unfortunately your obfuscating tactics exasperated him into giving up though...

Diogenes wrote:

You don't really seem willing to expond upon a theory, you just come here, shout whatever you believe. Don't back it up, and then get in a huff when thats pointed out to you?

Nonsense.

Kernel

oscarBravo wrote:

If you want to accuse a moderator of not moderating properly, you'd damn well better have your facts straight. In this case, you need to show that this forum is for the purpose you believe it to be for, and you need to be able to link to the relevant portion of the charter in order to do so.

Looking at the persistent mockery and ridiculing of posters in a conspiracy theory board is evidence enough for the accusation. Indeed, I doubt that the mods have much interest in the conspiracy field, but regardless, they never take any action to enable a free and civil exchange of ideas related to the purpose of this forum. The usual suspects simply shout down the original posters, which is often not allowed in other forums. You know, the old adage of if you don't like to read about xxxxxx then stay out of the xxxxxx forum?

oscarBravo wrote:

You're obviously unhappy with the fact that open debate is allowed in this forum

Not at all, I welcome open debate, once it is civil and doesn't degenerate into personal crusades of anti-conspiracy and mockery of posters.

oscarBravo wrote:

The other possibility, whether you're comfortable accepting it or not, is that much of the information posted to support conspiracy theories is tenuous, illogical, or just plain factually incorrect. When you have someone like bonkey who has a qualification in mathematics (correct me if I'm wrong, jc) pointing out logical fallacies, or a fire safety engineer like civdef pointing out factual inaccuracies in discussions of collapsing buildings, or a freelance journalist like Diogenes pointing out misunderstandings about how the world of journalism works, or an aviation enthusiast and all-round pedant like me pointing out blatant untruths about what airplanes are capable of - I'm bewildered as to what, exactly, is so compelling about conspiracy theories that you're prepared to cling to them in the face of a preponderance of evidence against them?

Nobody knows the truth about a lot of topics discussed in this forum, which is why they are theories. I don't want to get into the long and protracted debates on 911 again, suffice to say I am a professional and even-minded person myself, but I have an open and tolerant mind, unlike many.

Is the purpose of this forum to discuss conspiracy theories or is it a vehicle for people to be ridiculed by others who have an open and unabashed hostility to the subject matter? I was one of the people who requested a conspiracy theories forum originally, and I have stopped posting on this forum since the athmosphere in relation to the subject is so hostile. There is already a skeptics forum, so why do we need another one? I could post reams of information in support of a theory, and the posters mentioned would not budge one iota from their firmly entrenched skepticism. The result would simply be a futile waste of time on my part, so I discuss it with people who have an open mind - it's just a shame that this forum isn't one of those places.

billy the squid

If you want to post somewhere where no one can disagree with you then i suggest you start a blog and turn the comments off.

If you have a problem with someone giveing you grief to an unacceptable level be it insulting you or calling you a liar, report the post.

If you have a problem with the moderating of the forum, feel free to send a PM with your suggestions to the moderators, links to both our profiles are at the bottom of the board. alternatively you can go to feedback.

The whole concept of the internet is a place where people of differing views get together, if you don't like that concept, then stay at home and hide under your bed.

I will leave this open for a little longer, but i am inches away from the lock button, so the next few replies better be good.

bonkey

Kernel wrote:

there are a persistent few who constantly belittle any poster who wishes to post their take on conspiracy theories.

I therefore ask, are the likes of Bonkey and Diogenes et al misinformation agents or are they simply those people who have a psychological make up to be contrary and argue with others?

Can I ask you - or anyone who has taken your side - in return whether your complaint is that I (and others) are contrary and argumentative, or that we "constantly belittle any poster" who we happen to not agree with ???

If its the former, I believe that your grievance has been answered by mod and non-mod alike.

If its the latter - that I am constantly belittling people, then I challenge you - and those who have sided with you - to back your allegation with evidence.

Show your evidence of this bellitlement which I have allegedly constantly engaged in. I don't think I'm being unreasonable in asking that an attack on my integrity be substantiated.

They seem very vehemently to continue to attack posters in this forum

One of the two of us has started a thread to attack the other person. Its not me.

This would suggest that attacks on other posters aren't as distasteful to you as you seem to be suggesting. Indeed, you seem to be of the opinion that once you reach a certain point, they are the right and proper action to take....but also that others should be banned for engaging in the practice.

If I suggest you be banned because the charter requires you to respect my point of view, which this thread shows is clearly not the case, would I be engaging in a vehement attack? If so, then how is your similar call against me any better, especially given that I have at least given an example to back my claims where you have neglected to?

If I were to suggest that this is evidence of a double-standard - that you can call for my banning, but I cannot do likewise in return - would that be classified as belittling you?

To parallel what I said to jessop1 in his "debunkers bible" thread....rather than attacking individuals, why don't you make a plea for all participants to sign up to a "code of conduct" which is more clearly defined than the charter currently is? You could have done so and made it clear as to why you were doing so without having to name names, without having to point fingers, and without having to engage in the very attacking of posters that your complaint is allegedly about (I will say allegedly because you haven't given a single example to show where I supposedly engage in this abuse).

You had a chance to constructively address what you see as a problem. If your view of how things are is correct then taking such a constructive position could only be a win-win situation for you.

Rather than take this opportunity, however, you engaged in a direct attack upon myself and others....whilst complaining that a lack of respect for and the attacking of other posters is a fundamental problem!!!

Again - a lost opportunity.

The Hill Billy

Kernel wrote:

Or are they possibly misinformation agents, whose sole job is to debunk any anti-agenda theory? It's quite possible that they are, since it's been officially revealed that the CIA and other American intelligence agencies have employed people specifically for the purpose of carrying out such COINTEL as this on the internet. They seem very vehemently to continue to attack posters in this forum.....

I am a regular reader of threads in this forum, but have not posted before. However, I could not let this go without comment.

I really have to say that suggesting that bonkey & Diogenes may be employed by an intelligence agency to debunk unsubstantiated theories put forth by some posters here really takes the biscuit. That is a "conspiracy theory" to end them all!



bonkey - Is this why you never have "lizard" as an ingredient in your recipes?

Kernel

Kernel wrote:

Looking at the persistent mockery and ridiculing of posters in a conspiracy theory board is evidence enough for the accusation.

Kernel wrote:

Or are they possibly misinformation agents, whose sole job is to debunk any anti-agenda theory? It's quite possible that they are, since it's been officially revealed that the CIA and other American intelligence agencies have employed people specifically for the purpose of carrying out such COINTEL as this on the internet. They seem very vehemently to continue to attack posters in this forum.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Clearly this is a mick take thread.

Either way, that's why I am selective on what I say on the internet nowadays and also why I think the mods are letting down this forum. What do you think?

I think if I were mod of this forum or if this was posted in politics, the first thing I'd have done is impliment a 2 week ban for you and then move this thread to feedback so as you could continue your "debate".

I'd urge the mods here to at least do the latter if they don't want to ban you, rather than close the thread.

humanji

Would it be an idea for a change in the charter or at least in peoples treatment of the topics on this forum? I mean, maybe discuss things in more of a friendly manner. Maybe people try and see things from the opposing side, no matter how much they disagree with it.

For example, how about Ickes lizard men. I don't believe they exist, but simply saying so isn't going to get this forum anywhere. If we discused who they could be, where they could be from and why they would be here and give pros and cons to the theory behind them rather than folding are arms and sitting in a silent huff.

Anyways, that's just what I think. This could be an interesting forum, if both sides of the arguments try talking to each other instead of shouting each other down.

Now who wants a hug?

bonkey

Hill Billy wrote:

I really have to say that suggesting that bonkey & Diogenes may be employed by an intelligence agency to debunk unsubstantiated theories put forth by some posters here really takes the biscuit. That is a "conspiracy theory" to end them all!

Its one I'd love to see someone put more than a throwaway accusation behind, though.

Maybe they could explain my almost-6-years tenure on boards.ie despite the Conspiracy Theories forum only existing for a fraction of that time.

Maybe they could explain my tenure on the Politics forum, where any of the regulars should be able to tell you that I was often diametrically opposed to the actions of the US administration (they being the msot relevant political group to the case at hand).

Maybe they could explain why the entry under my name in the wiki predates the existence of this forum and claims that I am argumentative ... suggesting that my stance here is not at odds with how I approach discussions in general, further suggesting that there is nothing sinister about it.

Does it not suggest that there's some idiot-genius force at work?

A genius which has the resources and foresight to put a shill in place years before the opportunity to make use of it arises....to establish a character that could in no way be objectively called pro-establishment, that was respected enough to be a moderator of the politics forum for some years, that was recognised as being balanced but argumentative long before this forum came into existence....and an idiot to blow it all by giving the game away so obviously when the entire thing was finally going to serve its supposed purpose.

Personally, I have serious doubts that Kernel really believes that I - or anyone else here - could be a "Misinformation Agent". As always, however, I'm not going to speculate on what the motivation may have been to make such comments. I will simply limit myself to saying that I have serious doubt that he, jessop1, or anyone else who has taken their side really thinks that this is a credible explanation of what is being discussed here....and note the paucity of alternate explanations they offered.

If they'd like to make their case though, including explaining what is presumably my cover, established years before the CT forum came into existence....well....its a chance for them to really show their stuff, wouldn't you agree? I mean...here's a conspiracy theory where no-one can accuse them of simply copying and pasting, or of parroting someone else's argument. There won't be tons of youTube videos. Nope...there will just be them, their desire to find the truth, and the whole of boards to provide them with the evidence at hand from which to really ascertain the truth, their arguments and their conclusions.

Having said all of that, I expect that my challenge will not be accepted, but rather will be held up as an example of the scorn and/or ridicule to which I hold people. Let me say it now...it is neither. It is an honest challenge to anyone who either believes I am some sort of misinformation agent, or who is willing to lend their support to such claims.

If such people are going to level accusations, then they should show what the sincerity of their convictions is based on. If not, then they should accept that proving their case is not what is important to them. They can still believe themselves to be right, but should not expect others to be swayed by an argument which can be distilled down to "I could prove it, but I'm not going to".

If, having said this, people would like to instead withdraw from the support of such allegations against me, then I would request that they have the decency to do so no less publically then when they weighed in on the issue in the first place.

bonkey - Is this why you never have "lizard" as an ingredient in your recipes?

I believe that were I to answer that question, I would be subsequently accused of ridiculing someone's beliefs.

The Hill Billy

It wouldn't surprise me that some of the posters here who profess to be "truth seekers" are in fact planted misinformation agents.

From what I can see there are quite an amount of ludicrous claims made in respect of various conspiracy theories without a shred of evidence to back up said claims.

This carry-on, not to mention citing quite obviously dubious sources, serves only to discredit serious truth seekers. Now, in who's interest would that be?

bonkey

Normally, I'd use the report post for this, but seeing as some have decided that this is a topic which needs to be given the (public) light of day and teh same some are suggesting that it is the like of myself who are behaving unacceptably, I will take my inspiration from them and follow their example by putting this in-thread.

jessop1, in the BBC thread wrote:

Diogenes I await your sick attempts to explain this away

jessop1, same thread, one post later wrote:

FAO: mods - no personal attack/abuse was made in this or any of my postings, despite diogenes attempt to make you think so.

May I then take your references to "sick attempts" and "vile derision" to be an example of the tone you feel is acceptable when referring to the posts of other posters? Is this the type of tone you feel that I should engage in rather than whatever it is that I do at the moment that you don't like?

miju, in response to the second comment quoted above wrote:

i can see that jessop1

May I take this as your agreement that referring to something as "sick attempts" or "vile derision" is, therefore, acceptable?

Indeed, we should bear in mind that these comments were written in anticipation of something from Diogenes rather than in response to it. It would suggest that this must therefore be an acceptable tone to take when referring to the overall level of opinion you have of someone else's stance - Jessop1 wasn't passing comment on anything Diogenes had posted (where he could perhaps argue that it was a sick attempt), but was instead pre-classifying anything Diogenes might write on the subject. This isn't attacking a post....so what does that leave if not an attack on the poster?

Please note...I'm not trying to be funny here. I'm trying to establish what is and is not acceptable.

jessop1 is amongst those complaining to the moderators about the tone being taken by some on this forum. He then made a comment pre-classifying anything Diogenes might write on a subject a sick, proceeded to claim this wasn't a personal attack, and got a moderator to agree with him. He's since then continued his complaints about the unacceptable tone being set by others.

Seriously...is this the level of quality I'm supposed to change my ways to attain in order to be considered acceptable in this forum?

Diogenes

jessop1 wrote:

absolutely possible. The web of deceipt is intricate and interwoven greatly with truth.

Does this mean you won't be posting links from prisonplanet.com?

There is much evidence that warants further investigation. I never claimed to have absolute proof. dirty debunker tactic here again dio, re evidence vs proof (see my reply to you on the wt7 thread)

You've offered no evidence. I ask again. What evidence do you have that the NWO control the media?

My mistake. I hold my hand up now and say I got that wrong.

Good. To revisit the point. Both Shayler and Icke have appeared (and in Icke's case made) in the mainstream media. Doesn't that fly in the face of your claim that the NWO control the media?

Yep, based on his classic shill modus operandi, I'm confident that he is

But you've no evidence to back up the assertion.

- ie attack jones while ranting about his own qualifications all the while offering nothing to challenge the detail of jones' report - based on his few paragraphs that you posted. Has he provided a detailed analysis of the report? if so can you post it?

Jessop1 those words from Armitage were republished from the letters column of a newspaper, hardly the place to go into a detailed critique of Jones work. If you'd like a critique of Jones work; try
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/darkside.html

Lets be clear. Jones uses the research of David Ray Griffin. Or Dr David Ray Griffin into the physics of the collapse. Whats Griffin a Doctor of? Theology.

His claims about sulphur residue can be explained by presence of sulphur in dry wall.

And finally remember there are no recorded instances of thermite/thermate used in previous controled demolitions.

It does, and I posted links with plenty of experts. see 911scholars website,

As pointed out these scholars don't have many people who's doctorates are in anything other than the liberal arts.

911pilotsfortruth

911pilotsfortruth. Oooooooh can I please link the the PentaCON. Their documentary which claims the plane flew over the pentagon.

etc and Professor Jones detailed report which I posted (and you or professor/shill armitatage havent been able to challenge the detail of) refers to a number of experts and whose views support the report.

Jones work has been discussed and dismissed on this forum before.

And your attempt to smear jones here is not lost on me. So what if he's retired, didnt he retire amid the whole reaction to his report?? you should change your moniker from diogenes to disingenous.

He retired after his own department rubbished his report.

The BYU physics department has also issued a statement: "The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones' hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones' department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review." The College of Engineering and Technology department has also added, "The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones

As I said, an objective person only has to read the report itself to see how pathetic it is, but if you wish to discuss any of the evidence it presents, I'm confident I can expose the lies. I think there were about 16 odd points it made is that right? Pick one and I'll gladly discuss with you.

Offer cheerfully accepted.

Popular Mechanics wrote:

Flight 77 Debris
CLAIM: Conspiracy theorists insist there was no plane wreckage at the Pentagon. "In reality, a Boeing 757 was never found," claims pentagonstrike.co.uk, which asks the question, "What hit the Pentagon on 9/11?"

FACT: Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"

Off you go Jessop1.

Oh, and dont try to smear the rense report just because of the website it appears on (like you disingenuously did on the other thread) - try to challenge to substance of the report please.

You mean like the way one of your links tries to Smear popular mechanics because they're published by Hearst?

I'm not going to go into the links. We'll have enough fun going through the 16 points of popular mechanics.

Yep and he blew your arguments out of the water. unfortunately your obfuscating tactics exasperated him into giving up though...

Do you know that as a fact or are you just speculating?

bonkey

Diogenes wrote:

Jones work has been discussed and dismissed on this forum before.

Indeed. I seem to recall someone asking for comment on it, so I went into a fair amount of detail criticising it from a scientific perspective. The response was, if memory serves, a complete lack of response on the subject.

He retired after his own department rubbished his report.

No enttirely accurate. Jones was stripped of two classes and put on leave while his University (not just his department) were examining his report and his claims of peer-review. Jones retired and BYU abandoned its examination in what was reported to have been an agreed-upon settlement.

So BYU never actually rubbished the report. They believed it merited investigation, and somewhere along the line a compromise was reached whereby they stopped looking at it and Jones retired.


jc

Diogenes

bonkey wrote:

Indeed. I seem to recall someone asking for comment on it, so I went into a fair amount of detail criticising it from a scientific perspective. The response was, if memory serves, a complete lack of response on the subject.

I may wade into the morass of the great big thread to heave it out so.

No enttirely accurate. Jones was stripped of two classes and put on leave while his University (not just his department) were examining his report and his claims of peer-review. Jones retired and BYU abandoned its examination in what was reported to have been an agreed-upon settlement.

So BYU never actually rubbished the report. They believed it merited investigation, and somewhere along the line a compromise was reached whereby they stopped looking at it and Jones retired.


jc

I think quotes from people like Armitage and the comment added by the
The College of Engineering and Technology department who said "The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones."

But in principle you're right BYU didn't rubbish the report, members of the faculity criticised it. I wrote in haste.

miju

thread locked , please dont open another thread on this topic or a swift banning will ensue

this isn't related to conspiracy theories so please take it to PM or thunderdome

thanks