NEW Alex Jones Documentry

tbombzer

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ru4TbL8aweE&feature=PlayList&p=1782206E7F5141C1&index=0&playnext=1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_11110

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdzJr-VgPqk

Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich the only people speaking the truth in america!

Mahatma coat

FD, if that one person inthe administration givin their opinion happens to be Doris the lunch lady, then quite posibly it could be considered just one persons opinion, if that person givin their personal opinion happens to be the White House Chief of staff, then that opinion carrys a hell of a lot more weight.

he said it, he said it clearly. you seem willing to dismiss it just because they havent come out and told you personaly of their nefarious plans.

the ObamaJungen will be a reality soon enough.

Flamed Diving

Mahatma coat wrote: »

FD, if that one person inthe administration givin their opinion happens to be Doris the lunch lady, then quite posibly it could be considered just one persons opinion, if that person givin their personal opinion happens to be the White House Chief of staff, then that opinion carrys a hell of a lot more weight.

He is one part of the administration, and even that administration does not have absolute power. They are kept in check by Congress and, to a lesser extent, The Senate. But of course the administration has not come out in support of mandatory service. Maybe they will, in time. But all you have is a two year old interview which has been chopped to pieces, and CT'ers have been known to omit a vital piece on info, here and there, when it suits their cause.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

he said it, he said it clearly. you seem willing to dismiss it just because they havent come out and told you personaly of their nefarious plans.

That's not what I'm looking for. As I said, all you have is a two year old interview. How come this agenda hasn't been pressed home more since this interview? What, was that book and the interview one massive 'slip of the tongue'? It's available to purchase on C-Span, why haven't they attempted to cover it up? If these people are so evil and clever and controlling, why did they allow him to foil their plans by publishing about his ideas and then blabbing about it on national TV?

It's because there is no massive cover-up. These are simply his opinions, and if he is to get his way, he will have to convince, not only Obama; but Congress and The Senate.

I dunno, maybe he should arrange for another 9/11, eh?

480905

The spoken word. And the intent of the speaker. The current position of the speaker in the Administration. When the video was made ,it was his opinion but now he has the power to implement his "opinions".

Flamed Diving

480905 wrote: »

The spoken word. And the intent of the speaker. The current position of the speaker in the Administration. When the video was made ,it was his opinion but now he has the power to implement his "opinions".

He is not a dictator.

FFS, do I really need to point this out, given what I have discussed above?

bonkey

480905 wrote: »

The spoken word. And the intent of the speaker.

Here's the thing though...

It has been pointed out several times that the video is heavily edited. From this, one should at least be curious as to whether or not "the spoken word" is what it appears to be, or whether some careful editing has changed the context.

The second point to be careful of is whether or not the spoken word was the intent of the speaker and - perhaps more importantly - is still the intent of the speaker.

These points seem to be being ignored by those who conclude that the agenda exists. More than one poster has referenced the video, and concluded that because something is in it, all the inferences we can draw from that are somehow firmly established.

meglome

bonkey wrote: »

Here's the thing though...

It has been pointed out several times that the video is heavily edited. From this, one should at least be curious as to whether or not "the spoken word" is what it appears to be, or whether some careful editing has changed the context.

That's is the thing isn't it. We're told in this forum to question, to be sceptical, not to be 'sheeple', to see the underlying agendas etc. Yet as soon as you point out how the very person telling you to do these things isn't actually doing it themselves you get silence.

K-9

bonkey wrote: »

Here's the thing though...

It has been pointed out several times that the video is heavily edited. From this, one should at least be curious as to whether or not "the spoken word" is what it appears to be, or whether some careful editing has changed the context.

The second point to be careful of is whether or not the spoken word was the intent of the speaker and - perhaps more importantly - is still the intent of the speaker.

These points seem to be being ignored by those who conclude that the agenda exists. More than one poster has referenced the video, and concluded that because something is in it, all the inferences we can draw from that are somehow firmly established.

Indeed, unless the CT'er is sceptical of the evidence provided, who will point out the weaknesses?

I know Obama values public service from following the election coverage. However his view of public service differs from a Bush/McCain view of it.

Even stretching it, mandatory public service in Obamas eyes would mean community projects, helping poor areas, legal aid etc. That would be as bad as it would get, EVEN if it could be shown this will be mandatory.

Mahatma coat

thats how it alway STARTS tho, volunteers helping out generally doing nice friendly things.

then a few years later it turns from being a cub scout group for young boys into the Wafen SS, and everyone is scratchin their heads goin, Geeez I didnt see THAT coming

K-9

Mahatma coat wrote: »

thats how it alway STARTS tho, volunteers helping out generally doing nice friendly things.

then a few years later it turns from being a cub scout group for young boys into the Wafen SS, and everyone is scratchin their heads goin, Geeez I didnt see THAT coming

ALWAYS?

Were and how? You have recent examples?

If this is how it ALWAYS starts, you must have recent examples, Nein?

Seeing as you Godwinned, beware of Referendums! The majority brainwashing us. When a minority votes on a referendum, the minority are right. Always question the majority view.

Flamed Diving

MC, stop discussing the topic as if it has been shown to be true. At this point no one has been able to provide any credible evidence that mandatory service has been even proposed to congress in a bill. All you have is a heavily edited interview and a paragraph in a document, of which a commission* will consider.

You are jumping from A to Z. FFS, you're not even at 'A' yet!

*With no power.

6th

Mahatma coat wrote: »

thats how it alway STARTS tho, volunteers helping out generally doing nice friendly things.

then a few years later it turns from being a cub scout group for young boys into the Wafen SS, and everyone is scratchin their heads goin, Geeez I didnt see THAT coming

K-9 wrote: »

ALWAYS?

Were and how? You have recent examples?

If this is how it ALWAYS starts, you must have recent examples, Nein?

MC, care to address this?

Nuravictus

That Service Act hasnt been fully released yet so how can we prove it ?. You are looking at a outdated version.

K-9

Nuravictus wrote: »

That Service Act hasnt been fully released yet so how can we prove it ?. You are looking at a outdated version.

Indeed. How can anybody prove anything?

It will still need to include the terms mandatory and compulsory, must be, have to etc.

Mahatma coat

Flamed Diving wrote: »

MC, stop discussing the topic as if it has been shown to be true. At this point no one has been able to provide any credible evidence that mandatory service has been even proposed to congress in a bill. All you have is a heavily edited interview and a paragraph in a document, of which a commission* will consider.

You are jumping from A to Z. FFS, you're not even at 'A' yet!

*With no power.

We're theorising as to how they will Conspire to bring about their goal of mandatory service in the ObamaJungen at some point in the future.



and These things do Always start off as 'voluntary' but before long its 'such a great idea' we should make it compulsary, tis for yer own benefit, come along make friends be part of the group, here have a nice uniform

King Mob

Mahatma coat wrote: »

We're theorising as to how they will Conspire to bring about their goal of mandatory service in the ObamaJungen at some point in the future.

And how exactly do you know that an mandatory Obama youth is there goal?

Mahatma coat wrote: »

and These things do Always start off as 'voluntary' but before long its 'such a great idea' we should make it compulsary, tis for yer own benefit, come along make friends be part of the group, here have a nice uniform

And can you provide any examples to back this up?
Or is it just the Hitler youth?

Mahatma coat

well thats the EXAMPLE I was thinkin of yeah, as an EXAMPLE of how this has worked previously

King Mob

Mahatma coat wrote: »

well thats the EXAMPLE I was thinkin of yeah, as an EXAMPLE of how this has worked previously

But you claim this is how it always happens. Once does not equal always.

And how do you know there goal is to make it mandatory?

Flamed Diving

Mahatma coat wrote: »

We're theorising as to how they will Conspire to bring about their goal of mandatory service in the ObamaJungen at some point in the future.



and These things do Always start off as 'voluntary' but before long its 'such a great idea' we should make it compulsary, tis for yer own benefit, come along make friends be part of the group, here have a nice uniform

It would be fine if you were theorising. But it sounds to me like Alex and you guys have your minds made up already. You have very shaky evidence to base your claims on, and I am challenging this.

You are now descending into the final phase of the defeated CT'er in debate. Instead of engaging with logic and reason you are reduced to catchy slogans/phrases and Nazi references. Next will come the photoshopped propaganda posters.

Sad.

bonkey

Mahatma coat wrote: »

We're theorising as to how they will Conspire to bring about their goal of mandatory service in the ObamaJungen at some point in the future.

I think you meant to say "Their assumed goal".

Most people who have questioned the line of reasoning offered by those theorising about conspiracy have done so by questioning the existence of motive.

Your response here suggests the motive is given, and it is only the achievement of that goal which is at question.

and These things do Always start off as 'voluntary' but before long its 'such a great idea' we should make it compulsary, tis for yer own benefit, come along make friends be part of the group, here have a nice uniform

I see.

So when Conspiracy Theorists recommend to us that we should think outside the box, and choose not to be led like sheep, its because they secretly want to first make it manfatory, then create an analogue of the Hitler Youth and ultimately control us all?

I would suggest that you don't believe that for a second. I would, in fact, suggest that you are fully aware that "B always starts with A" is not at all the same as "A always leads to B". I won't presume to ascribe motive as to why you failed to make that distinction here.

uncleoswald

There is a truly hilarious bit at the very end of the 2nd part of this "documentary." As an oldish woman comes out of a hotel supposedly hosting a Bilderberg meeting someone shouts "its the Queen!" So even though it clearly isn't the Queen they choose to use this bit of footage, presumably to make people who don't know better think it might be her. I have no words...

Mahatma coat

I thought that was this Burd


must give it anouther look

Nuravictus

HR 1444
The bill, under Section 4 (b)6, states:

Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds

Was removed from the orginal act but is now added to HR 1444.

uncleoswald wrote: »

There is a truly hilarious bit at the very end of the 2nd part of this "documentary." As an oldish woman comes out of a hotel supposedly hosting a Bilderberg meeting someone shouts "its the Queen!" So even though it clearly isn't the Queen they choose to use this bit of footage, presumably to make people who don't know better think it might be her. I have no words...

Fairly sure they are talking about the Queen of the Netherlands & not the United Kingdom.

Flamed Diving

Nuravictus wrote: »

HR 1444
The bill, under Section 4 (b)6, states:

Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds

Was removed from the orginal act but is now added to HR 1444.

FULL CONTEXT, please.

Nuravictus

Flamed Diving wrote: »

FULL CONTEXT, please.

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h1444/text

Go read it yourself. Its under Section 4, B, 6. I will copy & paste it again for you thou.

(6) Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds.

This bill hasnt passed yet.

Mahatma coat

so that'd be the aul smokin gun then eh?

a quick Ctrl+f will find your keyword MANDATORY, that was your touchstone was it not.

or would you like to explain to us how the word mandatory dosent actually mean MANDATORY.

Flamed Diving

Nuravictus wrote: »

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h1444/text

Go read it yourself. Its under Section 4, B, 6. I will copy & paste it again for you thou.



This bill hasnt passed yet.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

so that'd be the aul smokin gun then eh?

a quick Ctrl+f will find your keyword MANDATORY, that was your touchstone was it not.

or would you like to explain to us how the word mandatory dosent actually mean MANDATORY.

Oh, FFS...

I bring to your attention the title of the bill:

To establish the Congressional Commission on Civic Service to study methods of improving and promoting volunteerism and national service, and for other purposes.

This has already been addressed above in this thread. The commission does not have the power to enact anything they recommend to congress. It will be up to congress whether they even take on board anything that is recommended, let alone have a vote on any of its stipulations. This document is exactly the same bill that we discussed earlier re: the establishment of a commission. We have already been over this. This is not new information.

This goes to show just how little 'research' you actually put into your theories. You simply have made your mind up and will jump all over anything that is even remotely tied to what you are discussing. This isn't research. This is no better than a Stalinist 'show trial', assuming the defendant is guilty and working backwards.

Pathetic lads. Absolutely pathetic. Especially MC.

6th

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Pathetic lads. Absolutely pathetic. Especially MC.

Be nice.

Flamed Diving

6th wrote: »

Be nice.

Try to understand my frustration, please. I am making an effort here. I am reading through the documents they provide when they clearly aren't even reading them themselves.

Mahatma coat

I read the document, I understand wht IT is, you seem to be mising my point that although the document itself SEEMS innocent enough its the START of the process.

you dont come out in the beginning and say, hey I'd like to conscript every teenager into my own private army, you do it by degrees.

1) plant the idea in the public concious as a beneficial idea
2) Progress your agenda
3) ???????????????????????
4) Profit

Flamed Diving

Mahatma coat wrote: »

I read the document, I understand wht IT is, you seem to be mising my point that although the document itself SEEMS innocent enough its the START of the process.

you dont come out in the beginning and say, hey I'd like to conscript every teenager into my own private army, you do it by degrees.

1) plant the idea in the public concious as a beneficial idea
2) Progress your agenda
3) ???????????????????????
4) Profit

Until the idea is passed as a bill. Nay, even proposed as a bill then you are simply making idle speculation. No smoking guns. There isn't even a gun in the first place.

As I said. Pathetic.

bonkey wrote: »

I would suggest that you don't believe that for a second. I would, in fact, suggest that you are fully aware that "B always starts with A" is not at all the same as "A always leads to B". I won't presume to ascribe motive as to why you failed to make that distinction here.

Spot on.

6th

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Try to understand my frustration, please. I am making an effort here. I am reading through the documents they provide when they clearly aren't even reading them themselves.

I get that and in some cases its very obvious to anyone reading it.

Nuravictus

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Until the idea is passed as a bill. Nay, even proposed as a bill then you are simply making idle speculation. No smoking guns. There isn't even a gun in the first place.

As I said. Pathetic.



Spot on.

So there looking at a National Service Requirement & its total bullcrap to you. Are you for real ?. They say they want to make a commission to look at mandatory service & you are telling me I am full of crap ? To be honest you will only believe it when Americans are required to do mandatory service.

Flamed Diving

Nuravictus wrote: »

So there looking at a National Service Requirement & its total bullcrap to you. Are you for real ?. They say they want to make a commission to look at mandatory service & you are telling me I am full of crap ? To be honest you will only believe it when Americans are required to do mandatory service.

There is one paragraph in that entire document which dicusses the issue of mandatory service. This means that Commission will have to consider the potential of it being proposed to Congress in the future. It is one of twelve topics that the Commission will look into and consider. The Commission may (or may not) decide to recommend mandatory service to Congress and it is only then that Congress will have to tackle the issue. At this stage, there is no telling what could happen. There could be an issue getting the bill passed, due to the mandatory service clause (I imagine this would be a cause of concern), and it could be either amended out of the bill, or the bill could be thrown out altogether. See how far away we are from even getting this implemented? How far away we are from even having this on the floor of Congress?

However, you cannot see it this way. To you, the entire document is a bill discussing mandatory service, about to be made into law by this commission. In your mind, this idea has already been decided by our 'overlords' and it is a mere formality.

If Congress to decide that mandatory service is a good idea, I would be very opposed to such a proposal. But as it stands the idea is just being thrown around, and AlexJones Inc. are throwing a fit over it.

A little rationality, anyone?

I'm dealing with reality here. Are you?

Nuravictus

Flamed Diving wrote: »

There is one paragraph in that entire document which dicusses the issue of mandatory service. This means that Commission will have to consider the potential of it being proposed to Congress in the future. It is one of twelve topics that the Commission will look into and consider. The Commission may (or may not) decide to recommend mandatory service to Congress and it is only then that Congress will have to tackle the issue. At this stage, there is no telling what could happen. There could be an issue getting the bill passed, due to the mandatory service clause (I imagine this would be a cause of concern), and it could be either amended out of the bill, or the bill could be thrown out altogether. See how far away we are from even getting this implemented? How far away we are from even having this on the floor of Congress?

However, you cannot see it this way. To you, the entire document is a bill discussing mandatory service, about to be made into law by this commission. In your mind, this idea has already been decided by our 'overlords' and it is a mere formality.

If Congress to decide that mandatory service is a good idea, I would be very opposed to such a proposal. But as it stands the idea is just being thrown around, and AlexJones Inc. are throwing a fit over it.

A little rationality, anyone?

I'm dealing with reality here. Are you?

Yes I am but you must realise the fact they are looking at it is a bit much ?. I would consider myself more proactive than you, where as I would get annoyed about the fact they are even looking at it you would get annoyed after the fact. Which is kinda late.

Flamed Diving

Nuravictus wrote: »

Yes I am but you must realise the fact they are looking at it is a bit much ?. I would consider myself more proactive than you, where as I would get annoyed about the fact they are even looking at it you would get annoyed after the fact. Which is kinda late.

That's democracy for you. Would you rather that we ban discussing certain ideas in public?

Nuravictus

Flamed Diving wrote: »

That's democracy for you. Would you rather that we ban discussing certain ideas in public?

We already ban certain topics, As a Example If I was to go arround dublin saying lets kill 6 Million more jews I would be arrested. (If I didnt get killed first) Required Service for example in America could equal a draft.

Flamed Diving

Nuravictus wrote: »

We already ban certain topics, As a Example If I was to go arround dublin saying lets kill 6 Million more jews I would be arrested. (If I didnt get killed first) Required Service for example in America could equal a draft.

And here we are, back in Godwinism. By the way, you aren't banned from saying it, really. You have a choice. What you are suggesting is that the rules of democracy be set up so that certain topics can never be proposed. Right?

Look at the rest of your posts. Shoulda, woulda, coulda. Speculation. Nothing more.

Can I get to speculate too?

What if the commission decide that mandatory service would be publicly unpopular and could lead to dissent. The commission therefore decides it is not worth recommending to Congress.

Is this impossible?

Diogenes

Nuravictus wrote: »

We already ban certain topics, As a Example If I was to go arround dublin saying lets kill 6 Million more jews I would be arrested. (If I didnt get killed first)

Because incitement to kill, and religious intolerance are quite rightly crimes?

Required Service for example in America could equal a draft.

You're right it's totally like a draft! Except they're not talking about sending them to boot camp. But aside from that, yeah! totally like a draft. Well also it's not like they're talking like training people to kill. But aside from that, yeah! totally like a draft. And if we're honest, they're not giving kids guns. But aside from those three reasons, yeah! totally like a draft. Come to think of it, they're not talking about sending kids into foreign countries and murdering people. But aside from that, yeah! totally like a draft. Okay, okay, actually wait now that I think of it, they're not in danger of getting killed in a foreign war. But aside from those MASSIVE DIFFERENCES, yeah! totally like a draft.

Unemployment in America may go as high (or higher) than 10% this year. All congress are doing is saying we should keep an open mind about the idea of a discussion about voluntary work.

Nuravictus

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Can I get to speculate too?

What if the commission decide that mandatory service would be publicly unpopular and could lead to dissent. The commission therefore decides it is not worth recommending to Congress.

Is this impossible?

Has not stopped them before, Obama & Rahm Emanuel really want it so I expect if they do make a bill they will do the ground work to get it passed like they did for the Banker bailout with was really unpopular with the average american.

Flamed Diving

Nuravictus wrote: »

Has not stopped them before, Obama & Rahm Emanuel really want it so I expect if they do make a bill they will do the ground work to get it passed like they did for the Banker bailout with was really unpopular with the average american.

The same average American that got themselves into this mess?

It's very easy to blame just the banks, instead of also looking at Average Joe, with three cars for two people, three holidays a year and four mortgages. Everyone played their part in this.

Anyway, you are still speculating and living in fantasy. If it pops up as an actual bill on Congress, I will be more interested.


By the way, is what I proposed impossible, like I asked you? (Among other questions you avoided)

Mahatma coat

Diogenes wrote: »

Because incitement to kill, and religious intolerance are quite rightly crimes?

only on certain topics tho as we have seen

You're right it's totally like a draft! Except they're not talking about sending them to boot camp. But aside from that, yeah! totally like a draft.

so there wont be any form of training whatsoever, no induction days or Basic oreintation nothing whatsoever eh?

Well also it's not like they're talking like training people to kill. But aside from that, yeah! totally like a draft.

back to the SS the initial SCHOOLS, were training people in all manner of things, what if people are trained in butchering as part of being a volunteer at a food kitchen???

And if we're honest, they're not giving kids guns. But aside from those three reasons, yeah! totally like a draft.

The SS didnt get Waffen in the beginning, not until the War had started

Come to think of it, they're not talking about sending kids into foreign countries and murdering people. But aside from that, yeah! totally like a draft.

well they are intending to revive the peace corp, which SENDS PEOPLE TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES.

the killing will come later when they export their fatty lifestyle and McDonalds and all the fit healthy natives die of heart attacks

Okay, okay, actually wait now that I think of it, they're not in danger of getting killed in a foreign war. But aside from those MASSIVE DIFFERENCES, yeah! totally like a draft.

that would depend on where they gets sent wouldnt it, can you say for certain that they will be in no danger of being shot if sent overseas

Unemployment in America may go as high (or higher) than 10% this year. All congress are doing is saying we should keep an open mind about the idea of a discussion about voluntary work.

what this document is saying is that they are considering pressgangin people into civic service, the notion of voluntary goes out the window once you start forcing people to do it, a slick system they have in place at the moment for example is to hang around the courts and offer felons the chance to do their time in teh army instead of jail, if this bill is rejected by congress which i doubt it will judgiing by its clever use of language, then that would be their next recourse, actually it still may

Diogenes

Mahatma coat wrote: »

only on certain topics tho as we have seen

Mahatma your profoundly distasteful views on the holocaust is something I am actively trying to avoid discussing.

so there wont be any form of training whatsoever, no induction days or Basic oreintation nothing whatsoever eh?

Well seeing as the bill only asks that the option of this service be considered for discussion, I would suggest that this is idle speculation.

I'm merely saying that comparing it to a draft is utterly inane.

back to the SS the initial SCHOOLS, were training people in all manner of things, what if people are trained in butchering as part of being a volunteer at a food kitchen???

Okay so we're just planning on engaging in absurd hyperbola rather than make a coherent point.

The SS didnt get Waffen in the beginning, not until the War had started

What are you blithering on about? Of course with the outbreak of hostilities with the Western Allies, the SS like all German army groups expanded.

MC your grasp of WW2 history is just bloody criminal please stop using it as an example.

well they are intending to revive the peace corp, which SENDS PEOPLE TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES.

the killing will come later when they export their fatty lifestyle and McDonalds and all the fit healthy natives die of heart attacks

Yes the peace corp's role is to sent up branches of burger king.

that would depend on where they gets sent wouldnt it, can you say for certain that they will be in no danger of being shot if sent overseas

AND THERE IS NO EVIDENCE ANYONE IS SENDING ANYONE OVERSEAS FOR VOLUNTEER WORK.

what this document is saying is that they are considering pressgangin people into civic service, the notion of voluntary goes out the window once you start forcing people to do it, a slick system they have in place at the moment for example is to hang around the courts and offer felons the chance to do their time in teh army instead of jail, if this bill is rejected by congress which i doubt it will judgiing by its clever use of language, then that would be their next recourse, actually it still may

No the document is saying that they should keep in mind the idea of a discussion of national volunteer work.

Its not my fault you lack basic reading comprehension skills.

Mahatma coat

I would suggest that this is idle speculation.

as opposed to your post which is highly informed rational discourse eh?

Okay so we're just planning on engaging in absurd hyperbola rather than make a coherent point.

well thats your usual modus operandi init

6th

<mod>Lads, if you think for a second that the ones will look at the interactions between the 2 of you and pick 1 person as causing problems you are very VERY wrong. This type of sniping back and forth is exactly what we dont want on this forum. We'd be alot better off without it and the people who engage in it.

If it was a once off then a bit of mod interaction might sort it but its not. This is ongoing and growing old. I suggest you either use the ignore function or just learn to live with each other.

Some important points to note:
• Do note react to this post in thread.
• We (the mods) will take action based on what is best for the forum.
• You both know how many infractions/bans you had and how close you are to perma bans.
• If you cant see the issue being addressed here and admit it to yourself then there is a real problem.
• This is a warning about behavior in the forum in general - not just this thread.
• This is not an infraction.

Please take a few minutes to really think about this from the point of view of the mods, other posters and if you can stretch to it .... each other.</mod>