New Mods!!!

pablo_escobar

gizmo wrote:

Perhaps, however there are plenty of threads where the OP will criticize an "official" story, be asked for proof or evidence to back it up and then retort with "go look it up yourself" or "I'm not here to give you information". This can be just as pointless as the above discourse.

I understand your point gizmo, but I don't accept it should be the burden of the OP to educate someone with absolutely no interest in the topic of discussion.

There would be no toleration of me entering the religious forums to tear apart the beliefs of it's regular contributors.I would be banned immediately without question and understandably so.

If you're genuinely interested in a topic, there's nothing unreasonable about requesting additional information to help you engage constructively, but if the request is just part of a strategy to mock and insult, then the OP's reluctance in providing additional resources (easily found with google) is understandable.

I've seen requests which on the surface look sincere and reasonable but underneath are nothing but an attempt to undermine the OP without a valid rebuttal.

There are a lot of members who wander into the CT forum purely to antagonise and goad regular contributors which isn't helpful.

If I were to post an uneducated response to an OP in the politics forum, i'd be considered an idiot, nothing more.
Yet, on the CT forum, idiotic responses are acceptable and even welcome.

Any response should be an educated one, not filled with endless rhetorical questions intended to frustrate the OP.

And if uneducated, some sincerity isn't asking much, is it? (not directed anyone personally)

gizmo wrote:

This hasn't happened in awhile thankfully, mainly because it seems those who were most guilty of it were banned but to criticize all those who question the alternative hypothesis put forward by some CTers and regard them as trolls is also unfair.

Yes, the "guilty" people were banned and who were the antagonists? they're still here.
Those who got a permanent ban were easily manipulated imo.

The emotional and over-reactive responses of those who got banned are exactly what the antagonists look for in posters on this forum, that's what amuses them.

I've seen many threads on the forum which I have no interest or knowledge on and avoid taking part in.
Unfortunately though, we witness the same people diving into those threads and ripping it apart purely to amuse themselves and before any meaningful discussion takes place.

If I haven't researched a particular theory being proposed, I don't take part, simple as that.
Don't understand why others can't do the same.

alastair wrote:

And yet - fact-checking is something you are all too fond of running away from. Maybe if you actually conceded when you're wrong you'd not have to suffer the insuts? No-one likes hypocricy.

Alastair, this is a "Conspiracy Theory" forum.Asking for proof is pointless and your constant crying for undeniable proof along with other pseudo-skeptics is a dishonest type of response.

If you're unhappy with a claim made by someone on this forum and you feel it's unfounded or don't understand anything about the subject, take it in your stride and ignore it.

That's what many others including myself do, why can't you?

Di0genes wrote:

I'm sorry who exactly in "the media" said "we don't lie"

It's a quote from a film about how a media network manipulates the public perception of reality.

You flaw here is that in the current say 9/11 thread no one, no one has laid out at an alternative hypothesis

I never mentioned anything about the 9/11 thread but can we atleast agree this event was used to justify invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan?

Honestly, i've really no interest in reviewing fraudulent science which many including yourself consider factual evidence, just not interested.

It's certainly a great time waster which I wish you and anyone else the best of luck sorting through.Everyone is entitled to believe what they want.

All I know is the CIA had been sponsering Islamic militants since 1979, before the Soviets even invaded Afghanistan and from the sponsership of ISI in Pakistan came the Taliban.

If you want a history lesson of the US funding Islamic militants, watch "Al Qaeda doesn't Exist"

Robin Cook, the former (now deceased) UK foreign minister wrote an article in 2005 where he said the origin of "Al Qaeda" comes from "The Database" which was a computer file of all the militants CIA were sponsering, which presumably included Osama Bin Laden.

Now, the above are facts, on record, nothing to do with science which I am more interested in than whether thermite was used to blow up the trade center.

Discussion of 9/11 and who was behind it is an effective diversion from the invasions and mass murder of people in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It's a nice distraction from the huge profits made by the military industrial complex and other contractors involved with death and mayhem they're causing over there.

The US has squandered trillions of US taxpayers money in the hunt for the elusive 9/11 attack mastermind, Osama Bin Laden (atleast that's what we're led to believe) and yet they still haven't located him...Tony Blair publicly admitted the invasion of Iraq was for oil, not WMD as we were told.

For me, the primary objective from these invasions are to control the wealth of that region or atleast prevent any 1 nation or group of nations dominating the wealth.. I don't need to know anything else.

And you believe that the people who disagree with you are myopic morons incapable of making up their own mind on the issues.

On the contrary, Di0genes, that's precisely what you and a handful of others believe.

If you accept "Al Qaeda" were behind 9/11, that's fine by me.
Why would I argue with you about it? It's silly and a complete waste of time.I simply don't care.

Brown Bomber

Good points, well said.

How do I join Irish Freemasons?

ANd uprising that thunderless lightning thing happens a fair bit here in the summer, so nothing to worry about, at least until halloween that is. You scared ??

pablo_escobar

Brown Bomber wrote:

How do I join Irish Freemasons?

lol

It's just a joke really, I'm not a member of any group.
I wouldn't fit in with those group of people.

And to be honest, I don't think they'd accept me since you really need to have some power or influence to be of any use to them and I have neither.

Books have been published on them though, probably would give you a better insight into what goes on behind closed doors.

RoboClam

Wow, I go away for a week and everything changes! Well done guys. I hope you two derive at least some enjoyment from the job!

alastair

pablo_escobar wrote: »

Robin Cook, the former (now deceased) UK foreign minister wrote an article in 2005 where he said the origin of "Al Qaeda" comes from "The Database" which was a computer file of all the militants CIA were sponsering, which presumably included Osama Bin Laden.

Now, the above are facts, on record

Facts eh?

I know a man who should know better than Robin Cook:

Osama bin Laden explained the origin of the term in a videotaped interview with Al Jazeera journalist Tayseer Alouni in October 2001:

The name 'al-Qaeda' was established a long time ago by mere chance. The late Abu Ebeida El-Banashiri established the training camps for our mujahedeen against Russia's terrorism. We used to call the training camp al-Qaeda. The name stayed.

pablo_escobar

Osama Bin Laden was also on the payrole of the CIA.
Robin Cook was a highly respected politician, look him up.

I know which one has more integrity, clearly you don't.

gizmo

pablo_escobar wrote: »

I understand your point gizmo, but I don't accept it should be the burden of the OP to educate someone with absolutely no interest in the topic of discussion.

There is a difference between educating a poster in every facet of the argument and simply providing evidence of a certain claim. For instance, in your post you mention Tony Blair has admitted the invasion of Iraq was for oil. That to me is a statement which simply needs backing up. I don't need to know anything else except a link to a legitimate newspaper or video where he said it. Otherwise how can anyone believe it? It could just be made up to push a particular viewpoint.

If you'll look at my own posts here on the forum you'll probably see that I'm certainly skeptical of the alternate theory behind 9/11 however I've repeatedly asked for a unified CT hypothesis on what happened. To date that has not been provided, all we ever get is certain elements of the official line being torn to pieces which doesn't do any good when someone is trying to sit down and piece it all together.

pablo_escobar wrote: »

If you're genuinely interested in a topic, there's nothing unreasonable about requesting additional information to help you engage constructively, but if the request is just part of a strategy to mock and insult, then the OP's reluctance in providing additional resources (easily found with google) is understandable.

I understand that this may be the case but in a lot of instances it's automatically seen to be a latter move, rather than a request which is designed to get more info. I understand it can be frustrating but at least if everyone has the same information along with the relevant sources, surely that can only lead to more insightful debate?

pablo_escobar wrote: »

Yes, the "guilty" people were banned and who were the antagonists? they're still here.

The "guilty" people were those who, in nearly every instance of them being asked for proof basically told the user to go away and look for it themselves, usually throwing in one of those inane "sheeple" comments along the way. A term, may I add, which comes across as just as offensive as the counter "nutter" comment.

alastair

pablo_escobar wrote: »

Osama Bin Laden was also on the payrole of the CIA.
Robin Cook was a highly respected politician, look him up.

I know which one has more integrity, clearly you don't.

Yeah yeah. Bottom line is that both Bin Laden and the rest of the known world are all in agreement that al-Qaeda does indeed exist - so you'll just have to suck it up. The question isn't about anyone's 'integrity' - it's about whether the group exists as understood with Bin Laden as a leader.

And Bin Laden was never on the CIA payroll. Just saying.

pablo_escobar

alastair wrote:

Yeah yeah. Bottom line is that both Bin Laden and the rest of the known world are all in agreement that al-Qaeda does indeed exist - so you'll just have to suck it up. The question isn't about anyone's 'integrity' - it's about whether the group exists as understood with Bin Laden as a leader.

What I said was: "Al-Qaeda" (according the former UK foreign secretary, Robin Cook) when translated really refers to "The Database", a computer file of the CIA sponsered militants in Afghanistan.

Are you denying the US funded "Al-Qaeda"?

And Bin Laden was never on the CIA payroll. Just saying.

"Just saying" ?

You know, i don't mind discussing this issue with you, but before I do, you need to get your facts straight.

alastair

pablo_escobar wrote: »

What I said was: "Al-Qaeda" (according the former UK foreign secretary, Robin Cook) when translated really refers to "The Database", a computer file of the CIA sponsered militants in Afghanistan.

Are you denying the US funded "Al-Qaeda"?



"Just saying" ?

You know, i don't mind discussing this issue with you, but before I do, you need to get your facts straight.

I'm saying that Bin Laden was never on the CIA payroll, nor was he funded by any US support in Afghanistan. If you think otherwise, why not support that contention.

No-one who knows anything about arabic would claim that Al-Qaeda means 'the database' - it's 'base'.

pablo_escobar

Zbigniew Brzezinski is on record for recommending to Jimmy Carter that the CIA financially fund islamic militants in Afghanistan.

Just go and read 'From the Shadows' where Robert Gates, the current US defense secretary discusses it.

Brzezinski is quoted in an interview with TheRealNews:

"Robert Gates revealed accurately; that before the Soviets staged a formal invasion..." "we increased financial assistance to the mujahideen"

And for history of Al-Qaeda, i'll refer you again to the documentary, 'Al-Qaeda doesn't exist'

Watch it, it's very interesting documentary.

Here is part 2 which discusses funding, Brzezinski appears in the film.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnV_pNe_BB0

Mahatma coat

I did that Colour personality test that BB Linked to a few pages back, Rather interesting

PROBLEM UNDERLYING THE PRESENT STRESS -- You are very impressed by people who are unique, original individuals and you are trying to emulate people with these qualities in your own personality.

CURRENT INAPPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR -- You have high emotional demands and are willing to involve yourself in a close relationship, but not with any great depth of feeling.

DESIRED OBJECTIVE -- You want to make a favorable impression and be regarded as a special personality. You are therefore constantly on the watch to see whether you are succeeding in this and others are reacting to you -- this makes you feel that you are in control. You use tactics cleverly in order to obtain influence and special recognition. You are susceptible to esthetic ideas or philosophies.

Dave!

Sweet, maybe a bit of sanity will prevail in this forum from now on For too long it's just been a quagmire where any nutjob throws out a silly idea and everyone is expected to nod their head. Maybe if a higher standard of discussion and evidence is enforced, we might end up with some 'theories' that in some way resemble reality.

Welcome, boys...

BTW that dude's implosion on page 1 was terrific. Good to finally see that we (Freemasons ) have finally reached a position of REAL authority!

WakeUp

Dave! wrote: »

Sweet, maybe a bit of sanity will prevail in this forum from now on For too long it's just been a quagmire where any nutjob throws out a silly idea and everyone is expected to nod their head.

So what are you saying, everyone who post's here is insane is that what you mean. And give it a break with the fcking name calling please it is pathetic, as a "Mod" really you should be above that. Nobody expects anyone to just "nod their head".

Dave! wrote: »

Maybe if a higher standard of discussion and evidence is enforced, we might end up with some 'theories' that in some way resemble reality.

This is the conspiracy theory forum. I respectfully suggest you go and read the charter with regard to providing a "higher standard of evidence".

Dave! wrote: »

BTW that dude's implosion on page 1 was terrific. Good to finally see that we (Freemasons ) have finally reached a position of REAL authority!

You should really take a trip over to the feedback forum and have a look at the thread about the new mod's there before you start throwing comments around like "that dudes implosion on page 1 was terrific", with all due respect.

alastair

pablo_escobar wrote: »

Zbigniew Brzezinski is on record for recommending to Jimmy Carter that the CIA financially fund islamic militants in Afghanistan.

Heh - do you honestly think that there's anyone who doesn't know that the mujahideen were funded by the CIA?

But we're not talking about them, are we? - we're talking about Al-Qaeda, and Bin Laden specifically.

tallus

Best of luck to the two new mods.

old_aussie

All the best new MODs.

nullzero

alastair wrote: »

And Bin Laden was never on the CIA payroll. Just saying.

For someone who bangs on about evidence not being provided to back up claims that's a pretty big assumption you're making there.

Do the CIA publish lists of who is on their payroll?
If they do I'd love to see them.

alastair

nullzero wrote: »

For someone who bangs on about evidence not being provided to back up claims that's a pretty big assumption you're making there.

Do the CIA publish lists of who is on their payroll?
If they do I'd love to see them.

Yes. yes they do. And no - you can't - I'm hanging on to my copy.

Now - what was that about those who make a claim should provide evidence to support them?

Di0genes

nullzero wrote: »

For someone who bangs on about evidence not being provided to back up claims that's a pretty big assumption you're making there.

Do the CIA publish lists of who is on their payroll?
If they do I'd love to see them.

Actually the claim that Bin Laden was on the CIA payroll was made first on this thread. I'd like to see some proof that is in the CIA.

The idea that Bin Laden needs a CIA pay cheque when he comes from an independently wealthy background.

nullzero

Di0genes wrote: »

Actually the claim that Bin Laden was on the CIA payroll was made first on this thread. I'd like to see some proof that is in the CIA.

The idea that Bin Laden needs a CIA pay cheque when he comes from an independently wealthy background.

I'm not defending what anyone else said.
I'm just pointing out holes in the style of the person I was quoting.

Di0genes

nullzero wrote: »

I'm not defending what anyone else said.
I'm just pointing out holes in the style of the person I was quoting.

It was a bad turn of phrase, he would have been better off saying "no one has shown that Bin Laden is on the CIA payroll".

However attacking style and not substance appears to be the only tool in your limited grasp.

Duiske

I hope with the addition of the new mods, it will help cut down on this sort of problem. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056030222

The thread only got to the fourth post before the usual suspects totally derailed it.

alastair

Duiske wrote: »

I hope with the addition of the new mods, it will help cut down on this sort of problem. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056030222

The thread only got to the fourth post before the usual suspects totally derailed it.

I think you'll find that the OP derailed it in post 3 by engaging in personal abuse, and denying what his clear motivation for the post was in the first place.

Penn

The OP didn't derail it. He made an unnecessarily rude comment which should have been reported rather than people dragging the thread through 4 pages of pure childish nonsense. I agree, his comment was out of line, and I for one reported it. What derailed the thread however, was not only calling the OP out on his comment, but making snarky remarks to someone who thanked the post.

If you have a problem with the post, f*cking report it an let the mods deal with it. If you don't like the mods decision, pm them. But this childish "he said.... she said" and calling people out just for thanking a post is ridiculous.

alastair

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

If you have a problem with the post, f*cking report it an let the mods deal with it. If you don't like the mods decision, pm them. But this childish "he said.... she said" and calling people out just for thanking a post is ridiculous.

He quite clearly stated that there was no personal attack - dunno how you report that - any suggestions?

Di0genes

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

The OP didn't derail it. He made an unnecessarily rude comment which should have been reported rather than people dragging the thread through 4 pages of pure childish nonsense. I agree, his comment was out of line, and I for one reported it. What derailed the thread however, was not only calling the OP out on his comment, but making snarky remarks to someone who thanked the post.

If you have a problem with the post, f*cking report it an let the mods deal with it. If you don't like the mods decision, pm them. But this childish "he said.... she said" and calling people out just for thanking a post is ridiculous.

The problem being it was thanked by a poster who has repeataly thread jacked to specifically reprimand other posters about their discourtesy attitude.

Penn

So you threadjacked to do the exact same thing?

Okay, so you believed nullzero was being hypocritical. Big deal. Whether he was or not, you and alaister derail the thread by calling him out on it with snarky childish comments. It was completely unnecessary. At the end of the day, all that has been achieved is that yet another thread has been derailed

alastair

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

So you threadjacked to do the exact same thing?

Okay, so you believed nullzero was being hypocritical. Big deal. Whether he was or not, you and alaister derail the thread by calling him out on it with snarky childish comments. It was completely unnecessary. At the end of the day, all that has been achieved is that yet another thread has been derailed

Nothing childish about it. I called him a hypocrite.

No suggestions for how to deal with a supporter of abuse, rather than instigator, other than in thread?

The Recliner

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

The OP didn't derail it. He made an unnecessarily rude comment which should have been reported rather than people dragging the thread through 4 pages of pure childish nonsense. I agree, his comment was out of line, and I for one reported it. What derailed the thread however, was not only calling the OP out on his comment, but making snarky remarks to someone who thanked the post.

If you have a problem with the post, f*cking report it an let the mods deal with it. If you don't like the mods decision, pm them. But this childish "he said.... she said" and calling people out just for thanking a post is ridiculous.

People should be made read and agree to abide by what is written above before they are allowed post on this forum, it would make life a lot easier

alastair wrote: »

He quite clearly stated that there was no personal attack - dunno how you report that - any suggestions?

Report the original offending post and let the Mods decide on the intentions

Di0genes wrote: »

The problem being it was thanked by a poster who has repeataly thread jacked to specifically reprimand other posters about their discourtesy attitude.

If someone thread jacks and does it repeatedly for the purposes suggsted above then report each instance and let the Mods deal with it

Taking them to task on thread leads to further derailment

nullzero

Di0genes wrote: »

The problem being it was thanked by a poster who has repeataly thread jacked to specifically reprimand other posters about their discourtesy attitude.

Sorry, but this quote from you displays that exact attitude

However attacking style and not substance appears to be the only tool in your limited grasp.

Thanks for making my point for me.

Penn

alastair wrote: »

He quite clearly stated that there was no personal attack - dunno how you report that - any suggestions?

Firstly, nullzero didn't say anything until you guys challenged him on it. But secondly, if you feel nullzero was wrong about whether it was a personal attack or not, then it doesn't matter. Its not up to nullzero to decide if it was personal abuse. Once you report it, it's up to the mods. I felt it was personal abuse, so I reported it.

Di0genes

nullzero wrote: »

Sorry, but this quote from you displays that exact attitude

Thanks for making my point for me.

What point? Hey I don't pretend that I'm not abrasive. The problem is you're rude, and a hypocrite to boot.

Penn

alastair wrote: »

Nothing childish about it. I called him a hypocrite.

No suggestions for how to deal with a supporter of abuse, rather than instigator, other than in thread?

I'm using my iPhone, so I can reply as quickly as I'd like. I actually didn't see your post until after I had replied to Diogenes due to the way the page loaded.

However, why are you challenging me? Why be so confrontational about it? I'm not here to reply to you, and if I choose to, I don't have to. But please, bear in mind, I matter very little to you. I am a stranger. I am a random person who you don't know. Same with everyone here. So calm down. Why does what I or anyone else think really matter at the end of the day? All I'm doing is giving my opinion, as are you. We're strangers, but we're also equals here. So a little bit of respect towards others wouldn't go amiss

alastair

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

Firstly, nullzero didn't say anything until you guys challenged him on it. But secondly, if you feel nullzero was wrong about whether it was a personal attack or not, then it doesn't matter. Its not up to nullzero to decide if it was personal abuse. Once you report it, it's up to the mods. I felt it was personal abuse, so I reported it.

He thanked a post containing personal abuse, and then when called on it - confirmed that he didn't consider it personal abuse. He's a man who seems to make it his mission ro define abusive comments, so that horse has long bolted.

The Recliner

Di0genes wrote: »

It was a bad turn of phrase, he would have been better off saying "no one has shown that Bin Laden is on the CIA payroll".

However attacking style and not substance appears to be the only tool in your limited grasp.

Di0genes wrote: »

What point? Hey I don't pretend that I'm not abrasive. The problem is you're rude, and a hypocrite to boot.

nullzero wrote: »

Sorry, but this quote from you displays that exact attitude

Thanks for making my point for me.

alastair wrote: »

He thanked a post containing personal abuse, and then when called on it - confirmed that he didn't consider it personal abuse. He's a man who seems to make it his mission ro define abusive comments, so that horse has long bolted.

Lads this thread has gone way beyond being off topic but its purpose is not so you can continue your petty bickering from the other thread

I could hand out infractions but I don't want to do that

I suggest you all take a step back and if I see you continue on this arguement here or anywhere else on the forum there will be bans

Or take it to PM and argue it amongst yourselves there because it certainly adds nothing to the discussion on this forum

humanji

I've closed this thread because... well seriously, do I have to explain it? There's new mods, show's over.


edit: Ninja'd by The Recliner.