Conspiracy Forum - Boston Bomb Thread

P.Walnuts

I suppose i'm just wondering about the entire thread of the Boston Bombings on the Conspiracy forums, the whole thing is disgusting. Post articles/images suggesting the guy who had his legs blown off was an "actor" who used the chaos after the blast to take his prosthetic off just was too much for me so I felt I had to bring it up somewhere. I man the rest of the thread is bad enough in itself but this was just preposterous.

Is it really adding anything to Boards to allow such thread spouting such obvious drivel? I mean the majority will see it as what it is, but surely there should be some protection form yourselves from the naive/young to be exposed to this kind of nonsense?

Just would like your opinions on the thread, I really can't see how discussing obvious lies and graphic, offensive photographs where people were killed/maimed is of value to the site.

The Hill Billy

A link would be helpful.
Just so we know exactly what thread you are posting about.

P.Walnuts

The Hill Billy wrote: »

A link would be helpful.
Just so we know exactly what thread you are posting about.

Don't know how to link a specific post sorry, this is the page


http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=84326572#post84326572

Post 480 is the one that caught my attention.

Chop Chop

P.Walnuts wrote: »

Don't know how to link a specific post sorry, this is the page


http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=84326572#post84326572

Post 480 is the one that caught my attention.

If you don't like it don't read it, there is a lot of controversial posts in the forum and that's the nature of it. Some people believe the boston bombings are fake, just like 9/11, JFK, etc....

If posters cannot post links and images, we'll then the forum is finished.

The devil is in the detail for the de-bunkers and the conspiracy folks.

By the way, those images of the guy with his legs blown off were distributed all over the globe by CNN.

P.Walnuts

Chop Chop wrote: »

If you don't like it don't read it, there is a lot of controversial posts in the forum and that's the nature of it. Some people believe the boston bombings are fake, just like 9/11, JFK, etc....

If posters cannot post links and images, we'll then the forum is finished.

The devil is in the detail for the de-bunkers and the conspiracy folks.

By the way, those images of the guy with his legs blown off were distributed all over the globe by CNN.

You're missing the point, i've no real problems with the photo's themselves, more so the description of those photo's detailing how the guy with his legs blown off was in fact an actor who faked the whole thing....

You think that's reasonable post?

Question, if a bomb went off in Dublin tomorrow, do you think it would be suitable for Boards to host threads (complete with pictures of the injuries) suggesting those killed/maimed were in fact actors and the whole thing was fake?

Chop Chop

P.Walnuts wrote: »

You're missing the point, i've no real problems with the photo's themselves, more so the description of those photo's detailing how the guy with his legs blown off was in fact an actor who faked the whole thing....

You think that's reasonable post?

Question, if a bomb went off in Dublin tomorrow, do you think it would be suitable for Boards to host threads (complete with pictures of the injuries) suggesting those killed/maimed were in fact actors and the whole thing was fake?

1) Do you think it would be appropriate for CNN and FOX to host them? They did host those images and blasted them around the world at high speed.

2) The conspiracy forum is for people that have doubts about official accounts of real events, how do you envisage they get there points through? With anecdotal tales of forums they read?

If it's offensive to you, then don't go in there.

suggesting those killed/maimed were in fact actors and the whole thing was fake?

Yes it's a conspiracy forum.....

P.Walnuts

Chop Chop wrote: »

1) Do you think it would be appropriate for CNN and FOX to host them? They did host those images and blasted them around the world at high speed.

2) The conspiracy forum is for people that have doubts about official accounts of real events, how do you envisage they get there points through? With anecdotal tales of forums they read?

If it's offensive to you, then don't go in there.

Ok, for the second time it wasn't the images that were offensive, so you can leave CNN out of this. Lat time I checked they weren't claiming the injured were actors tho were they?

Chop Chop

P.Walnuts wrote: »

Ok, for the second time it wasn't the images that were offensive, so you can leave CNN out of this. Lat time I checked they weren't claiming the injured were actors tho were they?

This is not the conspiracy forum, so your answers won't be answered here.

Listen if you have a problem with it, then try and de-bunk it. There are many like yourself that come into the forum and do the business. There are top class posters on both sides that have rational, critical thinking on both sides.

The forum is hectic at times, but you can see both sides.

I am personally enjoy reading the forum, I am personally on the fence with most of it.

I think the moon landings happened but others will say otherwise...

Steve

P.Walnuts wrote: »

Is it really adding anything to Boards to allow such thread spouting such obvious drivel?

It adds discussion - as long as that discussion is reasonable then that is what the site is here for.
Boards does not condone the opinions of its members, it merely facilitates their need to voice them.

I mean the majority will see it as what it is, but surely there should be some protection form yourselves from the naive/young to be exposed to this kind of nonsense?

And exactly where would you personally draw the line? Can child abuse be discussed? Can abortion be discussed? Can people who died in Iraq be discussed? Can the recession be discussed? What if they are all well covered up scams by government officials brainwashing us with chemicals in the drinking water? should we all keep shtum about that too?

I agree the CT forum is off the wall at times and some of the stuff seems crazy but society needs that to bring balance - otherwise we might as well be that strange country north of South Korea where everything is perfect and there is no need to ever question anything the authorities say..

humanji

It's probably worth pointing out that you can't actually readily prove that the guy really did lose his legs. That's the whole premise of the conspiracy theories forum. It's questioning the mainstream media. Several times the reports for that particular event were shown to be wrong. The CT forum questions whether or not these were intentional attempts to mislead the public and whether or not there are some other truths that are being hidden.

History is full of what are known as "False Flag" operations, where a country fakes some sort of attack to justify an action they wish to take. Some people feel that events like the Boston bombing were orchestrated, and so look for possible evidence to corroborated their theories. The topic isn't pleasant, but does that really justify censorship?

P.Walnuts

Alright lads, not going to discuss the whole conspiracy theory topic, as well, its not worth the energy.Generally they are harmless enough and people are welcome to them if the tin foil hat in their thing...

This is more of a specific thing....Boards is well capable of censoring people when it suits them, be it trolling or "being a dick" or which i'm almost positive claiming someone who has been maimed for life is in fact a fraud would fall into, just because it a "theory" its somehow immune from any action?

Like I asked the poster above, bomb goes off in Dublin tomorrow...Boards would be perfectly happy to host images of people with missing limbs and a discussion whether they were actors or not?

nesf

P.Walnuts wrote: »

Alright lads, not going to discuss the whole conspiracy theory topic, as well, its not worth the energy.Generally they are harmless enough and people are welcome to them if the tin foil hat in their thing...

This is more of a specific thing....Boards is well capable of censoring people when it suits them, be it trolling or "being a dick" or which i'm almost positive claiming someone who has been maimed for life is in fact a fraud would fall into, just because it a "theory" its somehow immune from any action?

Like I asked the poster above, bomb goes off in Dublin tomorrow...Boards would be perfectly happy to host images of people with missing limbs and a discussion whether they were actors or not?

I'll be honest, I find the forum often quite troubling, so I do understand where you are coming from.


Whether or not people should be allowed make such speculations is certainly an open question. If there was a bomb set off in Dublin would we tolerate speculation about it being a false flag event or similar? I don't know to be honest with you. It would probably depend a lot on context, I am a very strong believer in we should be respectful of the dead for the sake of those who care about them, so you as you can imagine any discussion of people who die in a bombing being suspects and such is something I find disturbing.

The thing is, my personal feelings aside, the site did decide to create a Conspiracy Theory forum and naturally they will discuss outlandish theories in that beggar belief for those of us who don't indulge in such thinking. If they didn't it wouldn't be a conspiracy theory forum. The price I think of having such a forum will be times where discussion has taken a turn that is decidedly distasteful to many of us. I don't think it would be correct to ban the kind of discussion you are reporting because it's precisely the kind of discussion one would expect in such a forum. Now whether such a forum has a place on Boards is a separate question.

Penn

P.Walnuts wrote: »

Like I asked the poster above, bomb goes off in Dublin tomorrow...Boards would be perfectly happy to host images of people with missing limbs and a discussion whether they were actors or not?

Quite frankly, no. Is that hypocritical? Not really. This general query in relation to Boards has been discussed before, where it was asked why threads in which posters seemed to be allowed to make jokes about serious accidents in other countries but couldn't do the same about accidents that happened in Ireland, and the answer was that jokes about accidents in another country were far less likely to offend anyone in the site as it was extremely unlikely anyone on the site had any link to anyone involved.

As mod of the Conspiracy Theories forum, I'd be very much inclined to not permit CT related discussion about a bomb in Dublin due to the offence it might cause to numerous people on the site, or at least permit discussion but very strict rules and moderation.

We have a line in the CT forum charter that says the very nature of conspiracy theories means that it will be unpalatable to some. This is true with regards the Boston Bombing. A bomb in Dublin however would extend beyond that due to the huge offence it could cause to many users on the site (rather than finding it distasteful, they could actually find it extremely upsetting), so from my perspective as a mod, discussion on CTs relating to it would either be not allowed or allowed but with strict guidelines and moderation so as not to cause upset to anyone who may come across the thread. And of course, any such allowance would be discussed with CMods and Admin first due to the nature of the discussion to ensure what is being done is in the best interests of the site and the majority of its users.

P.Walnuts

Fair enough lads, i'm all for freedom of speech, but when it comes to basically dragging victims of atrocities through the mud i think a line has to be drawn somewhere.

Just wanted to get my point of view across, and maybe just a small re think might go into the Moderation of CT concerning this kind of stuff.

Cheers

nesf

P.Walnuts wrote: »

Fair enough lads, i'm all for freedom of speech, but when it comes to basically dragging victims of atrocities through the mud i think a line has to be drawn somewhere.

Just wanted to get my point of view across, and maybe just a small re think might go into the Moderation of CT concerning this kind of stuff.

Cheers

Well if they start posting it anywhere else on the site it'll get stomped down on. I appreciate what you're saying and I feel fairly similar to you, I just have trouble seeing a solution other than removing a lot of the discussion that goes on there and effectively killing the forum.

Penn

P.Walnuts wrote: »

Fair enough lads, i'm all for freedom of speech, but when it comes to basically dragging victims of atrocities through the mud i think a line has to be drawn somewhere.

Just wanted to get my point of view across, and maybe just a small re think might go into the Moderation of CT concerning this kind of stuff.

Cheers

Trust me, there have already been a few things deleted and actioned which did step over the line of acceptability.

Brown Bomber

P.Walnuts wrote: »

I suppose i'm just wondering about the entire thread of the Boston Bombings on the Conspiracy forums, the whole thing is disgusting. Post articles/images suggesting the guy who had his legs blown off was an "actor" who used the chaos after the blast to take his prosthetic off just was too much for me so I felt I had to bring it up somewhere. I man the rest of the thread is bad enough in itself but this was just preposterous.

Is it really adding anything to Boards to allow such thread spouting such obvious drivel? I mean the majority will see it as what it is, but surely there should be some protection form yourselves from the naive/young to be exposed to this kind of nonsense?

Just would like your opinions on the thread, I really can't see how discussing obvious lies and graphic, offensive photographs where people were killed/maimed is of value to the site.

Just some quick points.

To the best of my knowledge only two posters have brought up what you have a problem with in the CT forum. Neither have any posting history in the forum - just as you don't. 1 of the posters who brought it up did so from the perspective of "Hey, Look what the conspiracy theorists are claiming now!!!" So your "problem" is with a single user who doesn't post in the forum not the forum itself.

Could you be clear on what the supposed "problem" actually is? You have made it clear that graphic images are perfectly fine with you so does that mean that it is this individual posters OPINIONS and OBSERVATIONS you want to silence and censor?

For clarity, I too (as a regular CT poster) find these staged claims both offensive and absurd and have said so and while giving them the short shrift they deserve have attempted to discredit them - censoring these claims only gives them a level of credibility they don't deserve.

P.Walnuts

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Just some quick points.

To the best of my knowledge only two posters have brought up what you have a problem with in the CT forum. Neither have any posting history in the forum - just as you don't. 1 of the posters who brought it up did so from the perspective of "Hey, Look what the conspiracy theorists are claiming now!!!" So your "problem" is with a single user who doesn't post in the forum not the forum itself.

Could you be clear on what the supposed "problem" actually is? You have made it clear that graphic images are perfectly fine with you so does that mean that it is this individual posters OPINIONS and OBSERVATIONS you want to silence and censor?

For clarity, I too (as a regular CT poster) find these staged claims both offensive and absurd and have said so and while giving them the short shrift they deserve have attempted to discredit them - censoring these claims only gives them a level of credibility they don't deserve.

I thought it was clear but obviously not...

My problem is with victims of an atrocity having their names dragged through the mud, eg the claim that the guy had his legs blown off was in fact an actor that removed his prosthetic legs and spilled fake blood on the ground.

Brown Bomber

P.Walnuts wrote: »

I thought it was clear but obviously not...

My problem is with victims of an atrocity having their names dragged through the mud, eg the claim that the guy had his legs blown off was in fact an actor that removed his prosthetic legs and spilled fake blood on the ground.

I also have a problem with this but In the post that you refer to that is not claimed but insinuated. It is linked to with the description "really fishy stuff". Again - I am the only person who challenged these posts on-thread. This is something that you are/were free to do.

This is my solution. What is yours? To censor opinions that you find offensive? I am all for banning gratuitously offensive or obscene posts. However, in this instance the poster apparently didn't find it gratuitous they apparently found it genuinely suspicious. You want to punish them for a thought-crime because you don't share their opinions. You want to define the parameters of acceptable discourse based on your own perspective.

Also, you have claimed that you have a problem with the whole thread. Could you list precisely what troubles you?

P.Walnuts

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I also have a problem with this but In the post that you refer to that is not claimed but insinuated. It is linked to with the description "really fishy stuff". Again - I am the only person who challenged these posts on-thread. This is something that you are/were free to do.

This is my solution. What is yours? To censor opinions that you find offensive? I am all for banning gratuitously offensive or obscene posts. However, in this instance the poster apparently didn't find it gratuitous they apparently found it genuinely suspicious. You want to punish them for a thought-crime because you don't share their opinions. You want to define the parameters of acceptable discourse based on your own perspective.

Also, you have claimed that you have a problem with the whole thread. Could you list precisely what troubles you?

Look you obviously want to get into a full blown CP debate which i'm not going to get into, for the same reason I don't engage with raving lunatics on street corners, its just not worth the time and effort.

If you wish to subscribe to that kind of stuff, be my guest. I had a problem with a particular aspect of that thread and brought it up with staff as I am entitled to do, they listened and gave their point of view and I am happy with their response. That's it as far as I am concerned.

nesf

P.Walnuts wrote: »

If you wish to subscribe to that kind of stuff, be my guest. I had a problem with a particular aspect of that thread and brought it up with staff as I am entitled to do, they listened and gave their point of view and I am happy with their response. That's it as far as I am concerned.

Staff? You can call us that when they pay us.

Steve

nesf wrote: »

Staff? You can call us that when they pay us.

You're doing this for free?? :eek:

You need to join the mods union mate, under the terms of the croak bark deal we are entitled to fair remuneration these days.....

Brown Bomber

P.Walnuts wrote: »

Look you obviously want to get into a full blown CP debate which i'm not going to get into, for the same reason I don't engage with raving lunatics on street corners, its just not worth the time and effort.

If you wish to subscribe to that kind of stuff, be my guest. I had a problem with a particular aspect of that thread and brought it up with staff as I am entitled to do, they listened and gave their point of view and I am happy with their response. That's it as far as I am concerned.

I don't know what a "CP debate" is. I am simply asking you to back up your complaint. Evidently you are incapable of doing this as you didn't think it through before initiating it. This is demonstrated by your shift from "entire thread" to "particular aspect".

P.Walnuts

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I don't know what a "CP debate" is. I am simply asking you to back up your complaint. Evidently you are incapable of doing this as you didn't think it through before initiating it. This is demonstrated by your shift from "entire thread" to "particular aspect".

Right this is literally the last time I am going to respond to you

An article was posted on the thread claiming the the guy who was maimed was an actor who faked his legs being blown off and poured fake blood on the ground.

I found that offensive.

I complained.

I really hope you possess the intellect to understand that since its the third time i've stated it.

Good luck.

Chop Chop

P.Walnuts wrote: »

Right this is literally the last time I am going to respond to you

An article was posted on the thread claiming the the guy who was maimed was an actor who faked his legs being blown off and poured fake blood on the ground.

I found that offensive.

I complained.

I really hope you possess the intellect to understan that since its the third time i've stated it.

Good luck.

Don't go in there then, there are plenty of conspiracy sites on the net that allow the most revolting stuff on their sites. I think boards is a cut above them, in terms of moderation and the caliber of posters on both sides makes a very good read.

nesf

Steve wrote: »

You're doing this for free?? :eek:

You need to join the mods union mate, under the terms of the croak bark deal we are entitled to fair remuneration these days.....

I'm a pre-2005 mod, we're barred from organised union membership. DeV feared an armed insurrection I suppose. We have a Representative Body, he doesn't log on much any more though.

Ken.

nesf wrote: »

I'm a pre-2005 mod, we're barred from organised union membership. DeV feared an armed insurrection I suppose. We have a Representative Body, he doesn't log on much any more though.

Must be bad internet connection at the bottom of the Liffey. Probably interference from the cement overcoat.

Chop Chop

ken wrote: »

Must be bad internet connection at the bottom of the Liffey. Probably interference from the cement overcoat.

It's the port tunnel that's giving the interference.

Nodin

Chop Chop wrote: »

Don't go in there then, there are plenty of conspiracy sites on the net that allow the most revolting stuff on their sites. I think boards is a cut above them, in terms of moderation and the caliber of posters on both sides makes a very good read.

The above rather covers it. The whole conspiracy thing annoys me so I never go there. The world rolls on smoothly regardless.

Chop Chop

Nodin wrote: »

The above rather covers it. The whole conspiracy thing annoys me so I never go there. The world rolls on smoothly regardless.

I must agree, but I like reading it.

Brown Bomber

P.Walnuts wrote: »

Right this is literally the last time I am going to respond to you

An article was posted on the thread claiming the the guy who was maimed was an actor who faked his legs being blown off and poured fake blood on the ground.

I found that offensive.

I complained.

I really hope you possess the intellect to understand that since its the third time i've stated it.

Good luck.

You are missing a trick here. Yes, it is offensive to you, me and likely a super-majority of people but it is not intentionally offensive. It is offensive to us both because we have drawn the same conclusions i.e. that it was a real attack and that was a real victim. It is not offensive to the guy who posted it because he is not disrespecting a real victim but an actor.

We have no automatic entitlement to proclaim our own personal conclusions as the only acceptable conclusion.