911: What makes you suspicious - now with added extra poll option!

[Jazzz]

I would just like to announce that editor has asked an astonishing 151 questions on this thread!

 

[editor]

I would just like to announce that editor has asked an astonishing 151 questions on this thread!

That'll be because you're incapable of giving a straight answer.

But thank you for reminding me of the sheer futility of these threads.

Next time, I'll just bin the thread rather than waste my time expecting you to have the courtesy to answer questions directly related to the astonishing, fact-free claims you've brought up yourself.

 

[editor]

Coz buddhism represents eastern thought. Logic is not really influenced at all by buddhism.

Oh dear. You just don't see it at all.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

I thought I'd binned this!

 

[sparticus]

That was the other one specifically on the intelligence failures something that was uncalled for since it seemed I was posting evidence that was new to quite a few people including our resident expert on 9/11, ed and referring to the able danger inquiry which is still ongoing.

But it is an excellent strategy for silencing viewpoints you disagree with, since who is going to invest any time researching evidence for posts if they are just going to end up in the bin

 

[pilchardman]

I thought I'd binned this!

You fool! It can't be binned; the lizards will unbin it!

 

[Lock&Light]

But it is an excellent strategy for silencing viewpoints you disagree with, since who is going to invest any time researching evidence for posts if they are just going to end up in the bin

You don't think that researching evidence for its own sake in order to arrive at the truth is worth your while?

That says everything, I think.

 

[editor]

TBut it is an excellent strategy for silencing viewpoints you disagree with, since who is going to invest any time researching evidence for posts if they are just going to end up in the bin

So the answer is simple: don't bother posting up any more unresearched fruitloop bollocks!

Problem solved!

 

[Techno303]

I would just like to announce that editor has asked an astonishing 151 questions on this thread!

And I would hazard a guess and say you’ve probably wriggled out of about 10^23 questions raised directly at you, over the years, on these types of threads.

 

[sparticus]

So the answer is simple: don't bother posting up any more unresearched fruitloop bollocks!

Problem solved!

But I don't post unresearched bollocks (unless you care to show me examples where I have). In the case of the other thread it took time to identify the links that demonstrated the points I made and provide the evidence you asked for. The fact that you had ask those questions around Schippers shows a pathetic lack of research on your part in terms of the most basic questions around the intelligence failiures, yet you have no shame pompously announcing that you know 9/11 truth = fruitloop bollocks. By binning the thread, then posters will obviously conclude 'fuck this for a game soldiers'

 

[sparticus]

You don't think that researching evidence for its own sake in order to arrive at the truth is worth your while?

That says everything, I think.

I have researched it. But to post and find links still takes time, so when the thought police bin a thread on a spurious reason, it is natural to question whether it is worth taking any time to post and read here. Unless of course you agree with the world view of the moderators in which case you can continue to post ad nauseum

 

[Lock&Light]

I have researched it. But to post and find links still takes time, so when the thought police bin a thread on a spurious reason, it is natural to question whether it is worth taking any time to post and read here. Unless of course you agree with the world view of the moderators in which case you can continue to post ad nauseum

I think it has been made very clear, through a number of threads, that all your efforts actually only help to damage your appeal. Have you ever stopped to ask yourself why that might be?

 

[Jazzz]

And I would hazard a guess and say you’ve probably wriggled out of about 10^23 questions raised directly at you, over the years, on these types of threads.

If you had 10^23 questions coming at you, I suspect you would grow rather weary of them too Techno303

I'm pretty patient though, except for editor's stuff, because he doesn't actually want answers, he just wants a war of attrition! Indulge his 'questioning' and you never get anywhere.

 

[Jazzz]

I think it has been made very clear, through a number of threads, that all your efforts actually only help to damage your appeal. Have you ever stopped to ask yourself why that might be?

He's not competing for 'miss urban75'

 

[editor]

If you had 10^23 questions coming at you, I suspect you would grow rather weary of them too Techno303 .

Of course, if you had the courtesy to promptly answer questions directly related to the claim you'd just made instead of indulging in wriggle-a-thons, there would be no need for me (and others) to keep on asking again and again.

It's another reason why these threads are a complete waste of time.

 

[flimsier]

The most prolific poster on almost every conspiracy thread?

 

[flimsier]

The most prolific poster on almost every conspiracy thread?

in this case by nearly double the amount.

Oxygen/ publicity/ etc.

Ed: these threads would die without you.

 

[editor]

in this case by nearly double the amount.

Oxygen/ publicity/ etc.

Can anyone join in here or you busy talking to yourself?



The point is I don't want to ban all conspiracy threads: I want a decent debate, but it's simply not possible with the same handful of individuals making wild claims which they refuse to support.

But we're about to make a decision on these threads because I'm not the only one who's utterly fed up with them.

 

[Pickman's model]

this isn't the first time there's been an attempt to ban such nutty threads, though, is it?

if you'd listened to me when i first suggested you ban all the conspiraloons you wouldn't be having to consider barring conspiracy threads now.

 

[flimsier]

Can anyone join in here or you busy talking to yourself?



The point is I don't want to ban all conspiracy threads: I want a decent debate, but it's simply not possible with the same handful of individuals making wild claims which they refuse to support.

But we're about to make a decision on these threads because I'm not the only one who's utterly fed up with them.

Errm, you've announced them banned before.

I suspect you enjoy them, hence them not being banned.

 

[Pickman's model]

Errm, you've announced them banned before.

I suspect you enjoy them, hence them not being banned.

editor is the most prolifick poster on the conspiraloon threads, so that IS a fair conclusion to draw.

 

[editor]

if you'd listened to me when i first suggested you ban all the conspiraloons you wouldn't be having to consider barring conspiracy threads now.

When I need tips on moderating forums from you, I'll be sure to ask.

 

[Pickman's model]

When I need tips on moderating forums from you, I'll be sure to ask.

if only you would!

the kerfuffles you've had over the past two years with conspiraloons - some of them quite heated - could easily have been avoid'd had you listen'd to my advice. but you didn't take it! you wouldn't see sense! and now you've determin'd censorship's the thing to deter further outbreaks of wankery.

but you know it will just be a matter of days before another nutty thread springs up. ban them now and give yourself some well-earned peace.

 

[flimsier]

editor is the most prolifick poster on the conspiraloon threads, so that IS a fair conclusion to draw.

Thanks, though I'm only guessing at the meaning of the 5th word in your post, cos it's spelled wrong!

 

[flimsier]

if only you would!

the kerfuffles you've had over the past two years with conspiraloons - some of them quite heated - could easily have been avoid'd had you listen'd to my advice. but you didn't take it! you wouldn't see sense! and now you've determin'd censorship's the thing to deter further outbreaks of wankery.

but you know it will just be a matter of days before another nutty thread springs up. ban them now and give yourself some well-earned peace.

Agreed. They were banned already though. Even Dr Jazzz will say that's true. But he didn't do what he said. A bit like when some posters aren't banned for doing identical things to other who are (conveniently) banned.

Oh well.

 

[editor]

the kerfuffles you've had over the past two years with conspiraloons - some of them quite heated - could easily have been avoid'd had you listen'd to my advice. but you didn't take it! you wouldn't see sense! and now you've determin'd censorship's the thing to deter further outbreaks of wankery.

Thing is, if I let you have any influence on how these boards are run, you'd insist on turning it into a cod-medieval virtual theme park, with all those ridiculous 'ck' endings.

"Ye urban75 general forum
musick/clubs/ye raves/festies
drugs- ye potions
scrolls/filmick stuff/ etc"

 

[editor]

Agreed. They were banned already though. Even Dr Jazzz will say that's true. But he didn't do what he said. A bit like when some posters aren't banned for doing identical things to other who are (conveniently) banned.

Oh well.

Ah. I see, You're trying to make Some Big Point about something completely different.

Funny thing is, quite a few posters have wondered why you haven't been banned for your antics here....

Oh well. Keep it to yourself because I'm not interested in hearing you moan all over again on a Saturday night because it's b-o-r-i-n-g.

 

[Pickman's model]

Thing is, if I let you have any influence on how these boards are run, you'd insist on turning it into a cod-medieval virtual theme park, with all those ridiculous 'ck' endings.

"Ye urban75 general forum
musick/clubs/ye raves/festies
drugs- ye potions
scrolls/filmick stuff/ etc"

you seem to ignore the simple fact that that's simply wrong. you made it up. there is no basis for it in fact.

but let's not let reality intrude into this discussion, eh? just accept that you've been freely offer'd advice about this issue in the past which you have chosen to ignore. fair enough, your prerogative. but when we're having this same conversation in about six months' time, i hope you'll be fine with me reminding you how you could have avoided the entire situation developing AGAIN.

if you don't secretly love your little contretemps with jazzz et al, then you'll ban all the conspiraloons now. but you love them really, despite the mass of verbiage you devote to slagging them down, so you won't.

 

[Jazzz]

Intractable though I think editor can be, at least he isn't a smug little arsewipe who thinks the way to deal with a problem is to ban long term members of his community that challenge him from time to time or that he may disagree strongly with on certain issues. That I respect him for.

I suggest you take your advice to the feedback section if you must hawk it in public pickman's model.

 

[editor]

I suggest you take your advice to the feedback section if you must hawk it in public pickman's model.

Best word it in a way he understands:

"I suggest ye take thee advice to ye feedbackck secktion if ye must hawk it in publick pickman's* model ck ck ck ck."