Did Rumsfield and Chums want and allow 9/11 to happen? The Poll!

[GarfieldLeChat]

Err, what's this got to do with this anything?!

Your feeble attempt to avoid naming names is truly pathetic!

Who are they, then?

You tell me. Who's in my 'little gang'?

Names please, wriggler.

it has been answered you feeble attempt to not answer any of the things put to you and this insistence on repeating the same (answered) question to the boards is not only more sings of you impossibility to argue your own case but also the fact that you indeed have no real argument, just a sadistic will to repeat your self again and again and again....

Naming names oh i get it now this is your standard line of well he wouldn't say tactic you use with such great aplomb to ban FTP isn't it, when i refuse citing my previous answer you will say summit like 'I have had enough of this etc etc drivel...banned' good one....

care to be less predictable

you know like then next 4 posts not asking for an answer to a question which has been responded to...

If you can...

now then you proof that i am ill informed, please, wriggler.

 

[Jazzz]

...
while its perfectly correct to say that usg will do what they want, when they want, and fuck everyone else, a situation that's required to introduce things like the patriot act is a little bit more extreme. that's when the lizard/illuminati people come out of their caravans and start arguing.

I don't agree with the first bit fubert, one poster (I forget who) put it very neatly when stating that there are only two superpowers in the world - the USG, and world public opinion.

But don't take my word for it, take Dick Cheney's, take Donald Rumsfeld, etc., and the other members of PNAC, who stated in September 2000 that in order to quickly fulfil America's military ambitions an event such as 9-11 was needed.

http://www.americanfreepress.net/12_24_02/America_Pearl_Harbored/america_pearl_harbored.html

It's a prophetic document which even remarks on the possible passing of Saddam Hussein from the scene!

"The process of transformation is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor."

They said they needed it, and bingo...

 

[editor]

iNaming names oh i get it now this is your standard line of well he wouldn't say tactic you use with such great aplomb to ban FTP isn't it, when i refuse citing my previous answer you will say summit like 'I have had enough of this etc etc drivel...banned' good one....

So who are the people in my 'little gang'?

Why won't you name them if you're so sure you're right?

After all, the only way that you can support your claims is by naming these individuals and then giving them the opportunity to answer your allegations.

So who are they, garf?

Or do you really not have a single shred of proof to support your insulting and offensive claims?

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

I've no idea what you're on about and I have no idea why you think that reproducing a context-free comment from months ago proves anything.

I am absolutely correct in my assertion that you have posted up defamatory material, but seeing as I don't come from a privileged family like you, I have not the financial means - nor sufficient interest, frankly - to pursue the matter further.

oh so this is now about my upbringing is it dear me


you know less about me than could even be fitted on to a postage stamp do try and least stick to what you know rather than what you have in fantasy realm eh? one could almost go so far as to say it would be tinfoil hattedness to go down that route as you have no inclination to take i further why are you repeating yourself?

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

I've absolutely no idea what you're on about.

But let's get back to the topic under debate: what are the names of the people you allege are in my 'little gang' who go around destroying bulletin boards?[/B]

you deny that pm's were sent to you then ?

 

[editor]

you know less about me than could even be fitted on to a postage stamp do try and least stick to what you know rather than what you have in fantasy realm eh? one could almost go so far as to say it would be tinfoil hattedness to go down that route as you have no inclination to take i further why are you repeating yourself?

Are you ever going to name these names, or can I safely assume that you're a liar?

 

[editor]

you deny that pm's were sent to you then ?

When? What PMs? I get hundreds of PMs sent to me every week. What the fuck are you on about?

And who's in my 'little gang'? Do they actually exist or did you make it all up?

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

So who are the people in my 'little gang'?

Why won't you name them if you're so sure you're right?

After all, the only way that you can support your claims is by naming these individuals and then giving them the opportunity to answer your allegations.

So who are they, garf?

Or do you really not have a single shred of proof to support your insulting and offensive claims?

the proof dear Michael is the logs of the 'sudden' leap in traffic from far right sites robotic registrations as such after you posted the link.... funny that eh?

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

When? What PMs? I get hundreds of PMs sent to me every week. What the fuck are you on about?

And who's in my 'little gang'? Do they actually exist or did you make it all up?

oh you know the pm's detailing everything going on and why dissensus was started (context specific you see - keep up)

why are you repeating yourself when you have no inclination to take this further?

as for offence, how offencive is it to misrepresented to a whole community in the manner in which you have done regarding me or dissensus?

do you think that your actions were appropriate?

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

Are you ever going to name these names, or can I safely assume that you're a liar?

you can assume what you like if it closets you from the poorness of your behaviour....

i assume nothing less of you.

 

[editor]

the proof dear Michael is the logs of the 'sudden' leap in traffic from far right sites robotic registrations as such after you posted the link.... funny that eh?

What the fuck are you on about now?

Are you claiming that I post on far right websites?
Or are you claiming that I posted links to dissensus on far right websites?
And what's a 'robotic registration' and what's it got to do with me?

Make some sense for fuck's sake because I haven't the foggiest what you're blathering on about.

 

[editor]

oh you know the pm's detailing everything going on and why dissensus was started

Yes. I remember those PMs. Shame the site didn't match the stated aims, but that's al lwater under the bridge.

Now what's that got to do with your recent claims in this thread that I control a little 'gang' who go around trashing websites at my behest?!

Will you please finally name these gang members and get it out in the open please?

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

What the fuck are you on about now?

Are you claiming that I post on far right websites?
Or are you claiming that I posted links to dissensus on far right websites?
And what's a 'robotic registration' and what's it got to do with me?

Make some sense for fuck's sake.

good grief you are having difficulty following things today...

the 'sudden' jumps in web log of dissensus not else where

do try and keep up...

as for making sense you haven't though out this entire thread nor for that matter have you during you current period of weird behaviour

 

[editor]

good grief you are having difficulty following things today...

the 'sudden' jumps in web log of dissensus not else where

You claimed you had 'proof' of my gang in the form of the "logs" showing a " 'sudden' leap in traffic from far right sites robotic registrations".

This makes no sense. What's "far right wing sites" got to do with anything and what's a "robotic registration" got to do with me?

Make some fucking sense.

Oh, and name these gang members please. Your claims. Your big mouth. Back it up please.

 

[Jazzz]

Please let it drop guys, both of you.

This thread is otherwise very encouraging, there are new posters such as nosos and fubert bringing their opinions and contructive discussion. The number of voters answering "yes, quite possible" currently stands at 39, which unequivocally establishes that the topic is considered ripe for discussion and not ridicule. Let's have that discussion.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

Yes. I remember those PMs. Shame the site didn't match the stated aims, but that's al lwater under the bridge.

Now what's that got to do with your recent claims in this thread that I control a little 'gang' who go around trashing websites at my behest?!

Will you please finally name these gang members and get it out in the open please?

good good, now then the little gang issue.

do you think that posting a link to a website set up to save having to have the trouble of an email list before it was publicly open but allowing possible users to have a say in the shaping and forming of that site, but with by your own admission and with your full knowledge, via those pms, of no governing structure, was tantamount to a board war and as a result had the effect of 'sending' people over to the site by it's very publication here?

can you explain in your answer why dissensus was not google listed or spidered etc until the link was posted here?

do you think with hindsight your actions were appropriate when you knew what the situation was, and were offered a right of reply in the initial stages, in fact think i requested quite strongly that you answer the comments so as to prevent a them and us situation developing.

further more can you also say why people may be reluctant to 'start their own boards' if they have seen your previous reactions, knowing that you had full knowledge of it, and yet still decided to place yourself in the adversarial position to it?

 

[editor]

Please let it drop guys, both of you.

Blame garf. he sidetracked this thread with accusations about how I command a 'gang' who go around trashing bulletin boads and I'm afraid I'm not allowing those offensive, defamatory comments to go unchallenged.

I have given him every opportunity to back up his claims and I'm quite insistent that he does so.

 

[Loki]

The number of voters answering "yes, quite possible" currently stands at 39, which unequivocally establishes that the topic is considered ripe for discussion and not ridicule.

What about the 10 voting "More lizards please" and the four voting "No he wouldn't do such a thing."

It's a crappily constructed poll so I find it hard to respect the results.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

You claimed you had 'proof' of my gang in the form of the "logs" showing a " 'sudden' leap in traffic from far right sites robotic registrations".

This makes no sense. What's "far right wing sites" got to do with anything and what's a "robotic registration" got to do with me?

Make some fucking sense.

Oh, and name these gang members please. Your claims. Your big mouth. Back it up please.

the sign ups were from the far right wing sites therefore the traffic was from those far right wing sites, summit i know (from your own mouth) that you have problems with here to...

are you honestly claiming you had no idea what would happen?

i fail to see the naivety in you tbh, equally you are being deliberately obtuse


edited from below hit the wrong button

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

Blame garf. he sidetracked this thread with accusations about how I command a 'gang' who go around trashing bulletin boads and I'm afraid I'm not allowing those offensive, defamatory comments to go unchallenged.

I have given him every opportunity to back up his claims and I'm quite insistent that he does so.

ah so now it's the blame game is it?




you are rubbish at this debating thing aren't you?

you had an answer you attempted via feeble means to push this further to the side in some 'quest' to justify you inexcusable actions on this thread, about dissensus, in general ... very very dissappointing...

 

[editor]

can you explain in your answer why dissensus was not google listed or spidered etc until the link was posted here?

do you think with hindsight your actions were appropriate when you knew what the situation was, and were offered a right of reply in the initial stages, in fact think i requested quite strongly that you answer the comments so as to prevent a them and us situation developing.

further more can you also say why people may be reluctant to 'start their own boards' if they have seen your previous reactions, knowing that you had full knowledge of it, and yet still decided to place yourself in the adversarial position to it?

I only commented on dissensus here (after months of ignoring it) because I was fed up with ignorant, cowardly shits publicly insulting me there, week after week.

But I've heard enough of your endless bleating about a failed site. It may help your ego to blame me for its downfall, but that's a cop out. Try taking responsibility for yourself.

I didn't organise 'gangs' of people to trash your little boards - you did that yourselves with your useless organising skills and endless infighting, your pub meetings where I was "the main topic of conversation", the inflammatory insults aimed at the u75 community, the battling internal egos and, of course, the bizarre Mike Yarwood antics of FTP where he decided to impersonate Dubversion.

Now exactly who was in this gang of mine you speak of and what the fuck does your comment about "far right sites robotic registrations" mean?

 

[goldenecitrone]

ah so now it's the blame game is it?

...

That's rich. Why did dissensus fail? Because it was rubbish. Get over it.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

You claimed you had 'proof' of my gang in the form of the "logs" showing a " 'sudden' leap in traffic from far right sites robotic registrations".

This makes no sense. What's "far right wing sites" got to do with anything and what's a "robotic registration" got to do with me?

Make some fucking sense.

Oh, and name these gang members please. Your claims. Your big mouth. Back it up please.

the sign ups were from the far right wing sites therefore the traffic was from those far right wing sites, summit i know (from your own mouth) that you have problems with here to...

are you honestly claiming you had no idea what would happen?

i fail to see the naivety in you tbh, equally you are being deliberately obtuse

can you read this it's quite clear

the sign ups came from the sites not from you

stop with your pathetic soundbitism and respond sensibly...you faux hyperbole is not answering the question.

goldencitrone sorry but you have no idea...

as for my responsiblity let's look at that shall we, as the owner of the server i ellected to have no part in the formation of the rules per say as this i beleieved woudl lead to arguemnts about 'ownership'.

you complain there were no systems set up, again proving that you cannot read the answer is there infront of you...

for what it's worth as i have said before i don't blame you for the downfall of dissensus, i do blame you as part of a number of people who helped force it down to it's eventual self destruction, but you are not alone...

edited from above hit the wrong button

 

[editor]

.you faux hyperbole is not answering the question.

My what?

And I still fail to see what I've got to do with 'right wing robotic registrations' nor why you should bring up the topic here. Weird.

 

[editor]

for what it's worth as i have said before i don't blame you for the downfall of dissensus, i do blame you as part of a number of people who helped force it down to it's eventual self destruction, but you are not alone...

Would they include members of my enigmatic 'gang'?

What's their names?

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

My what?

And I still fail to see what I've got to do with 'right wing robotic registrations' nor why you should bring up the topic here. Weird.

look it's this simple

site a unknow of radar of rihgt wing dicks on the net due to the fact it's unlisted.

site a address get posted on a site where the right wingers know and keep watch on for it's dangerous left wing tendencies (ie urban)

'suddenly' site a get lots of robotic repeat sign ups and a google listing due to spidering and as a direct result of the posting of the address....

blame in so far as it's your fault their are dick heads out there no, blame as in you where fully aware as the 'editor of a sucessful website' what the posting of the address would do yes.

NAMES

the people i blame directly for the aiding of the chaos caused, FTP, dub, you and to a certain extent me for not making sure the thing was better protected.

as an aside, are you aware that my so called 'dignified silence' during the first 4 days of your initial posting was as a direct result of my home machine being downed by hackers who came from right wing sites ?

now I'm sorry if you feel that i am wrongly laying the blame for the attack on you for posting the link but really what did you expect would happen?

as for gang it will not have escaped your notice that there are those whom are toadying yes men to whatever you say on threads such as 9/11 and who chours in line with what ever you say, like it or not you are influential on this site (after all it's your creation) and there are those who will rally round if they feel their online mate is under attack. your dishonest representations of what little you didn't know about it, when in fact you did as you have admitted above, coaching it as an attack when you knew very well it wasn't, lead to their dispruptive and frankly childish behaviour.

i am dissappointed by their behviour but can understand it, friendship needs good mates, but i am really dissappointed by your behaviuor and dishonesty.

 

[Loki]

as for gang it will not have escaped your notice that there are those whom are toadying yes men to whatever you say on threads such as 9/11 and who chours in line with what ever you say, like it or no

Or perhaps it's just independantly-minded people who happen to believe the same thing that the editor does - that you haven't got a convincing case despite all the endless 9/11 conspiracy threads.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

Or perhaps it's just independantly-minded people who happen to believe the same thing that the editor does - that you haven't got a convincing case despite all the endless 9/11 conspiracy threads.

what do you mean i haven't got a case, here's the thing Loki, I'm not a conspiracy fan i think it's hogwash, i do think that people have the right to discuss it,

yet again falling into line with the sound bites that have been handed to you rather than reading... but no it's all down to the independence of mind right....

shot yourself somewhat in the foot with that post. thank you for making my point so elloqunetly....

 

[editor]

site a unknow of radar of rihgt wing dicks on the net due to the fact it's unlisted.

site a address get posted on a site where the right wingers know and keep watch on for it's dangerous left wing tendencies (ie urban)

'suddenly' site a get lots of robotic repeat sign ups and a google listing due to spidering and as a direct result of the posting of the address....

Of course, if you'd kept the board private there would have been no problem at all.

Because you failed to do so, any subsequent problems are entirely your collective cock up and your collective fault, not mine.

Why didn't you make the boards private as soon as these 'right wing robotic registrations' appeared (funny, I've never had any of them. Not once.).

And if dissensus had stayed true to the political aims stated in your PM and not turned into an u75 slag-fest where I became the "main topic of discussion" at pub meetings, I would never have mentioned it here.

But I saw no reason why I should keep the identity of a publicly accessible board made up almost exclusively of 'selected' u75 posters private, nor why 'uninvited' u75ers being attacked and ridiculed shouldn't have a right to reply and see what was going on.

And - let's be honest - despite the earnest words of your PM, there was quite a different agenda being promoted by more than one individual amongst the collective, and that agenda was firmly anti-urban75. That's why I became the big topic in the pub and that's why I was relentlessly slagged off and called idiotic (sorry, 'ediotic') names.

But I've lost all further interest in going over the dusty bones of a small and inconsequential failed website. Dissensus failed due to its own inadequacies and nothing else. Nothing to do with me, I'm afraid. After all, I've suffered far, far worse attacks, trolling and disruptive behaviour over the years as editor of this site and managed to keep urban75 going just fine.

But back to this thread, I'm finding your constant snipes about my 'gang' as insulting as ever. Just because people agree with my opinion about the barking 9/11 theories proposed here, that doesn't give you the right to arrogantly dismiss them as 'yes men'.

But if you're going to stick with this offensive moniker, kindly name these individuals and let them speak for themselves.

 

[editor]

NAMES

the people i blame directly for the aiding of the chaos caused, FTP, dub, you and to a certain extent me for not making sure the thing was better protected.

So my 'gang' was in fact FTP, Dub and you?!

That's just plain bizarre.