Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
what case?editor said:
i'm just bored.
Should Urban Ban 9/11 Conspiracy Drivel?
- Thread starter Rocket Romano
- Start date
i'm just bored.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
i didn't say that there was some omnipotent authority. i said that there are a number of checks on stories appearing in the press.editor said:
firstly, it's got to be written (which is quite a hurdle with the shit quality of journalists these days).
secondly, the article has to pass muster with the editor to be included in the paper.
the publishers can stop this, through their policies or by diktat.
advertisers - too - can exert their usually malign influence through threatening to withdraw their adverts.
then, of course, there are libel laws and so on.
and that's before you get to out-and-out censorship.
fela fan said:
Not effective enough, apparently.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
if people had listen'd the first time i'd suggested bans you wouldn't be moaning now.Lock&Light said:Not effective enough, apparently.
Lock&Light said:Not effective enough, apparently.
check the bin out then mate. Apart from this little exchange, i'm out of it. Unfortunately for me and you and all the others that don't like my postings on these threads, i'd come back from a great evening full of beers. I could not keep my self-imposed ban. But such is the weakness of fela fan...
I feel bad that i indirectly fucked up jigga's interesting new thread.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
eh? what did you do?fela fan said:
Pickman's model said:
I have seldom listened to you, pickman's, because you are extremely unpredictable and therefore unreliable, IMO.
Just for the record, I should add that even if I had listened to you it would have made not a fuck of a difference. I don't run these boards.
Pickman's model said:
Yeah but it wasn't as bad then
And your not helping it by throwing in pointless debate in the middle (which I commented on in my opening remarks)
I'd have to agree with L&L, the rash unpredictability and errantness of your recent postings would suggest your not stable in your own mind about what you believe and therefore more likely to make rash and repetitive generalisation (which is the forte of Jazz)
Anyway, the point of me starting this thread was not to get a ban but to gauge opinion on any possible moderation moves.
My argument was that the threads become no more than an ego battleground with mini irrelevant points brought up by posters looking to score a few points off the back of another debate and thats EXACTLY what has happened in this thread too, it's the perfectly proven point come to think of it.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
i'm stable in my own mind about what i believe, and i've come to the conclusion that some people here cannot defend what they allege, for example editor and this arse that everything comes out in the end. if that's the case, why is there a need for the american project censored? if you haven't heard of it (and there's no reason you should have), it's run from the department of sociology at the sonoma state university.
every year they publish a book of "the most censored stories" of the previous year. for example, in last year's book one of the stories they uncovered was about the bush administration hampering investigations of the bin laden family before september 11. there's all manner of interesting stories in their books, yet very little of it is common knowledge - not the bit in last year's book about talcum powder being carcinogenic, for instance.
let's take two other instances of self-censorship. the bnp turned up at the manchester launch of unite against fascism. this was not in social worker -- but it was, strangely, in the sun. i doubt that many social worker readers read the sun -- they'd not have heard about it. again, recently mrs magpie posted up a thread about blunkett being cornered on a visit to brixton by a victim of a miscarriage of justice. apparently the whole thing was filmed by several news crews. i saw and heard nothing about it except what mrs magpie posted. minor things? maybe - but i suggest that these two instances are not unique in the way that some would allege.
take a look at the media reports about the iraq war and the kosovo war and the miners strike and on and on and fucking on. you'll see one common theme - the media were manipulated, and the media consciously manipulated us. if you (pl.) are so fuckwitted that you still fall for the "all the news that's fit to print" bollocks, you (pl.) are fucking unbelievable.
yet i'm assured that the truth will out, and that solid journos will print the truth, however unpalatable it might be.
what a load of cobblers.
at least dr jazzz is only barking on the boards.
every year they publish a book of "the most censored stories" of the previous year. for example, in last year's book one of the stories they uncovered was about the bush administration hampering investigations of the bin laden family before september 11. there's all manner of interesting stories in their books, yet very little of it is common knowledge - not the bit in last year's book about talcum powder being carcinogenic, for instance.
let's take two other instances of self-censorship. the bnp turned up at the manchester launch of unite against fascism. this was not in social worker -- but it was, strangely, in the sun. i doubt that many social worker readers read the sun -- they'd not have heard about it. again, recently mrs magpie posted up a thread about blunkett being cornered on a visit to brixton by a victim of a miscarriage of justice. apparently the whole thing was filmed by several news crews. i saw and heard nothing about it except what mrs magpie posted. minor things? maybe - but i suggest that these two instances are not unique in the way that some would allege.
take a look at the media reports about the iraq war and the kosovo war and the miners strike and on and on and fucking on. you'll see one common theme - the media were manipulated, and the media consciously manipulated us. if you (pl.) are so fuckwitted that you still fall for the "all the news that's fit to print" bollocks, you (pl.) are fucking unbelievable.
yet i'm assured that the truth will out, and that solid journos will print the truth, however unpalatable it might be.
what a load of cobblers.
at least dr jazzz is only barking on the boards.
editor
hiraethified
You've missed the point spectacularly, but I'm afraid I can't be arsed to debate it with you because, frankly, you seem to keep changing your mind.Pickman's model said:
Your weak comparisons with tiny news items bears absolutely no relevance with what would be the Greatest Conspiracy The World Has Ever Known, and - crucially - according to DrJ all the 'evidence' has already been broadcast the Internet so the 'cover up' claims don't really hold water.
If there was a global conspiracy to silence the media reporting 'startling evidence' of a 9/11 conspiracy, how come I can view the 'evidence' (almost all of it sourced from major news media sources) all over the web? It would be a piece of piss to close down crappy sites, so why haven't 'they'?!
Sure you can manipulate some of the news stories. But could you silence all of the news media, freelancers, producers, directors al over the world when you're talking about one of the biggest, most watched events this world has ever seen?
Not a fucking chance.
miss minnie
Well-Known Member
personally, i'm waiting until piers gibbon licks some toads in the amazon jungle and publishes the real truth about 9/11 in quicktime format.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
no. i don't keep changing my mind, i just argued from a different position because i was bored. for months i've advocated yr banning people who continually bring up nutty sept 11 conspiracies, and you've done absolutely nothing to show people that there's anything to be feared from posting them. the two "biggest" bannings of recent months have been freethepeeps for dissensus stuff and anna key for off-board behaviour. no one has had any sanctions thrown at them - and yr surprised that the same people time and again start the same tired threads?editor said:
ban them and have done with it.
why are they weak? you've said stuff will out. now, if the swp don't like printing stuff which would embarrass them - the uaf stuff and the infiltrators - don't you think that larger and more reputable newspapers will be equally reticent to make themselves look silly? the new york times, for example, isn't going to take any risks on 9/11 stuff no matter how true because of that reporter who made up lots of stories - blair, iirc - and because of the immense amounts of largesse the republicans and democrats are chucking about at the moment. so the sensible and nutty conspiracy theories are both in the same boat and neither will get printed atm outside the pages of the national enquirer.
yr assuming that there's lots of reputable people out there who are fascinated by sept 11 and reckless of their own careers so that they'd put a ton of work into all this. what i suspect - and what i've previously argued - is that a lot of the nutty theories are out there, and are not shut down, precisely because they are barking. so much arsery makes it harder to find - and even harder to persuade people of - anything which doesn't fit the official version. if someone says that there was a conspiracy behind 9/11, he's going to be lucky not to get laughed out of town. i wonder what would happen to fridgemagnet or pbman if either of them said anything about 9/11 conspiracies. the nutty types, essentially, have muddied the water for quite sensible people who find the official version too pat, too convenient if you will.
if you look in the current new york review of books, there's a long article about the official report into sept 11. you should read it. there is a lot more to sept 11 than meets the eye, and there's much more to emerge about it. if there's still a lot of secrecy surrounding all manner of ww1 events, think how much is still under wraps from three years ago.
do you think that all these "news media, freelancers, producers, directors" around the world want their career to continue? i'd suggest they do. so since there is little money in another 9/11 documentary, certainly after fahrenheit 9/11, who do you propose would produce such a movie, who would raise the money? i don't think backers would be legion. do you?
Pickman's model said:
I think there would be vast amounts of fame and fortune to be made by a journo making a docco that completely blew the lid off a "conspiracy" about 9/11 that could possibly lead to Bush's impeachment. But not a single journalist has. Prolly cos the "evidence" just doesn't add up.
editor
hiraethified
Any newspaper breaking the story of the Greatest Conspiracy The World Has Ever Seen - the one truly global, live event of the last 100 years - would be guaranteed stratospheric sales.Pickman's model said:
As for raising the money, I'd say that the incredible $117,643,813 already grossed by Fahrenheit 9/11 might tempt a few backers, don't you?
And if this film was revealing to the world the amazing missile firing, pod carrying, remote control aircraft and exposing the cold blooded murder of passengers who'd been taken off the planes and forced to ring up their loved ones and pretend to be somewhere else ((c) DrJ), heck the queues would be round the block and the cash tills white hot!
Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
can I make a suggestion - just trying to be helpful - to cut to the chase?
Decision time. Ban further 9/11 CT threads or not. once and for all.
ALL the debate has been done to several deaths. as has 9/11 The Incredible Conspiracy. This boil needs to be lanced, mike. your call, but I can't for the life of me see much point in letting it roll on.
Decision time. Ban further 9/11 CT threads or not. once and for all.
ALL the debate has been done to several deaths. as has 9/11 The Incredible Conspiracy. This boil needs to be lanced, mike. your call, but I can't for the life of me see much point in letting it roll on.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
jezza - i'm all in favour of banning nutty conspiracy threads, those involving lizardmen or remote control planes and so on. where i disagree, is on a blanket ban on all 9/11 threads. as time passes i expect new information to emerge which will give a better picture of what happened and why (ie why what happened happened). i don't see what threads based on fact should face the same ban barking mad ones do.
Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
actually, there's something in that. Now, how to draw the line between the two? perhaps give 'em 1 page-grace to shoot 'n' score.... that should winkle out the looney tunesPickman's model said:
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
eh? i've never considered you a fascist, but some of yr posts have made me wonder about yr alleged commitment to anti-fascism, and especially the anti-racism you allegedly espouse.pk said:
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
but would i be wrong were i to make such a claim?pk said:
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
that's life.
pk
drink flounce rinse repeat
Pickman's Model, if you're trying to drag up evidence that I am a facist, you are a class one bell-end, and you know it.
I'm no facist as you well know, I am against all forms of facism - which is why I want the immam you refer to - Sheik Mohammed Hook-Hand Bakri - destroyed via copious injections of pigs blood so that in his idea of afterlife, Allah won't want him, or have him sent back to Jordan where he would be put to death.
I want him dead, mainly because he stated that attacks on British schoolchildren were justified (even though several of his own kids are in the British school system at the taxpayers expense), but also because he is a facist by popular definition.
He is a disgrace to mankind, and certainly to Islamic thought.
You want to use this opinion of mine to illustrate my supposed facist nature?
Then you are scraping the barrel, like I said.
I'm no facist as you well know, I am against all forms of facism - which is why I want the immam you refer to - Sheik Mohammed Hook-Hand Bakri - destroyed via copious injections of pigs blood so that in his idea of afterlife, Allah won't want him, or have him sent back to Jordan where he would be put to death.
I want him dead, mainly because he stated that attacks on British schoolchildren were justified (even though several of his own kids are in the British school system at the taxpayers expense), but also because he is a facist by popular definition.
He is a disgrace to mankind, and certainly to Islamic thought.
You want to use this opinion of mine to illustrate my supposed facist nature?
Then you are scraping the barrel, like I said.
Similar threads
