It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Law Before House to Repeal the UN Act of 1945

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
Wow, another lost topic amongst the rhetoric. :shk:


I dont agree with that statement.

If we see some one posting what we deem to be obviously flawed are we not obliged to counter it? Or should we just let it go and let it gain some kind of legitmacy by leaving it unquestioned?

We're damned if we do, and damned if we dont here.

Quite frankly I will continue to challenge ignorance where I see it as an attempt to uphold the integrity of these boards. If people cannot keep abreast of the original topic amidst my attempts to prevent the whitewashing of opinions then thats their loss.




posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 09:04 AM
link   
Subz,

As much as I have tended to agree with more of what you have had to say on this thread than those on the other side of the coin, you still have managed to lapse from countering an argument to starting a new one.

Sorry

BHR



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 09:22 AM
link   
Ah ok, I suppose you have a point there. Being overly defensive when it comes to stopping the whitewashing of opinions is just as bad as what I set to prevent. Thanks for bringing it to my attention, I'll try to avoid that in future.

It doesnt mean that I wont argue the toss with those who try to whitewash opinions though, I'll just be more mindful of my tone in future



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 10:30 AM
link   
Subz,


Originally posted by subz
It doesnt mean that I wont argue the toss with those who try to whitewash opinions though


I would never ask you to.

Cheers

BHR



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 10:41 AM
link   


Originally posted by intrepid
Wow, another lost topic amongst the rhetoric.


I dont agree with that statement.

If we see some one posting what we deem to be obviously flawed are we not obliged to counter it? Or should we just let it go and let it gain some kind of legitmacy by leaving it unquestioned?

We're damned if we do, and damned if we dont here.

Quite frankly I will continue to challenge ignorance where I see it as an attempt to uphold the integrity of these boards. If people cannot keep abreast of the original topic amidst my attempts to prevent the whitewashing of opinions then thats their loss.


Really? That's the second time you've posted your disagrreement when admonished. Duly noted.

So if you can't post to the topic, I suggest you find another venue. If you cannot keep to the topic, that will be YOUR loss. M'kay?



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
Really? That's the second time you've posted your disagrreement when admonished. Duly noted.

So if you can't post to the topic, I suggest you find another venue. If you cannot keep to the topic, that will be YOUR loss. M'kay?

Intrepid, I assumed you were talking to me. You didnt admonish any one in particular. I suggest that if you, as a moderator, have a problem with me that you make it official and U2U me with a specific breach of T&C.

You know I respect you but I wont tolerate being browbeaten by anyone, authourity or no authourity, unless its shown to be justified. I've "disagreed" with your blanket non-specific admonishment simply because it was so vague and almost troll-like.

If disagreeing with those that set about scuppering and supressing opinions with false and misleading info is cause to have me removed from this forum I will also take issue with that. What do you suggest I should do? Allow the likes of Muaddib and HowardRoark to continue to spout half truths?

Just to go on record, I dont like being threatend in such a manner. If you have a problem with me and address me with it in a proper manner you'll find me to be more than receptive.



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by subz
I suggest that if you, as a moderator, have a problem with me that you make it official and U2U me with a specific breach of T&C.


As per your request, u2u sent.

Have a nice day.

Now can we get back to the topic?



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 11:57 AM
link   
As the author of this thread i appreciate your help intrepid and others. Let us please get back to the subject of this article. The issue does not concern right versus left. rather it is concerning the issue of National versus Global confederate government. Just in case anyone forgot...i know i almost did.



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
What antasgonism? Your point of view can't handle scrutiny?

What do you mean? Have no opinion that disagrees with you?

Not happening. BTW, you should be glad I'm staff, I'd tear you apart as a member.

Bad debate skills.


Pfft!


Sorry, we should be on topic. My mistake.

If you'd bother to review the timeline of this thread you'll notice that all my posts in this thread were on topic before Astronomer68 posted this:


Originally posted by Astronomer68
Subz, Muaddib;

The last time I ran into a site you two were both on you were doing the same thing--having an argument over things that were essentially off the topic. Both of you're comments started on topic but quickly digressed to peripheral issues--please stay on topic. I find reading both of your posts entertaining and informative and hope you will continue making them. This particular topic calls for a subjective opinion right up front, so quit trying to convince one another that your opinion is objectively & morally superior.

[edit on 20-6-2005 by Astronomer68]

I argued that we were not offtopic. I'd chosen the rebuttal of proving that the UN was "toothless" due to the United States actions. i.e. Not signing the UN agreement on the International Rights of the Child.

Up until this point I'd been ontopic. I responded to Astronomer68's criticisms in a polite and respectful manner. He even thanked me for my reponse. So far so good as far as I was concerned, on topic and no abuse. Then came your post:


Originally posted by intrepid
Wow, another lost topic amongst the rhetoric. :shk:


Which to me is not befitting a moderator and is ironically rhetoric in and of itself and does nothing constructive.

Which brings us to where we are now.

Ive responded to your U2U and Im positive we can sort this hoohah out. But continuing to be so cavalier in public after posting the U2U to me will only solicit further public responses as far as I am concerned.

To quote you: "Your point of view can't handle scrutiny?"

[edit on 21/6/05 by subz]



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by CAConrad0825
As the author of this thread i appreciate your help intrepid and others. Let us please get back to the subject of this article. The issue does not concern right versus left. rather it is concerning the issue of National versus Global confederate government. Just in case anyone forgot...i know i almost did.


The issues pertaining to global interests does not hold water with national sovereign interests. The Congress is legally entitled to show its utmost dissatisfaction with the United Nations by voting on a congressional resolution holding the UN accountable for its corrupted ways before funding it further.

The House's message to the UN is plainly simple: reform or lose funds. Don't like it? Too freaking bad.



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
That is why comunism will never work on large scale.


Then we agreed on that point.


Originally posted by devilwasp
Not really, if you lie just as much as he lies then you are equal.


Not if one lie better than me. Some, if not most, people are innately competitive.


Originally posted by devilwasp
Everyone is diffrent but we are all the same, our brains think similarly and our bodies act siimilarly.
Also there is no "real truth" it is all interpretation and opinion.


Perhaps you should separate what's obviously true and what's opinionated.



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by the_oleneo
Not if one lie better than me. Some, if not most, people are innately competitive.

No lie is better than you, lie's are ineffective, half truths are the true form of deception.



Perhaps you should separate what's obviously true and what's opinionated.

They are the same thing. Unseperable



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 07:35 PM
link   
Devilwasp,

I'm not going to discuss anything further with you and your clumsy, pathetic attempt to be an intellectual.


The door's that way and don't let it hits your six on your way out.



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by the_oleneo
Devilwasp,

I'm not going to discuss anything further with you and your clumsy, pathetic attempt to be an intellectual.


The door's that way and don't let it hits your six on your way out.

Clumsy?
Ah well, I'd rather be clumsy than lower myself to the level of personel insults...



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 05:56 AM
link   
DevilWasp,

I would urge you to be the "bigger man" in this case as having a battle of wits with Oleneo is like having a gun-fight with an unarmed man.

Cheers

BHR



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 06:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by BillHicksRules
DevilWasp,

I would urge you to be the "bigger man" in this case as having a battle of wits with Oleneo is like having a gun-fight with an unarmed man.

Cheers

BHR

I believe I might just take your adive BHR....

Thank you...

[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 10:29 AM
link   
Now it really is off topic!

Thread closed.




top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join