The Anti-Truther Bible: The Ten Commandments..

page: 6
8
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 29 2012 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by maxella1
Excuse me.... I just posted a shi* load of personal attacks on a group of people you call truthers...

So report the posts, don't repost them.

Sorry for the short post.


Why shouldn't I repost them?




posted on May, 29 2012 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
Wow. I didn't expect this when I posted this thread. You're really showing what you're made of.

Are you saying that what I posted is fake?

I'm showing what I am made of, by objecting to public slander via straw man? Oh no, please forgive me!

I'm saying every one of the fallacies in the original post are just that, absolute nonsense, used only as an excuse to attack 'the others' which are in this case 'official story' supporters.

It must be nice to live in your world, where you're always 100% correct and anyone who disagrees with you is morally wrong on many levels. Shame it's not the truth eh?



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by maxella1
Wow. I didn't expect this when I posted this thread. You're really showing what you're made of.

Are you saying that what I posted is fake?

I'm showing what I am made of, by objecting to public slander via straw man? Oh no, please forgive me!

I'm saying every one of the fallacies in the original post are just that, absolute nonsense, used only as an excuse to attack 'the others' which are in this case 'official story' supporters.

It must be nice to live in your world, where you're always 100% correct and anyone who disagrees with you is morally wrong on many levels. Shame it's not the truth eh?


How is that public slander if all I did was quote statements from other public forums?



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 02:07 AM
link   
reply to post by maxella1
 


You would have to be seriously thin-skinned to think of most of those as an insult. Mainly they just take issue with the argument, which is regularly poorly-formed, inconsistent and biased.

Note - that isn't an insult either. It is a comment on the standard of proof. An insult is, say, calling someone a shill with no evidence.

Can't think which side does more of that



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 03:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by maxella1
 


You would have to be seriously thin-skinned to think of most of those as an insult. Mainly they just take issue with the argument, which is regularly poorly-formed, inconsistent and biased.

Note - that isn't an insult either. It is a comment on the standard of proof. An insult is, say, calling someone a shill with no evidence.

Can't think which side does more of that


So who decides what is or isn't insulting, you?

If you don't think that something is offensive then it's not?



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 04:53 AM
link   
reply to post by maxella1
 


No. There's a generally accepted standard which is how a site like this is able to police itself. One may disagree on the detials of that standard but most people are fairly clear on its central tenets.

I say most people because Truthers and others like them often feel they can ignore common standards of behaviour because they are on some sort of righteous crusade. Naturally they expect complete respect from their opponents though.

This says something about the character and quality of their discourse.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
It's still the same thing it was the first two times. It's an effort to stereotype all people who disagree with your view of the conspiracy.


I'm gonna turn up the heat here ...



con·spir·a·cy
   [kuhn-spir-uh-see] Show IPA
noun, plural con·spir·a·cies.
1.the act of conspiring.
2.an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
3.a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.
4.Law . an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.
5.any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.


Listening to Americans is like listening to a turd ... it's like you think, that everything that comes out of your foul mouth is truth. And everything anyone else says, is "conspiracy". It's like you suffer from some serious brain tumor or maligma, that makes you think your gods and don't have to verify or prove your statements. Seemingly, you think ... you say it, is proof enough.


Saying that Usama Bin Ladin did it, along with is co-horts, residing in a cave in Afghanistan ... powered with box-cutters, and orienting the plan with his supposed laptop in the middle of the Afghan desert.


That is the conspiracy theory here ... and WE are the debunkers, that are constantly trying to debunk this idiotic conspiracy theory ...
edit on 30/5/2012 by bjarneorn because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 09:21 AM
link   
I see the mods are being selective with their off topic stickers again! It's no secret that they lean towards OS'ers!
There are many comments by OS'ers that are off topic but get ignored, but when someone post something the OS'ers dont like the mods take their side! I guess they are biased.

I think the mods are way too sensitive, and if the OS'ers dont like this thread then stay out. No one was being offensive mods, it's maxella's thread, if maxella is happy with the content then let the OP decide. You should at least ask the OP first, and you'll find the OP would happily leave all posts here! I know the OS'ers cry to mods, and the mods (well most mods, not all) are on their side by the selective behaviour. Try and at least play a little fairer mods, OS'ers cant have it their own way all the time.

I know you'll stamp this as well, but at least you get to read our views before you do. Freedom of speech is no more, never known a website like this one for biased mods. This place is turning into a joke.

I agree if someone is totally offensive, racist, etc, then yeah, stamp that stuff out, but general replies to other members in the thread should be left.

You go through the 9/11 threads and see how many OS'ers steer the thread of course, totally going off topic, yet you ignore them and pick on certain member's comments only.

Anyway, you know my views, sticker it if you want, I'm not that bothered that you do, just would like some answers as to why you do. I expect you wont say why you are not fair though because that would be admitting that you are not treating members equally!

Why do you moderate anyway? What's the point unless you're getting paid to do so?



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 09:27 AM
link   
reply to post by maxella1
 


Thanks, Max. I've enjoyed all six pages of whining by the dee-bunk boys. How long will this charade continue? Every single one of those who attacked your original post, are frauds. Their presence here is to postpone for as long as possible, a new and independent investigation of that day. They claim to present an intellectual approach, yet deny simple physics. Thanks for calling a spade, a spade.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer
 


Yeah, it has become a threat to slander certain members by lumping them together and stating falsehoods about them as a group.

It is not acceptable.


Maybe you both don't get the topic of the thread? You don't have to read it do you? Why are you in the thread if it's not to your liking?

As for 9/11 content, I think it's quite relevant, most of the content has been posted in 9/11 threads by yourselves eugene & exponent, so by saying that you are saying that what you have posted previously is not relevant to 9/11 either?

If you don't like reading your own previous comments from other threads maybe be careful what you write in the first place? You lot have broken the rules on so many occasions and now you don't like seeing what you wrote?
Looking at yourself in the mirror is sometimes not pleasant.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 09:36 AM
link   
I think this image sums things up pretty well.

Works in politics and religions as well.



[img]
[/img]

edit on 30-5-2012 by sdocpublishing because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
reply to post by maxella1
 


The irony of being offended by 'ignorance' is not lost on me. When are you going to stop researching 'OSers' and instead research 911? Have you even read one full report from NIST yet? Have you contacted an engineering form with your concerns about Bazant's proof?

Of course you haven't. You're far too busy cherry picking quotes to make 'OSers' look bad. Should I however go and cherry pick truthers calling for murder or death or hanging, you will claim that it is unfair to lump all 'truthers' together as a group.

Which is it? Can I go and find some abhorrent truther quotes and assign them to a group that includes you? I would never do such a thing as the dishonesty is obvious. Why are you trying to do this?


We have read NISTs report, and we think it's a total joke. It has deliberately left out a lot of crucial information and cannot be taken seriously if there are so many elements to 9/11 that were not investigated.

NISTs report belongs in the bin, it's fraudulent and inaccurate.

If the quotes that OS'ers wrote look bad, then why did you lot make them in the first place? This thread highlights some of the stuff you lot have written, and I dont understand why you sdont like your own words? surely you stand by what you have previously written, otherwise you would have edited your own posts and removed your own comments exponent?



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by maxella1
You know what, I have decided to research OSers. Is that okay with you?

The point I'm making here is that even though you disrespect truthers on a daily basis, NOBODY is demanding that your posts be deleted.

No, it is not ok with me. It is also not ok with the rules of this forum. You may not make personal attacks.

This thread is an attempt to slander a group by using personal attacks. It's not valid, and there's a difference between disrespect and slander.


they are not personal attacks, they are re-posts of your own words, as per the topic title.

How is it slander if they are words that you lot wrote yourself? I would say if anything, that some of your own words you are reading being re-posted here are slanderous, but we are not making those claims at all.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by maxella1
Excuse me.... I just posted a shi* load of personal attacks on a group of people you call truthers...

So report the posts, don't repost them.

Sorry for the short post.


Why don't you want your own words re-posted? That's why their is a an option to quote other members comments?
Maybe you should delete your original comments if you don't like people re-posting them?

It's not a personal attack on anyone, nobody is saying anything offensive to you, just re-posts of your own words.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by maxella1
Wow. I didn't expect this when I posted this thread. You're really showing what you're made of.

Are you saying that what I posted is fake?

I'm showing what I am made of, by objecting to public slander via straw man? Oh no, please forgive me!

I'm saying every one of the fallacies in the original post are just that, absolute nonsense, used only as an excuse to attack 'the others' which are in this case 'official story' supporters.

It must be nice to live in your world, where you're always 100% correct and anyone who disagrees with you is morally wrong on many levels. Shame it's not the truth eh?


Jesus, why do you deny everything? You cannot deny that these are your own quotes!

How are your own comments fallacies or slander? By saying that you are saying the things you have written yourself are fallacies and slanderous? I'm confused by what you are saying, it makes no sense?

Can you elaborate?



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 09:56 AM
link   
I'm wondering why did the mods removed ( posting for the third time) from the title of the thread? I don't get it. We are not allowed to remove our own posts but they can change anything they want in anybodys thread. I know it's their site and their rules and all. But Maybe somebody can explain?

edit on 30-5-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by kidtwist
We have read NISTs report, and we think it's a total joke. It has deliberately left out a lot of crucial information and cannot be taken seriously if there are so many elements to 9/11 that were not investigated.

Have you? Which reports have you read? Can you describe to me say how NIST figured out the FDS interface?


they are not personal attacks, they are re-posts of your own words, as per the topic title.

How is it slander if they are words that you lot wrote yourself?

The slander is the original post. The reason I object to reposting is that if I was to do it with the most abhorrent truther posts ('vicsims' anyone?) and pretend like it represented all truthers, you would call me out as some sort of charlatan.

You have already objected to my use of the word 'truthers' as falsely misrepresenting a group rather than individuals, but now you have no problem with lumping your opponents together and tarring them all with the same brush?


Maybe you should delete your original comments if you don't like people re-posting them?

I doubt any of my quotes have been reposted, I try and stay away from personal attacks as much as possible.
edit on 30/5/12 by exponent because: quote fixin'



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
I'm wondering why did the mods removed ( posting for the third time) from the title of the thread? I don't get it. We are not allowed to remove our own posts but they can change anything they want in anybodys thread. I know it's their site and their rules and all. But Maybe somebody can explain?


Oh, it's probably just part of some sinister secret plot to take over the world. That IS what you wanted to hear, isn't it?



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by maxella1
I'm wondering why did the mods removed ( posting for the third time) from the title of the thread? I don't get it. We are not allowed to remove our own posts but they can change anything they want in anybodys thread. I know it's their site and their rules and all. But Maybe somebody can explain?


Oh, it's probably just part of some sinister secret plot to take over the world. That IS what you wanted to hear, isn't it?


I had a feeling it was you



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 




The slander is the original post. The reason I object to reposting is that if I was to do it with the most abhorrent truther posts ('vicsims' anyone?) and pretend like it represented all truthers, you would call me out as some sort of charlatan. You have already objected to my use of the word 'truthers' as falsely misrepresenting a group rather than individuals, but now you have no problem with lumping your opponents together and tarring them all with the same brush?


So you think that 'truthers' would demand that your post be removed? I find it very unlikely. You are just paranoid.



I doubt any of my quotes have been reposted, I try and stay away from personal attacks as much as possible.


And you are wrong about that too. Sorry,
edit on 30-5-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join