TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Dis Information?
Pages (5): « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »

All he had to do was give a straight forward answer to the questions asked and everything would have been cool. The problem is he never did that, bitched about everyone not being on topic even though this wasn't the case, and then called everyone that wasn't in agreement with him that 9/11 was a government conspiracy an agent of disinformation.

You can't debate with that. You can't do anything with that. Every point that was brought up against his "argument" (which was really just an old 9/11 vid) was just a diversion in and of itself of the topic. Tiesto asked him directly, many times, if 9/11 was a setup who planned it and why. Simple enough to most of us, yet for some reason we made it 10 pages without a single answer or attempt at explanation. Instead Tiesto was labeled as a government agent of disinformation and told to stay on topic.

We don't need people like that here.

BTW: As PKC said; When almost every conservative and every liberal are TOGETHER on an issue, you truly know that you're on to something, lol.

Good job Neo...

ugh...apparently this wackjob lives in MY area...

tranceaddict Forums > Local Scene Info / Discussion > Canada > Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont. > conspiracy - what do you think
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...threadid=302624

He already put his two cents there....he's like a shoo fly....go away...

What's wrong with so many of you Canadians? lol.

I thought you were better educated than us Americans?

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T i'd love to see an argument on why should we tolerate him.

Answering this would cover both this request and the point of views Raistlin and I were talking about. There are no quotes in this post for simplicity's sake, although I did read the posts before mine, and this should be a dialogue with them

1. Authority: Unlike real life, where criminals might threaten our lives and/or belongings, we're physically safe in an internet forum (at least, safer than on the streets). There are just two possible threats here:
   
   a. Hacking: Someone could hack into our accounts and/or trick us by using some script and illegally getting our information, such as bank passwords and usernames;
   
   b. Flooding: Indeed, excessive flooding would make it difficult for us to use the boards - every topic would be brought to page two before it had an opportunity of being read;
   
   These are real threats we have in an internet forum, and this is the reason why mods are required (although good software engineering could also handle most situations). Solgrabber has not posted an absurd amount of threads, nor he was a hacker (at least, he didn't attempt to do hack anyone here, has he?).
   
   By denying solgrabber access to this forum, we have now removed someone because he violated a social norm (not replying the way other users expected him to). The correct punishment for such behaviour should not need the intervention of an authority figure (such as a mod), but rather the reaction of other users: by mocking him, by ignoring him... if we start to require the presence of an authority and establish an informal censorship, we fail to see something else, which is...
   
2. Freedom of speech: One of the greatest advantages of the internet is this freedom of speech and trouble with censorship. Our discussions here are not a threat to society (i.e. we're not talking about how to steal banks or anything), and wouldn't need to be so tightly monitored. Once the freedom of speech is endangered, we're opening doors for censorship, which is based strongly on judgements and, being of human nature, can ultimately fail and become unfair.
   

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco BTW: As PKC said; When almost every conservative and every liberal are TOGETHER on an issue, you truly know that you're on to something, lol.

"Crime brings together honest men and concentrates them."
(Giddens, 1972, p. 127 [excerpt from The Division of Labor in Society by �mile Durkheim])

quote:

Originally posted by Lira By denying solgrabber access to this forum, we have now removed someone because he violated a social norm (not replying the way other users expected him to). The correct punishment for such behaviour should not need the intervention of an authority figure (such as a mod), but rather the reaction of other users: by mocking him, by ignoring him... if we start to require the presence of an authority and establish an informal censorship, we fail to see something else, which is...

Ahem... The correct punishment?
As determined by who?
Regardless, if you didnt look, all those reactions took place, and it just degraded the PDD into being the COR, and there are reasons for why most of the PDD dont venture in there.
And that last clause, coming from our former moderator? do you miss the discrepancy?
Even if ignoring that particular question, we do not require the presence of an authority actively nor passively, we simply call upon them when a need arises; They don't even monitor us.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Freedom of speech: One of the greatest advantages of the internet is this freedom of speech and trouble with censorship. Our discussions here are not a threat to society (i.e. we're not talking about how to steal banks or anything), and wouldn't need to be so tightly monitored. Once the freedom of speech is endangered, we're opening doors for censorship, which is based strongly on judgements and, being of human nature, can ultimately fail and become unfair.

Freedom of speech does not exist here on TA, examples: hate mongering - banned on sight, promoting products - banned on sight, posting excessive nudity - banned on sight (there are exceptions obviously).

As I said above, our discussions are not monitored by the authorities - they are monitored by us.

We can't be endangering the freedom of speech that we do not have, we can only protect the illusion.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira I'd like to talk more about it, but I've got to go. Summarising what I said, this is a place for discussion: how can we can we claim we're debating if an extremely different view is censored? I rest my case

I agree, this is a place for discussion, but...
We did not ban him for his views, we banned him because he was stopping us from doing what we claim to do here - namely debate.

quote:

Copied from dictionary.com de�bate Audio pronunciation of "debate" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-bt) v. de�bat�ed, de�bat�ing, de�bates v. intr. 1. To consider something; deliberate. 2. To engage in argument by discussing opposing points. 3. To engage in a formal discussion or argument. See Synonyms at discuss. 4. Obsolete. To fight or quarrel. v. tr. 1. To deliberate on; consider. 2. To dispute or argue about. 3. To discuss or argue (a question, for example) formally. 4. Obsolete. To fight or argue for or over. n. 1. A discussion involving opposing points; an argument. 2. Deliberation; consideration: passed the motion with little debate. 3. A formal contest of argumentation in which two opposing teams defend and attack a given proposition. 4. Obsolete. Conflict; strife.

The defence rests.

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T Ahem... The correct punishment? As determined by who?

By the grounds under which such actions happened.

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T Regardless, if you didnt look, all those reactions took place, and it just degraded the PDD into being the COR, and there are reasons for why most of the PDD dont venture in there.

I know there are important differences between the COR and the PDD.

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T And that last clause, coming from our former moderator? do you miss the discrepancy?

I'm not quite sure about what you mean by "the discrepancy", but regarding my position as a former moderator and what I said about informal censorship, I never thought of myself as an absolute power: With rare exceptions (if any), my goal was to help the debates flow. If the majority of users thought something was prejudicial, I could even oppose to that (as I'm doing right now), but it doesn't mean I wouldn't do what I was being asked. If I were a moderator now, I would first discuss it - then, I'd take action.

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T Even if ignoring that particular question, we do not require the presence of an authority actively nor passively, we simply call upon them when a need arises; They don't even monitor us.

That's something I agree with, although I did monitor the threads in order to know what was going on.

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T Freedom of speech does not exist here on TA, examples: hate mongering - banned on sight, promoting products - banned on sight, posting excessive nudity - banned on sight (there are exceptions obviously).

These cases are against the rules and purposes of the forums: Promoting products can hardly be considered a Political Debate (or Music Discussion and so on), excessive nudity could limit the access of minors, and hate mongering - well, that's something to be studied.

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T We can't be endangering the freedom of speech that we do not have, we can only protect the illusion.

No, we do have freedom of speech: however, as in real life, we do have limits because of others.

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T I agree, this is a place for discussion, but... We did not ban him for his views, we banned him because he was stopping us from doing what we claim to do here - namely debate.

Like I had said before, there were other ways to avoid him. However, if the majority felt the ostracism was necessary, then I will respect such decision and I will not keep talking about it.

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco ^^^Logic and common sense by definition automatically preclude one from answering pointless and baseless claims.

Yes solgrabber was making claims with no basis other than a movie he was begging people to watch, but i have seen others raise questions & no answers have come. Just more flames.

Lira;

Your points are well taken, very well. I too initially cringed when I saw that he'd been banned...but only for a split-second.

Then I thought about just who he was and what he was peddling, and frankly, he's a one-trick pony pushing a HUGE insult on the victims and survivors of the 9-11 tragedy (of which everyone in this country is a "survivor" in some way or another...it has affected us all).

Does anyone with half a brain here really think he was contributing anything worthy of debate in a Political Forum? His garbage was SO FAR off the scale in terms of being even remotely legitimate, that it wouldn't be any different if a spammer had come in here to try and sell us square tires, or blue bananas. It was pointless and baseless crap. In the end, I think HE was the ULTIMATE spammer.

Now, freedom of speech is one thing (of which, we really can't claim that right on a private message board...they can ban whomever they see fit, there are no real laws here except the ones laid down by the Mod and the board's owner), but let me ask you this; What does society do with it's clinically insane people? Does it turn a blind eye and let them wander about our lives, ruining and disrupting them, all in the name of "freedom"?

Maybe I and people like Tiesto14 take this more personally because it happened in our country, but either way, I found Sol G.'s diatribe to be tiresome and frankly, ruiness to the board's future. Like I said before, this board was going from being a place where you could learn something and have some worth-while debates, to being a place where only Internet whack-jobs from around the world could congregate to feed on each other's paranoia and fairy-tales. Trancer X and his ilk were attracting other whack-jobs in here with his insulting and lunatic posts about 9-11 conspiracies. I've seen crazy people infect other boards (though not exactly in this way, but not too far off either), and while you can theorize all day long about where to draw the line, like it or not, it has to be drawn somewhere for the good of the others.

quote:

Originally posted by jonSun Yes solgrabber was making claims with no basis other than a movie he was begging people to watch, but i have seen others raise questions & no answers have come. Just more flames.

Oh for the love of god.

See; This is exactly what I'm talking about. These people are EVERYWHERE in here now thanks to people like Sol G. and Trancer...they are a virus.

Look, read the article linked in this thread, it will answer questions...then please GO AWAY!

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...threadid=345893

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco Oh for the love of god. See; This is exactly what I'm talking about. These people are EVERYWHERE in here now thanks to people like Sol G....they are a virus. Look, read the article linked in this thread, it will answer questions...then please GO AWAY! http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...threadid=345893

Wow, I never argued the twin towers or the Pentagon. I didnt even mention that article dipshit. So why are you linking that thread.?

Look, if you're going to use personal attacks and words like "dipshit", I'm going to talk to you in the same manner;

YOU'RE the f-ing RETARD who posted this statement;

"...but i have seen others raise questions & no answers have come."

WTF is that supposed to mean? Questions about 9-11 and the "official story", right?

THERE ARE NO QUESTIONS ABOUT 9-11 DUMMY!

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco Look, if you're going to use personal attacks and words like "dipdhit", I'm going to talk to you in the same manner; YOU'RE the f-ing RETARD who posted this statement; "...but i have seen others raise questions & no answers have come." WTF is that supposed to mean? Questions about 9-11 and the "official story", right? THERE ARE NO QUESTIONS ABOUT 9-11 DUMMY!

According to the 9/11 commision report there still is questions. And building 7 is my question. According to the buildings owner & the NYPD it was brought down deliberately. Im just curious of how & when the planning was done. Deliberately bringing down a building that size takes alot of planning.

quote:

Originally posted by jonSun According to the 9/11 commision report there still is questions. And building 7 is my question. According to the buildings owner & the NYPD it was brought down deliberately. Im just curious of how & when the planning was done. Deliberately bringing down a building that size takes alot of planning.

How dare you talk about the U.S government like that?this government loves the American people and would never harm anyone!!!I mean look how well they treated the people from Katrina.

quote:

Originally posted by jonSun According to the 9/11 commision report there still is questions. And building 7 is my question. According to the buildings owner & the NYPD it was brought down deliberately. Im just curious of how & when the planning was done. Deliberately bringing down a building that size takes alot of planning.

So you have NO QUESTIONS about the Towers OR the Pentagon...BUT...you think building 7 looks suspicious??

That's pure genius right there.

So what; The U.S. Government saw a chance to add a little more to the carnage of an already horrible day???? And for what? What would blowing up Building 7 accomplish that all the other attacks throughout the day hadn't?

Do you see how DUMB that concept is?!?!?


Lira and the others;

This is EXACTLY what I'm talking about when I say that this board is sliding. I have been on a few other boards over the years and NEVER have I heard this conspiracy garbage anywhere else but HERE!

You can ignore these freaks in the name of supposed free speech if you want to...or you can weed them out and have a decent community worthy of your time.

Your choice.

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco So what; The U.S. Government saw a chance to add a little more to the carnage of an already horrible day???? And for what? What would blowing up Building 7 accomplish that all the other attacks throughout the day hadn't?

From what i posted.. ya thats exactly what i meant I never said i didnt have questions on the twin towers or the pentagon. I just have alot of questions on building 7 & thats what my questions of focus are on ATM. Im not gonna dive in some conspiracy & assume the whole thing was set up by the govt until my questions on building 7 are or are not answered. So far nothings answered them, including the 9/11 commision report.

What possible questions could you have other than pure Architecture or Design questions? Because it's OBVIOUS that the building came down as a result of having large parts of it's sister buildings crashing through it.

Other than "how exactly did the eventual collapse happen as a result of this damage?", what other possible questions could there be? Nothing that is going to change what 9-11 was all about, that's for sure.

So why worry about the semantics of engineering? We're not debating that here. The larger question of "who did this?" can only have ONE LOGICAL answer; Al Qaeda!

End of story!

Nothing more to debate!

Move on already!

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco What possible questions could you have other than pure Architecture or Design questions? Because it's OBVIOUS that the building came down as a result of having large parts of it's sister buildings crashing through it. Other than "how exactly did the eventual collapse happen as a result of this damage?", what other possible questions could there be? Nothing that is going to change what 9-11 was all about, that's for sure. So why worry about the semantics of engineering? We're not debating that here. The larger question of "who did this?" can only have ONE LOGICAL answer; Al Qaeda! End of story! Nothing more to debate! Move on already!

Well from the buildings owner & the NYPD, the building was brought down by controlled demolition. So like i stated b4, im curious on how & when it was done.

Go read the Popular Mechanics link I posted about. This topic is covered on page 5.

Just for fun, show me in writing where the buildings owner and NYPD said that 7 was brought down on purpose.

quote:

Originally posted by WM2 Just for fun, show me in writing where the buildings owner and NYPD said that 7 was brought down on purpose.

Then explain to us how come a story as big as the building's owner and the NYPD thinking that Building 7 came down as a result of "controlled explosions" hasn't made the news over here, and there isn't a HUGE up-roar in this country about it? Explain why there are no Senatorial Committees investigating this assertion? Explain to me how, in a country of free speech, HOW has the U.S. Government managed to silence the NYPD on such an issue as this? Or the "buildings owner"??

You could answer all of these questions about Building 7 YOURSELF, if you used a logical, RATIONAL and natural train of thought, starting with Al Qeada and ending with the sun setting on the day of 9-11-01.

But no; You've got to stop yourself and jump sideways on the topic, wonder "were there bombs planted in Building 7? ", and COMPLETELY ignore the simple fact that a HUGE BUILDING fell on you precious "Building 7" as a result of a terrorist attack.

This couldn't POSSIBLY have been what caused it to fall down, right? I mean, a 110 story Tower falling on a smaller building...that seems less plausible to you then someone running in to Building 7 to plant bombs in it after the Towers collapsed...and WHY!?

God, you're just so freakin DUMB, I'm sorry.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira By the grounds under which such actions happened.

can you please elaborate on your meaning here?

quote:

Originally posted by Lira I'm not quite sure about what you mean by "the discrepancy", but regarding my position as a former moderator and what I said about informal censorship, I never thought of myself as an absolute power: With rare exceptions (if any), my goal was to help the debates flow. If the majority of users thought something was prejudicial, I could even oppose to that (as I'm doing right now), but it doesn't mean I wouldn't do what I was being asked. If I were a moderator now, I would first discuss it - then, I'd take action.

as i think we can see, the discussions didn't bear much fruit; you suggested some techniques of coping with solgrabber - those techniques were utlizied priorly, and he was obstructing the flow of debates, aswell as giving a bad example to others; so, i went a few steps ahead of the curve and got him banned from this subforum - i guess theoretically you (general you) dont trust my judgement enough as to 'allow' me to have that power.

not that there's any rush in such a decision, but i dont see a need for bureaocratic action when the arbiter is qualified enough to see the results of such bureaocratic action, hence acting sooner, hence avoiding redundancies. it all seems quite in the spirit of this subforum, optimistically speaking.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira These cases are against the rules and purposes of the forums: Promoting products can hardly be considered a Political Debate (or Music Discussion and so on), excessive nudity could limit the access of minors, and hate mongering - well, that's something to be studied.

solgrabber was acting against the purpose of the forum, if not the unwritten rules - he wasnt debating, he was advertising.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira No, we do have freedom of speech: however, as in real life, we do have limits because of others.

why accept certain limits silently and resent others vocally then? which qualify? who qualifies them? how do they become qualified?

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Like I had said before, there were other ways to avoid him. However, if the majority felt the ostracism was necessary, then I will respect such decision and I will not keep talking about it.

as i said earlier too, i'd be happy to see more suggestions on how we could have coped with him, the 2 you have already mentioned were tried, and they failed.

i see no reason to end this discussion though, at the very least - it is a lot more engaging than the one this thread was started with.

quote:

Originally posted by WM2 Just for fun, show me in writing where the buildings owner and NYPD said that 7 was brought down on purpose.

The 9/11 documentary America Rebuilds from a couple years ago. One of the better 9/11 documentarys imo. It isnt some consipracy movie. It really gets you at the heart. Back when i saw it, it really brought me back to that day watching it all happen while in total shock & disbelief.

http://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds/

To be honest, I agree with Lira and think banning him was a bit too hasty. I mean, he was a wacko, for sure, but still, the whole thread was just spammed with people from all sides. Perhaps a warning prior to a ban should have been more appropriate. Besides, one of the links he posted had a bunch of cool off topics stuff like this one http://www.wired.com/news/technolog...?tw=wn_index_11

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.