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

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 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.

what difference would warning him make? to me it seems like an unecessary bureaocratic step.

Donnybrasco,

Would you mind if I asked you what other forums with political content you read? As for 9/11, I admit you guys are better prepared to talk (and perceive insults/incoherences) better than I can, as it had little impact in my life (even the atom bombs in Japan had a greater impact, actually).

As for insane people, there's actually a great debate on the area, and I know too little about mental health in order to give you a solid opinion on that.

If the community believes that the laws should be tougher, I'd then ask how (and why) we should do so. And, if the majority decided, I'd support it, as I'm curious to know what would happen (this would be completely against my beliefs on this matter, after all, and that would be an opportunity to check them).

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T can you please elaborate on your meaning here?

He seems to have had problems in the social grounds (i.e. being obnoxious), not necessarily in the legal grounds (i.e. being a spammer and or posting "offensive" material). Therefore, the punishment should've come socially, not legally.

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T 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.

I'll do this backwards.

First of all, and personally, I do trust your judgement, and have respected so: that's the reason why I'm just discussing - since you did come out of this experience with an opinion antagonic to that of mine, I think I can learn from you by having you tell me what you saw. Not only we did 'allow' you to have made that decision, but we also didn't do anything to stop (or revert) whatever happened.

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T 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.

I don't know, Alon, by warning him, 3 things could've happened:

1. He would explain his views and either apologise or change his tone. That's certainly not likely to happen, but I've seen it before.
   
2. He would leave. Some people do this when they think they're being offended.
   
3. He would either ignore or get worse, which would eventually lead to his suspension. I've seen that happening as well.
   

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T 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.

Lira;

At this time, I'm not really reading any other specifically dedicated Poltical Debate Forums. Why do you ask?

quote:

Originally posted by Lira "I've skimmed over his posts and I didn't really understand what you mean by advertising. If you could show me, I'd support his suspension, as this is not a place for adverts."

I think the link to his all-knowing video takes you to a site that tries to get you to sign up in order to receive the DL of the video, if I'm not mistaken? (for the "high quality" version).

Some in here speculated that perhaps he gets paid for clicks and/or e-mail addesses.

Entirely possible.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira I don't know, Alon, by warning him, 3 things could've happened: He would explain his views and either apologise or change his tone. That's certainly not likely to happen, but I've seen it before.

that option was even less likely than usual considering the following facts: when threatened that this (his 2nd) thread will be reported and closed like his former one, he didnt mind at all, he even tried to shift the blame to others; despite everyone criticising his modus operandi, he didnt make any effort whatsoever to change it. his views aswell as his m.o. are somewhat inconsistent with trusting in authority (stretching to include forum moderators).

a far more likely option of what could have happened is solgrabber would have called neo a 'disinformation agent' paid by the government to silence 'his' ideas.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira I've skimmed over his posts and I didn't really understand what you mean by advertising. If you could show me, I'd support his suspension, as this is not a place for adverts.

in his first thread here (9/11 eyewitnesses) he posted the same video at least 10 times, trying to provoke us in various childish ways to watch it - even those of us who claimed to have done so priorly.

also, just came to mind, to be more accurate, i think trolling is what his behaviour here might be called. should trolls be tolerated?

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Other than what I had already posted and the warning, I wouldn't really have anything else to add now. However, I didn't see him being mocked and/or ignored that much - he still managed to get several replies.

it's not as if we had a separate thread in which to synchronize our reaction to him

speaking in broad terms, why do you have an inclination towards having the established society bending for a new member rather than the other way around?

its not a permanent ban from this forum for solgrabber, it is a temp exclusion, a kind of probation if you like.
if his attitude of late carries on in the rest of the forums then his ban from PDD continues, if his attitude improves then he will be allowd back in pdd on the proviso that if he messes up again then pdd access will be withdrawn and a possible forum wide suspension will follow.

$10 says Sol G. blows his opportunity within 48 hours of returning...any takers?

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco 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.

nothing ever hit building 7... no building fell on it...



Larry Silverstein, the owner of the WTC complex, admitted on a September 2002 PBS documentary, 'America Rebuilds' that he and the NYFD decided to 'pull' WTC 7 on the day of the attack. The word 'pull' is industry jargon for taking a building down with explosives.

Photos taken moments before the collapse of WTC 7 show small office fires on just two floors.

Firefighters were told to move away from the building moments before it collapsed.

In February of 2002 Silverstein Properties won $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. Silverstein Properties' estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. So: This building's collapse resulted in a profit of about $500 million!




CNN Poll: 89% Believe US Government Covering Up 9/11

^^^Where are you getting this garbage from?

Of course parts of the tower fell on Building 7! That's well established! It's also a NO-BRAINER! The damn building was right next to the Towers! How could it have been missed in the debris fall-out? IT COULDN'T HAVE!

"Pull"...

So you're saying that they blew it up to get the Insurance money!?!? Don't you think there was probably something in their policy that would have voided that policy, something like say....blowing up the building?!?!

And do you have any idea how long it would take to acquire charges and place them, anyway? And even if they had them on hand, and there was enough time (of which neither was the case), who is going to run in to a structurally damaged building that's on fire to do it? WHO!?!? No one with half a brain!

Of course the Fire Fighters were pulled back, that's prefectly normal when a building is so far gone and is structurally un-safe that it's in immanent danger of collapse...just go down to your local Fire Dept. and ask anyone there!

My god, are you all in high School here or something? I've never heard such childish logic in all my life.

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco Lira; At this time, I'm not really reading any other specifically dedicated Poltical Debate Forums. Why do you ask?

I can't find it now but when you said things like I've seen crazy people infect other boards (though not exactly in this way, but not too far off either), I was wondering whether they were from another political forum or something.

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco I think the link to his all-knowing video takes you to a site that tries to get you to sign up in order to receive the DL of the video, if I'm not mistaken? (for the "high quality" version). Some in here speculated that perhaps he gets paid for clicks and/or e-mail addesses. Entirely possible.

True that, that could be possible.

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T that option was even less likely than usual considering the following facts: when threatened that this (his 2nd) thread will be reported and closed like his former one, he didnt mind at all, he even tried to shift the blame to others; despite everyone criticising his modus operandi, he didnt make any effort whatsoever to change it. his views aswell as his m.o. are somewhat inconsistent with trusting in authority (stretching to include forum moderators). a far more likely option of what could have happened is solgrabber would have called neo a 'disinformation agent' paid by the government to silence 'his' ideas.

Hehe, I see. Well, along with what Wicked Neo said, then maybe this probation could have a similar effect then. Hopefully he will stop being paranoid.

Are you reading this Sol? Every time you fall into a relaxing deep sleep, I'm going to pull your leg!!! Huahuahuahuahu!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T in his first thread here (9/11 eyewitnesses) he posted the same video at least 10 times, trying to provoke us in various childish ways to watch it - even those of us who claimed to have done so priorly. also, just came to mind, to be more accurate, i think trolling is what his behaviour here might be called. should trolls be tolerated?

What feeds troll is the attention: my question is that, although suspensions and bans work in the short term, wouldn't indifference be more effective in the long run?

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T speaking in broad terms, why do you have an inclination towards having the established society bending for a new member rather than the other way around?

Have you ever read the motto of the Brazilian flag? It reads "Order and progress". In order to progress, however, order must be changed, which is a way of breaking the order.

No matter how much I like chaos (I do), I'm aware of the fact that excessive chaos (and excessive order) are prejudicial in the real world. Once a different member enters a group, not only the individuals from that group benefit from the entrance of a new members, the individual can also benefit from the ideas present in that society. With time, if there's a lack of common interests, the odd member will eventually leave on its own, without any needs for the group to expell him/her. However, if all the conditions are met, the exchange of information can reformulate the old paradigms present in that group and optimised (or not).

I'm a bit in a hurry (I have 10 minutes to get back to university), so I will re-read this paragraph when I come back and fix any flaws I find.

Hey Lira;

I like reading your posts. You seem very bright and considerate.

As for the other person I was refering to on another board who's disruptive, it's not a political board...and her craziness manifests itself in the form of being irrelevant and annoying to the members, much like Sol G.

He may get bored and leave by being ignored, but if it's going to go that route anyway, why not just throw him out sooner? Especially if he's going to work so hard to turn a serious board in to a mockery.

I mean it when I said I stopped coming in here for awhile because of people like him. It's just down-right emabarrassing to be affiliated with a board that's over-run with people like that.

quote:

Originally posted by dcougar99 Larry Silverstein, the owner of the WTC complex, admitted on a September 2002 PBS documentary, 'America Rebuilds' that he and the NYFD decided to 'pull' WTC 7 on the day of the attack. The word 'pull' is industry jargon for taking a building down with explosives.

Yeah thats the movie i saw. But there was something about that statement the owner made that confused me. i was under the impression the NYFD were never properly trained to bring down a building of that size & i was also under the impression that it takes many man hours of careful planning to bring a building down like it fell onto itself. I only seen that movie once & am forgot exactly what he said. He couldvt been misquoted or i can be wrong & the NYFD does destroy skyscrapers.

Q. What do Fire Fighters do?

A. They put out fires.

Q. Why?

A. To save buildings.


Why on earth would Fire Fighters be trained in the use of explosives for the purpose of destroying buildings, when their job is to save buildings?

Do you see fire trucks racing throughout America with boxes of TNT loaded on board? No, you do not.






Why is anything and everything possible in the mind of a Conpsiracy Theorist, except for the obvious?

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco Q. What do Fire Fighters do? A. They put out fires. Q. Why? A. To save buildings. Why on earth would Fire Fighters be trained in the use of explosives for the purpose of destroying buildings, when their job is to save buildings? Do you see fire trucks racing throughout America with boxes of TNT loaded on board? No, you do not. Why is anything and everything possible in the mind of a Conpsiracy Theorist, except for the obvious?

It would only make sense to bomb the building if it was so severely damaged that it would be unrepairable, yet would still remain standing. But I doubt they'd do that so quickly considering all the stuff they had to do with the two fallen towers. Even so, they'd have no reason to hide it.

Maybe because some of these posters live in other countries where anything IS possible, they don't realize how absurd and outlandish some of their theories are in terms of them happening here in the U.S.?

We have a free press. Albeit, they can be pretty one-sided sometime...HOWEVER: There is still no way that the things which these conspiracy theorists propose could ever come to fruition. There are just too many people who could benefit from telling the truth, if said conspiarcy existed, and too many people who would never go along with said conspiracy so as to ever make them possible.

In the end, America is hardly the one-thought mind-control machine that these theorists wish it was...in fact, this country is almost equally divided down the middle in terms of political affiliations...so please, get over your theories already and stop giving us way more credit than we deserve; There is just no way such one-sided and completely non-sensical conspiracies could ever take place here. Just look at the polls; How is it that most Americans now don't support Buh, yet this same majority is willing to turn a blind eye to potential conspiracies? It doesn't make sense for a reason.

Figure it out.

^^ i would like to congratulate donny on his very first PDD post that made a whole lot of sense

LOL. And I posted that after dinner with a friend and a good booze-buzz.......................maybe the key to my future sensation is inebriation?

quote:

Originally posted by Lira What feeds troll is the attention: my question is that, although suspensions and bans work in the short term, wouldn't indifference be more effective in the long run?

more effective? i doubt it - this solution required the least effort, solved the problem immediately, and left no negative impact aside from the potential one of free speech that we're discussing here; on the other hand, had we just been indifferent to him, we would have potentially seen our forum being degarded; instead of potentially attracting the 'kind' of members we want here (ones who are at least familiar with the workings of a debate), we'd be attracting 'undesirables'.

the subargument you give (consciously or not) of solgrabber challenging our m.o. and perheps aiming to replace it with something 'better' is null because his alternative was not better in any way.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Have you ever read the motto of the Brazilian flag? It reads "Order and progress". In order to progress, however, order must be changed, which is a way of breaking the order.

not when the order takes account of that fact and includes principles that can assist that within itself.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira No matter how much I like chaos (I do), I'm aware of the fact that excessive chaos (and excessive order) are prejudicial in the real world. Once a different member enters a group, not only the individuals from that group benefit from the entrance of a new members, the individual can also benefit from the ideas present in that society.

so what hypothetical benefit might we have gotten from accepting solgrabber as a member into our group?

quote:

Originally posted by Lira With time, if there's a lack of common interests, the odd member will eventually leave on its own, without any needs for the group to expell him/her. However, if all the conditions are met, the exchange of information can reformulate the old paradigms present in that group and optimised (or not).

i dont agree that leaving should come with time; the so called member should not even become one if he shares no common interests with the group, or more appropriately in this case - language.

as for the second part of that paragraph, you probably know they don't apply in this case (which was a rather extreme exception), and that we agree on them, theoretically aswell as practically.


basically i'm saying that there are and/or should be (more) limitations on who can become a member of our group (but not arbitrary limitations).

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer 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.

Yea because it's somehow the government's fault that Katrina hit in the first place and the fact that people decided to use their government-Katrina-handout to buy fashionable clothes and expensive shoes must also somehow be the government's fault...

Sorry for the delay, Psy-T, I was busy with work

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco Hey Lira; I like reading your posts. You seem very bright and considerate. As for the other person I was refering to on another board who's disruptive, it's not a political board...and her craziness manifests itself in the form of being irrelevant and annoying to the members, much like Sol G. He may get bored and leave by being ignored, but if it's going to go that route anyway, why not just throw him out sooner? Especially if he's going to work so hard to turn a serious board in to a mockery. I mean it when I said I stopped coming in here for awhile because of people like him. It's just down-right emabarrassing to be affiliated with a board that's over-run with people like that.

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T more effective? i doubt it - this solution required the least effort, solved the problem immediately, and left no negative impact aside from the potential one of free speech that we're discussing here; on the other hand, had we just been indifferent to him, we would have potentially seen our forum being degarded; instead of potentially attracting the 'kind' of members we want here (ones who are at least familiar with the workings of a debate), we'd be attracting 'undesirables'.

If the both of you are saying that his threads might attract more people like him, then I'd say you guys are right: I avoid some forums whenever I think they are "dull", for example. In this sense, I wish he could be a more productive member for this community.

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T the subargument you give (consciously or not) of solgrabber challenging our m.o. and perheps aiming to replace it with something 'better' is null because his alternative was not better in any way.

It's not a matter of being better, though, but a test of how we can deal with difficult situations - I mean, dealing with someone as obsessed as Sol is sure a tough mission.

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T not when the order takes account of that fact and includes principles that can assist that within itself.

Well, it would require changes nonetheless.

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T so what hypothetical benefit might we have gotten from accepting solgrabber as a member into our group?

• Tolerance: Accepting someone like him would certainly makes us more tolerant with extremely different points of view (and obsessive behaviours ). Once you can tolerate extremists, moderates are a lot easier to deal with.
  
• Case Studies: I remember that, back when I was a mod, I used to "study" the users that caused problems. Who were they? Why were they a problem? Did they change?
  
  More often than not, their behaviour was not much different from what we see in real life, which counts as "experience" in some way. This way, we would be able to base our opinions on facts.
  
• Mockery: If all else failed, we could always mock him and have a laughing stock until he gave up/in
  

quote:

Originally posted by Lira It's not a matter of being better, though, but a test of how we can deal with difficult situations - I mean, dealing with someone as obsessed as Sol is sure a tough mission.

that just brings us right back to the methods of dealing with him we discussed earlier, and unless you have anything new to add to that, i think we're still at the conclusion that the subforum ban just rushed the inevitable process.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Well, it would require changes nonetheless.

just one

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Tolerance: Accepting someone like him would certainly makes us more tolerant with extremely different points of view (and obsessive behaviours ). Once you can tolerate extremists, moderates are a lot easier to deal with. Case Studies: I remember that, back when I was a mod, I used to "study" the users that caused problems. Who were they? Why were they a problem? Did they change? More often than not, their behaviour was not much different from what we see in real life, which counts as "experience" in some way. This way, we would be able to base our opinions on facts. Mockery: If all else failed, we could always mock him and have a laughing stock until he gave up/in

being tolerant in such extreme situations seems slighly analogous to being tolerant to a serial killer and letting him live in your house.

we can do case studies of just about anyone and anything; if i would be right in saying this 'character' is universal, this point would be made redundant...

mockery is also somewhat universal around these parts

quote:

Originally posted by Lira He was interested on politics, if you ignore the "spam hypothesis", so it would be a common interest (albeit the only one ). As for the language, why do you say that? His English didn't seem to be bad

by language i was referring to his incommunication - we might as well have been speaking in different languages that sol g doesn't understand.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira I don't know - for curiosity's sake, I wonder what would've happened of he weren't suspended. Wouldn't people grow tired of him and just ignore him just like Arcadia in the CORe? In the beginning, there was a great commotion over his existence, and now he's just another member.

well, if we're taking arcadia and the COR as example, i'd say we're even better off without solgrabber than we are as is
things arcadia says become memes these days
just imagine if solgrabber's behaviour would have became a trend

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T that just brings us right back to the methods of dealing with him we discussed earlier, and unless you have anything new to add to that, i think we're still at the conclusion that the subforum ban just rushed the inevitable process.

According to his behaviour during the time he was here, and the proof we have, I'd say it's a fair conclusion to come to.

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T just one

Not really - you're assuming that, in order to progress, you need to change just one thing, which is not always the case.

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T being tolerant in such extreme situations seems slighly analogous to being tolerant to a serial killer and letting him live in your house.

That's a bit of an extreme case, since there was no life threat here (no matter how much some people wanted to kill him )

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T we can do case studies of just about anyone and anything; if i would be right in saying this 'character' is universal, this point would be made redundant...

Point accepted.

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T mockery is also somewhat universal around these parts

Not that much. If you go to a forum such as the ones of 4chan's, Gamefaqs' or ytmnd's and tell them you want to commit suicide, then you will understand what I mean by mockery. Those are some of the last places on Earth you'd go for emotional support, for example

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T by language i was referring to his incommunication - we might as well have been speaking in different languages that sol g doesn't understand.

Oh, okay then.

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T well, if we're taking arcadia and the COR as example, i'd say we're even better off without solgrabber than we are as is things arcadia says become memes these days just imagine if solgrabber's behaviour would have became a trend

True that

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Not really - you're assuming that, in order to progress, you need to change just one thing, which is not always the case.

well, of course there are variables, but when speaking in generalizations and/or abstracts as unspecifically as we did, opening the door to progress involves but one change.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira That's a bit of an extreme case, since there was no life threat here (no matter how much some people wanted to kill him

oh, c'mon! as if life is the most important thing ever or something
in any case, let's make the analogy a bit more closer to reality - being tolerant in such extreme situations seems slighly analogous to being tolerant to a fat slob who doesnt contribute anything but his excrements and letting him live in your house.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Not that much. If you go to a forum such as the ones of 4chan's, Gamefaqs' or ytmnd's and tell them you want to commit suicide, then you will understand what I mean by mockery. Those are some of the last places on Earth you'd go for emotional support, for example

and this sadistic behaviour - which under exaggeration can lead to suicide - is preferable to a subforum ban how?

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T well, of course there are variables, but when speaking in generalizations and/or abstracts as unspecifically as we did, opening the door to progress involves but one change.

hmm... this would be whole discussion on its own, and would ensue in yet another thread hijack

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T oh, c'mon! as if life is the most important thing ever or something in any case, let's make the analogy a bit more closer to reality - being tolerant in such extreme situations seems slighly analogous to being tolerant to a fat slob who doesnt contribute anything but his excrements and letting him live in your house.

You mean like, a brother?

Anyway, if, and only if all else failed, I'd give him the boot.

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T and this sadistic behaviour - which under exaggeration can lead to suicide - is preferable to a subforum ban how?

The focus was not on the sadistic behaviour, but rather how they wouldn't take it seriously. If Sol weren't taken seriously, he would eventually leave thinking we were all paid with money from a government we're not even related to

quote:

Originally posted by Lira hmm... this would be whole discussion on its own, and would ensue in yet another thread hijack

yet it's the only way to keep the thread alive! see?

quote:

Originally posted by Lira You mean like, a brother?

don't even think of suggesting blood-ties are enough reason for tolerance!

quote:

Originally posted by Lira The focus was not on the sadistic behaviour, but rather how they wouldn't take it seriously. If Sol weren't taken seriously, he would eventually leave thinking we were all paid with money from a government we're not even related to

he seemed like quite a persistent fella in his short time here... how long would you have been willing to wait for him to leave out of his own will - presuming his behaviour would not have changed?

Disinformation? What? I never heard of such thing. Thats impossible. What the ... oh .... YOU PEOPLE ARE ALL CRAZY. YOU CRAZY CONSPIRACY THEORISTS, ANARCHISTS, COMMUNISTS, UNEDUCATED, BRAINWASHED PEOPLE!!!

The government tells only the truth. They mean no harm to people, and their interests never contradict their own government views.

Bwahaha ....

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