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.

Last edited by donnybrasco on May-17-2006 at 20:22

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.

___________________
People who own my ass: Citric Acid, Boomer187, Tribu, Sand Leaper,
Jackson, venomX, jamie, Renegade, Konjin, Akridrot, Miss Bliss.
Psy-T - Down The Rabbit Hole (400minute long acid set)

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

___________________
1+1=10

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.

___________________
People who own my ass: Citric Acid, Boomer187, Tribu, Sand Leaper,
Jackson, venomX, jamie, Renegade, Konjin, Akridrot, Miss Bliss.
Psy-T - Down The Rabbit Hole (400minute long acid set)

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

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.

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T why accept certain limits silently and resent others vocally then? which qualify? who qualifies them? how do they become qualified?

Simply, your freedom ends when it limits someone else's freedom further.

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T 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.

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.

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.

Indeed, I like how you (and the ones who have an opinion different from mine) can show me where my arguments are inconsistent: that way, I can either drop them (if I realise they're "wrong") or I can fix them (if there's any hope left for them in this world )

___________________
Indiana Clones Upcoming Sets
[ I May Upload Something Someday ]

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.

Last edited by donnybrasco on May-18-2006 at 03:55

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?

___________________
People who own my ass: Citric Acid, Boomer187, Tribu, Sand Leaper,
Jackson, venomX, jamie, Renegade, Konjin, Akridrot, Miss Bliss.
Psy-T - Down The Rabbit Hole (400minute long acid set)

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.

___________________
My Mixcloud Profile My Twitch Channel

$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.

Last edited by donnybrasco on May-18-2006 at 22:03