giveback: you appear not to be aware of the amount of crap that is tollerated on some sites, spend some time reading the threads on this board:
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewforum.php?f=...
I think to get banned there you have to do something like threaten to kill people... You are in favour of allowing any content on discussion boards?
Hey guys, can we please calm down a little bit?
giveback:
There's a great chance that they would say that I am being sympathetic to the one banned, and there's no point in sympathy since it clearly gets us nowhere
I don't think you're "being sympathetic to the one banned" and I don't think that's the issue here. I actually see sympathy in the banning itself. Sympathy and respect for truth and dialog, not for a mysterious "person" on an internet forum who's goal seems to be to cause disruption and confusion.
From your last post, you clearly seem to be feeling marginal/ized in your position. I do not want to exacerbate that, and I feel that much of your cautiousness has been insightful and respected (as I've said). But we don't seem to be getting anywhere.
Comments on a internet message board are not the most well thought out, soul-revealing truths that you seem to be looking for. So what if someone was glad that Regnator got blocked? To me that is not an earth-shattering definition of their motivations and character, not something that we need to pick apart. It's not that they were glad that a valid and respectful dissenting opinion/voice had been silenced, but that a very predictable, snotty, disrespectful attitude had been dealt with firmly and decisively.
All of our various projects are exclusive by necessity. TruthMove has only 5 real members, you being the third to join me and truthmover. We don't accept new people very easily in real life and in our planning meetings just as we do not want to allow just anyone to clog up, subvert, misguide, and frustrate our online forum.
On a final note, I do have to admit that I'm unhappy to have to spend this much time on this subject (repeating myself several times on various points) and I feel that disruptors and selfish people often know how to take advantage of the well-meaning attitudes of sympathy, equality, justice, free speech that you have expounded upon. I would like to move forward.
By coincidence or not, this discussion perfectly relates to the original intent of discussion for this thread.
Divisive behavior. Provocateurs. How to deal with this problem.
My personal opinion is that there should be basic guidelines in forums so that disrupters (intentional OR otherwise) can be prevented from destroying discussion forums. We do not need to distinguish intent to observe this.
Unfortunately, we can not make the assumption that everyone is here to talk about the truth, or work towards activism. I’ve seen enough that we have to assume that there is an intentional disruption of activism.
This is the very purpose of COINTELPRO and agent provocateurs.
Division. Not activism.
"Activism" is often a charade or worse. Most of my actions directed toward 9/11 and related truth are not of the kind that many will notice. But they are of a nature that should have influence.
One of the ploys used by intelligence organization, government or otherwise, is to get people to attend meetings where they can gather pertinent information about the attendees to be used to undermine the opposition.
http://www.northvegr.org/zoega/h394.php snotr (acc. snotran), a. wise. snotra (að), v. to make wise. snotr-liga, adv. wisely (maala -liga). snót (pl. -ir), f. gentlewoman.
Bruno: You're right. No meetings should be held at all. And no actions. And don't visit websites either, they're only there as bait for finding out who visits. And don't publish books or hand out leaflets - just drop them off in secret in a corner somewhere. Are you sure you want to be here?!
chrisc:
I may not be aware. When I said that maybe I should go to their current forums, I meant it. I've spent more time talking Truth Movement stuff with the public at large, out on the streets. I very much enjoy that, and I try to promote that emphasis. I have an easier time interacting with the Truth issue on the streets.
As I read the comments on the site you recommended, I noticed a constant stream of shame on their part.
If we ban something, it's just going to go somewhere else. I would like to believe that we are the ones that could be entrusted with the difficult ones and their difficult comments. And if somebody wants to threaten me or somebody else, I certainly want to know.
Focusing on what ones own establishment/group can encourage instead of discourage. It's amazing what that can do.
truthmod:
I read what you posted above, many times, and what kept on running on in my head is that we both very much disagree on the assertion of "baseless claims", and the like, and we haven't really squarely dealt with that. It's festering. Let's deal first, move on second.
As I read the comments on the site you recommended, I noticed a constant stream of shame on their part.
Perhaps you didn't understand what I was trying to say about that site, perhaps this thread is clearer?
http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2338
You said I noticed a constant stream of shame on their part -- who is their -- everyone on that site?
If we ban something, it's just going to go somewhere else.
Perhaps, but then it's someone elses problem... ;-)
Is there no comment that should result in a ban? What about racism?
Nicholas,
There is a history to my comment. I can't really explain for fear of being banned. Perhaps these will help. BTW: If the formatting is AFU, I doubt I will try to fix it.
by Joe Walsh
I am standing in the middle of my shadow/ In between the daylight hours/ And when the sun go down/ We are hiding in the shadows/
We are silent/ We have learned/ Not to think out loud/ We just don't think out loud/
And the shadows grow/ And the shadows play/ And we all cast shadows/ And shadows know/
Who is standing in the shadows/ Who is lying/ Lying in the shade/ Lying to their shadow/
And the shadows grow/ And the shadows play/ And we all cast shadows/ And the shadows know/
Who is standing in the shadows/ Who is lying/ Lying in the shade/ Lying to the shadows/
This was written in the late 1990s with images of the caves in eastern Aryana in mind.
Siddhartha's Song
From shores of sensuous existence/ Sail seas you search within/ Seek the center of the Soul/ The source where Life begins/
Touch the substance of the Universe/ Behind all that we have seen/ Know reality directly/ A portal to eternity/ From which we once returned/ To walk the path laid by our Fathers/
Remember why you came here/ When you go there again/ This Temple we've created/ Shall forever be maintained/
You have a duty to humanity/ To teach all eyes to see/ That we were meant to be/ Eternally/
Blinded by the light/ They cannot see/ The way beyond the goal/ I've found in me/
A candle in the darkness/ Meant to light the way/ Not a flame in which to peer/ And forever thus to stay/
Light that falls/ on cavern wall/ Shows us where we've been/ In ways we've never seen/
The mighty light/ Ten thousand suns/ You hold now in your hand/ A gift you have been given/ A power you command/
And as we go on living/ Fall not once from grace/ Or the light that you've been given/ May be gone without a trace/
Do not understand the following to be threat to anybody on this forum. It's just a reflection of how I was feeling one day many years ago. I carried it around in my head for years before I wrote it down. It's only meant to show the contrast between the Light and the darkness. It's about choices.
I will find you/ 'cause I will hunt you down/ I will walk behind you/ Without a sound/ And I will strike/ When the time is right/ I will bring you down/ Oh, to the ground/ And I will make you bleed/ Like you did me/ Oh once before/ And of this/ You can be sure/ I will hear you cry/ For mercy's hand/ But that will be/ At my command/ For you can't do/ What you have done/ And expect/ To stand, not run/ I spoke the truth/ And you spoke lies/ And for this/ You will die/ To taste your blood/ Is oh so fine/ And vengeance sweet/ She shall be mine/
I'd be careful who you make threats to.
BrunoJTesch:
It appears that you have gotten it out of your system, whatever "it" is. I take "it" as an extraordinarily elaborate way of saying "Hello, I'm here, in your forum." If you have any more demons who want to take the stage with you, please deal with them on your own time, or present them in a way in which we can make it easier for you. This a general request for all in the forum as well, including myself, of course. We could all practice this.
So, now the work for all of us is obvious, and if it is not obvious we can all make it clear.
By the way, printed song lyrics rarely are as potent, clear, and helpful as ones own words.
Sorry to disappoint you, but however deserving you my perceive yourself to be of such a threat, I really meant what I said. In the words of John Lennon "it's just a song".
chrisc:
I noticed a lot of name calling and the like on the nineeleven forum you linked to. I don't think everybody was doing it, but the belittlement was very common.
Please allow me to have some time about the ban subject. I feel in all of this, I really need to figure out some inconsistencies in my viewpoint.
If you look at what I posted in my previous incarnation you will find a great deal of sincere commentary. I am very serious about what happened with the whole KW issue. I hadn't even given disinfo much serious thought beyond what is obligatory in the context. All of a sudden I found myself at the center of the storm. It really is just about all I have talked about regarding 9/11 since then. Since I do not trust the people involved to tell me the truth about their motives and reasoning, I have no way to know whether I was misunderstood, factually incorrect or simply too outspoken. I suspect it is a fair combination of the first and the last. I have not been dishonest nor intentionally disruptive.
As for the lyrics, it depends on the audience, whether people know the song, etc. The last two are my own words. It's quite ironic that people ban me for being candid, honest and forthright and then suggest to me that I try to be more clear in what I post. I tell you most emphatically that you will not get the full measure of my honest thought. You have demanded that of me. It is not my choice.
Regarding the general topic of banning people, I commented to David Slesinger not too long about that banning people from forums is a form of psychological violence, and I do believe that. It is certainly less painful to be banned from a forum where you really haven't established much in the way of working relationships with people, than to be banned from a forum where you have contributed a great deal of valuable content and established trust and understanding with other members.
I run my own mailing list on a topic completely unrelated to 9/11. Only one person has been banned in the period of several years, and that was by the other moderator. Postel's Law is my guideline.
This got out of hand. Sorry everyone. The facts below just caught up with me, and we are going TRY to respond in a responsible manner. That involves asking a couple of question that require answers. First of all, everything Truthmod said above. Then...
Bruno, I visited your blog. I found this quite disappointing.
http://vehme.blogspot.com/2007/09/who-owns-911-tru...
Would you care to elaborate on the value of this post? The following doesn't cut if for me.
We have discovered some very curious facts about certain 9/11 sites. Notice that all the sites listed below are registered through the same service.
And then I saw this. Something that made me very uncomfortable.
http://vehme.blogspot.com/2007/09/dark-ages.html
Are you friendly with Victronix? She is a regular poster here, one of our first, and we very much appreciate her contribution here and for the movement. If you are not friendly with her, then I am left to assume that you consider her, and those on the list above, and let me toss TruthMove in there for you, to be the "anti-truth psyops" you speak of on your site.
If that's the case, we would ask you to respect our Forum Guidelines by not posting to our forum. If that's not the case, you need to elaborate on your intentions toward the sites on that list, and toward Victronix.
If you do not respond to these concerns of ours we will not assume that you are here with positive intentions and will block you and not let you return again.
Our forum will be maintained as a space free of comments that are posted by people obviously intending only to invalidate our efforts or distract us from focused conversation.
If I had arrived a definite conclusions regarding the sites listed, I would have stated them. Everybody is suspect. I believe the blog post raises legitimate questions. Part of the reason I came to this site is to try and figure out what gives with my stated suspicions. When I posted that, I did not have any familiarity with TruthMove, so my comments had nothing to do with your site.
As for Victronix.
I also looked at some of the material on BrunoJTesch's blog, this caught my eye...
The evidence for the existence of homicidal gaschambers used at Auschwitz is far less than convincing... What is alleged to have happened is physically impossible.
He was banned from the STJ911 forum by Victronix for holocaust denial and asking if Micheal Wolsey was related to James Woolsey, former CIA director. He also called truthaction communists.
At the time, I was unaware of his posts involving holocaust denial (yes, he was warned for this), and was surprised he was banned. And yet, he attempts to blame me for it.
I didn't raise the subject Arabesque did.
Oh and so did Chrisc. Of the 97 entries on that blog two of them are on the topic you are calling attention to. I was not trying to call attention to the topic by posting the link to the blog. I certainly wasn't trying to introduce the divisive controversy into this forum.
The vast majority of the material on http://vehme.blogspot.com is directly or indirectly 9/11 related. IMO there's a lot of good stuff there. Why don't you address that rather than dwelling on the part that is expressly forbidden from discussion on this forum?
BrunoJTesch:
It seems as if you will post beyond invitation, so I am curious if your sole, or primary, purpose to visit this site is to expose this organizations supposed hypocrisy.
I don't understand what you are saying. What do you mean by "post beyond invitation"? Your policy says to avoid discussion of "Holocaust revisionism", so when other people bring it up, I say, "Why don't you address that rather than dwelling on the part that is expressly forbidden from discussion on this forum?" Then I get accused of trying to make people look like hypocrites.
You must log in to post.