Why are 'they' scaring us away from the news?

[FourthBase]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Oh, so let me translate. Fourthbase isn't responsible for what he says but Pan is...got it.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Where? <p></p><i></i>

[Dreams End]

Like where you call him fuckface and scumbab. Navndansk says that's just peachy but Pan, who doesn't use that sort of language is somehow out of bounds. <p></p><i></i>

[FourthBase]

I called him fuckface and scumbag. Oh well.<br>Sticks and stones. My bad, I got heated.<br><br>Cursing is irrelevant to the issue, though.<br>Just an expression of my displeasure and disdain.<br><br>The issue is whether Pan has the power to arbitrarily determine what is conjecture and what is logic, what is "possible" and "probable" and what is not, according to whether he agrees with it or not. He doesn't. None of us do. His conjecture is as good as and as logical/illogical as ours. Conjecture is conjecture. The evidence is incomplete, and we are all left to conjecture and speculate about the source of the LG pilot and Coup cover. Haglund's and Boots's insistence on coincidence shouldn't be taken at face value any more than any other figure's. They may either not know, not remember, or not be telling the whole truth. I have acknowledged the plausibility of the coincidental scenarios. Is it too much to ask that the plausibility of gossip/leak scenarios be acknowledged? Any evidence of past coincidences (unrelated to or not nearly as specific as the LG pilot or Coup cover) is obviously matched by evidence of past grapevine leaks. I personally think that the leaking of rumors is more prevalent, and a more realistic explanation in this case. My assertion is no less backed up by facts and logic than Pan's. <p></p><i></i>

[Dreams End]

Actually, I was just talking to navndansk and addressing his double standard. Pan has no more "power" to do anything than anyone else on this board. Navdansk talks about people "picking on" other people but seems to have a blind spot for those he agrees with. <p></p><i></i>

[boyrobot]

Think of it as free entertainment. <p></p><i></i>

[rothbardian]

<br>I don't know, DreamsEnd. All due respect, I think there's something to what NavnDansk is saying. I watched Pan (on another thread) yesterday, just walk up to another poster and...poke him in the eye. And yes, it's true...Pan didn't use the 'F' word or anything but...<br><br>Poster "dugoboy" made an assertion of sorts. Pan stepped in and made a counter-assertion without any supportive reasoning. Nevertheless, he then demanded supportive reasoning from 'dugoboy' and virtually assigned him a homework project. Again, here is that thread:<br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm10.showMessage?topicID=4276.topic">p216.ezboard.com/frigorou...4276.topic</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>There is something arrogant and insulting about that kind of presumption. It amounts to 'mistreatment'. To set up a blatant double standard where two people each make an initial 'assertion'...but the one fellow demands that the other provide proper arguments, while pointedly excusing himself (Pan's statement was- "why should I have to explain")? That is extremely provocative...and nonsensical too, by the way.<br><br>Yeah, that could make a guy angry. <p></p><i></i>

[Qutb]

Snowlion, excellent post. You perfectly articulated my feelings on much of the theorizing and speculation here on this board. <p></p><i></i>

[Dreams End]

When someone makes a sweeping statement that, say, the entire environmental movement is a ruse to put us all into slavery, this runs, dare I say it, counter to mainstream views. Running counter to mainstream views, of course, is fine...but being asked for evidence...as in why would you actually believe such a sweeping statement seems fine also. It's quite clear that, for good or ill, "environmentalism" is solidly in the mainstream as is the evidence of all sorts of environmental problems. So the burden of proof is on the one who proposes the counter position. <br><br>Bottom line, people make broad generalizations and then get pissed when someone challenges them. If you don't want it challenged...don't post it. And if you do post, don't whine if someone doesn't agree. I'm not sure why Pan is receiving all this opprobrium right now... I often don't agree with Pan...but I never call him fuckface. Because, see, that would make me look like my own position was not very well supported so I had to resort to namecalling. <br><br><br><br> <br><br> <p></p><i></i>

[wordspeak]

I thought it was obvious that elites are using television as mind control, and speculating from that basis, as Hugh Manatee Wins responded to Lizzy at the very beginning of the thread, is totally legitimate and important to our understanding of what's going on in the world. And I would totally agree with HMW's explanation. <br>But if there's not consensus even that we are being propagandized through television by the military-intelligence structure, then apparently we're back at a point of not so much sharing intuition and information, but arguing and making passionate cases.<br><br>I relate a lot to where you are at, Dreams End, even if my last post didn't come off that way. I'd love to see the ultimate well-put-together history of modern fascism, or even one amazing web site with links to tons of important information and an accessible tying together of it all. I do read the Wall Street Journal and Foreign Affairs, actually, though not every day, and I think it's important to, but they only tell so much, and it's all today's news. When it comes to putting out our own media I think there's some balance between academic-style what-can-you-prove and sharper rabble-rousing that draws on people's instincts. Like look at Alex Jones, a very flawed (I think even harmful often) and sensationalistic character, but someone who puts out a lot of truth and gets through because of his "simplified" and aggressive style.<br><br>I think there are some good media sources out there, and certainly tons of really important books, but they're dwarfed by the bad media sources.<br>I think what we're seeing with the success of someone like Alex Jones and the "Loose Change" movie, though, is both a growing public interest in and belief of conspiracy and a desire to watch good, accessible, "conspiracy" expose's. So there need to be better ones from non-Larouche sources.<br> <p></p><i></i>

[NavnDansk]

nt <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=navndansk>NavnDansk</A> at: 5/13/06 7:37 pm<br></i>

[NavnDansk]

Non-judgmental atmosphere. The most common illustration is script writing. <br><br>A scene development is needed, so for a half hour or so NO CRITICISM IS ALLOWED and everyone primes the pump of creative ideas by either speaking any ideas they want to get the flow of creative ideas going -- or they write ideas on an index card, without any criticism again, like priming a pump to get rid of the gunk and so that the clear water can flow and throw the cards in the middle of the table.<br><br>The ideas are read one by one, AND ONLY IN THIS SECOND STAGE IS CRITICISM ALLOWED and for further sessions inspiration, hopefully, no one uses vitrolic language to reject one of the ideas but just states why the idea doesn't seem a likely solution and it is discarded right away OR set aside for further examination from different angles.<br><br>Some variation of this is necessary in any creative work either with a group or by oneself and self-criticism which is often the voice of a parent or an authority figure from the past can block you off from the creative ideas that are everyone's birthright and need to solve any problem.<br><br>I know everyone is very upset by the really scary things going on but in blocking the flow of ideas and hurting people's feeling so you can feel stronger and more powerful in this very disempowering world situation is not moral or right and is distressing to many observing it.<br><br>Everyone, please try to treat other people with respect. Any kind of creative thinking makes people vulnerable and jumping on people for expressing something that moved them is counterproductive on ALL levels.<br><br>Thank you. <p></p><i></i>

[NavnDansk]

nt <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=navndansk>NavnDansk</A> at: 5/13/06 7:38 pm<br></i>

[NavnDansk]

nt <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=navndansk>NavnDansk</A> at: 5/13/06 7:36 pm<br></i>

[AlicetheCurious]

FourthBase, many months ago, I read with bemusement as one of my favourite posters, Cassandra, had a total meltdown while going back-and-forth with...ProfessorPan. <br><br>After this usually eloquent writer (Cassandra) was reduced to semi-coherent obscenities, she disappeared, much to my dismay, depriving the board of her intelligent, insightful, always interesting contribution. Score 1 for ProfessorPan, 0 for the rest of us.<br><br>I was reminded of this while reviewing the current thread. <br><br>I sympathize, having frothed at the mouth myself occasionally, frustrated and goaded by a supercilious sophist (SS) into losing sight of the topic, which I suspect was the SS's point all along.<br><br>Unfortunately, the SS exist not only in this board. Instead of allowing yourself to be carried away, or goaded into fury, why not use them as practice weights? Learning to deal rationally and coldly with their tactics on this board just might equip you for dealing with such tactics and misleading arguments in "real life"... (When life hands you a lemon, why not make lemonade?)<br><br>Furthermore, there ARE other readers besides the SS, you know, who are interested in a thoughtful, informative discussion, and who might be turned off by a sordid brawl.<br><br>Forgive me if I'm butting in, but I like you, kid. I hate to see you falling for the SS's tricks, diverting your attention and energy to hurling insults at some ghost instead of contributing your valuable analysis and data where others can benefit from it. <p></p><i></i>

[Wolfmoon Lady]

Hi Alice,<br><br>Thank you for your post. I remember Cassandra - and very much appreciated her contributions. She and I had a couple of heated go-arounds but we traded apologies and I looked forward to a long and fruitful posting relationship. I admired her scholarship and level of insight. That lady had a lot of information tucked inside of her bonnet. Hope she's okay, perhaps still reading, and knows that we still think of her.<br><br>As for the degeneration of this thread, I saw real trouble once the Mulder poster showed up. We're all here to put our ideas out there. Why make fun of people and make them feel like jerks for holding an opposing viewpoint on a topic that cannot be proved? Passionate debate is one thing, but really!<br><br>This whole thread is about our opinion on the question Lizzy posed on the news and is not provable one way or the other. Yet, we were all asked to submit evidence. Which many of us did. It was never good enough. I found that odd because we don't see this kind of demand for proof when alien abductions are the point of discussion. Yet, there is no more or less evidence to prove we are visited by aliens than there is to prove we have a 'cabal' controlling the entertainment industry (which I believe was Pan's line in the sand).<br><br>There's a whole spectrum of beliefs on most of the topics posted here. Perhaps there's something about topics that hit too close to home that brings out the defensiveness in people.<br><br>That said, when goading, baiting, and denying another's reality come into play, I cry 'foul' - because these are all components of emotional abuse. It is called 'crazymaking' in domestic violence terminology. Pretty soon, the victim of same goes ballistic and is always blamed for losing it. Sad to see that this sort of tactic is perpetrated here because the result is usually damaging to the victim and to the witnesses who are subjected to it. Is it that important to be the winner?<br><br>FWIW, I prefer to allow others to have a different view than myself, and to not slag off at them for it. Instead, I prefer to agree to disagree, or whatever. Otherwise, the divisiveness factor sets in and creates the dueling camps of 'usses and thems'. I get enough of that in IRL, thanks.<br><br>Moreover, we are a community and it takes a lot of work to keep it together. Because I value this forum, I've learned to speak more respectfully and be more careful with my word choices. Once harsh words are exchanged, it is very hard to retract them. I've started asking myself a certain question before I hit "add post": "Would you say this to the person's face?" If I feel queasy or have any doubts, I don't do it. It took a lot of work on my part - I have a terrible temper!<br><br>Final thought: It's important to me to know I have one place where I don't have to be afraid to speak my mind. At least, I hope that is true. I know that I haven't posted as often as some do, and that's because I've gone through multiple life changes these past four months and haven't had time. But things are settling down and I hope to participate more often. I'd like to, that is.<br><br>I appreciate that some here are sore and still licking their wounds. My sympathies. It was an interesting thread. I hope (I know) we can move on and past this one.<br><br>Cheers, and Mothers Day blessings,<br>Morgan <p></p><i></i>