About calling posters "disinfo agents":

[banned]

...in Germany and the rest of Europe were unwilling to believe in the Holocaust until they had proof.<br><br>Unfortunately, they only got it when what came out of the vents wasn't water or delousing solution, but Zyklon B.<br><br>And, my friends, that is just a wee tad zu spat, nein?<br><br>If I have a split second decision to make whether what some big scary dude who is menacing and threatening me has in his hand is a Ruger or a cell phone--and I have a Colt .38 in MY hand--guess who's going to hit the tarmac with a shattered kneecap?<br><br>If it turns out what was glinting in his hand was a bar of candy with a shiny wrapper, if a jury of my peers doesn't think I had justification to fire (not a problem any more in FloriDuh, God love the bloodthirsty li'l bastards) I will have to deal with the consequences.<br><br>The people we are up against are not out to paint our houses unflattering colors, they are out to strip us of our civil rights, enslave us and/or kill us.<br><br>Sorry, but the standard of proof I require before I label someone my mortal enemy in this situation is different from what I would require if I were a history teacher asking my students to explain the causes of the Crimean War.<br><br>That's just me, though. If other folks want to wait till something come hissing through the shower vents that makes them wretch, gasp for air, collapse, piss themselves and expire in agony, I sure can't stop them. <p></p><i></i>

[proldic]

let me get this straight -- people can post Nazi propaganda no problem, but if I want to call someone a Nazi because of that, I'm subject to censure?<br><br>So we don't sow disharmony.<br><br><br><br> <p></p><i></i>

[Homeless Halo]

In regards to disinfo agents:<br><br>I find it unlikely that the PTB and their agents have the time and resources neccessary to mount a coherent disinformation campaign that involves placing people in internet discussion forums.<br><br>Given the perhaps 40,000 employees total in American intelligence communities, there simply aren't enough of them to police the entire internet. <br><br>As a tactic, it would be highly wasteful, and therefore not something they would probably spend time on. It would be far more beneficial to simply "own" a few groups or sites entirely and allow the disinformation to spread by one's enemies, the "Conspiracy nuts" themselves, who have enough paranoia of their own.<br><br>By this logic, I'd say it would be far more likely that Jeff is the disinfo agent than any of the poster's on this board. (Not calling Jeff an agent, just saying that it would make more sense to run the site than to attempt to sway the opinion of the place as an unknown entity), Further, it would be even more likely that they'd just put "google" in their pocket. A lot easier, and it covers more bases.<br><br>Those are my thoughts. <p></p><i></i>

[Rigorous Intuition]

No, Nazi propaganda is not permitted. I've locked threads and deleted posts that have cited racist and neo-fascist sources. Unfortunately, I have very little time to read the board these days, so I count on people to PM me when they see something objectionable. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=rigorousintuition>Rigorous Intuition</A> at: 10/14/05 6:01 pm<br></i>

[proldic]

<br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>...the war, which has so far cost the lives of nearly 1200 U.S. troops and thousands of Iraqis, was motivated by Washington's desire to defend the Jewish state<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <p></p><i></i>

[Dreams End]

prol, he said not to call people disinfo agents. To point out that posts originate from or contain nazi/fascist ideals is not out of bounds, from what I can tell. I do it all the time. But "agent" is a different standard of proof needed, I think. <p></p><i></i>

[robertdreed]

I think you've misinterpreted Jeff's statements on this isue.<br><br>It's still permissible to critique the content of a post and it's links. Even heated condemnation is still allowed. <br><br>Pointed criticism may also be advanced toward the opinions openly held by a given RI poster. <br><br>I think Jeff wants the mutation of discussions into personal attacks to end, though. It's permissible to scathingly denounce someone's comments, but the criticism is more effective when pointed, rather than as a broadside against everything they say, or everything they've ever said. <br><br>And although it's still possible to level such accusations at outside commentators, the business of accusing other posters on the RI board of having hidden agendas as a habitual tactic needs to cease. <br><br>That means, for instance, that simply because someone comes down on one side or the other of the Peak Oil issue, it doesn't necessarily mean that the opposition is in league with the Devil. <br><br>The same goes for the issue of Israel and Zionism. Everyone who makes statements sympathetic to Israel isn't an agent of the NWO Totalitarian Illuminati. And everyone who points out a given instance of wrongdoing or suspicious activities by people who happen to have a Jewish identity- or who criticizes the political entity of Israel- isn't a Judaeophobe or a Nazi. That includes people who raise contestable issues, or who make accusations that sound false or wrongheaded in the opinion of others. Point out their errors, don't simply accuse them of being Jew-haters or Nazis- or, conversely, of being agents of the Zionist conspiracy. <br><br>Etc. <br><br>If someone comes on the board openly proclaiming their political views, they're fair game for criticism. <br><br>But the Internet isn't the place to suspect a hidden motive behind every post that one finds disconcerting. In general, there's no way to pull the shell away to provide irrefutable proof of the actual existence of the pea underneath, so to speak. Any exceptions to that rule are few and far between- and in the case that one of us RI folk does happen upon such a case, Jeff has requested that it be dealt with my communicating the concern to him provately via e-mail, while keeping the matter out of group discussion. <br><br>That's how I read Jeff's comments. <br><br>Correct me if I'm wrong, Jeff. <br><br> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 10/14/05 6:59 pm<br></i>

[banned]

....a poopypants?<br><br>A dingdong? A wrangwrang (NB Vonnegut fans)? A yinyang?<br><br>A wart on the backside of progress? A pimple on the tuchis of the polity? A pustule on the buttcheek of society?<br><br>A fanatic? A lunatic? A schismatic? An asthmatic? <br><br>I just want to know the parameters when the epithets start flying.<br><br>Thank you.<br><br><!--EZCODE EMOTICON START 8) --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/glasses.gif ALT="8)"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <p></p><i></i>

[Rigorous Intuition]

I would, but you didn't give me the chance. Thanks.<br> <p></p><i></i>

[Dreams End]

banned,<br><br>perhaps a look at Jeff's original thread will clear up your confusion. I believe there is only one appelation that has been outlawed...and synonyms thereof, of course. <br><br> <p></p><i></i>

[robertdreed]

I think that you can cuss out anyone you want, as long as they aren't a fellow poster on the RI board. <br> <p></p><i></i>

[Rigorous Intuition]

Alluding to a poster being a "disinfo agent" is all this is about.<br><br>I want to discourage board members from making things personal because it debases discourse, but I don't enjoy boards that have too many parameters on what's permitted, and I wouldn't even have the time to enforce my own regulations. So I'm trusting members' better judgements. <br><br> <p></p><i></i>

[AnnaLivia]

let's cuss kissinger! kissinger is good to cuss! i can prove that you can't cuss kissinger enough! <p></p><i></i>

[banned]

...is that the photo above Jeff's latest article appears to be him picking his nose and eating it. I am hoping that either I need new glasses, or it's been photoshopped.<br><br>I don't like the guy, but I would never take him for a nosepicker. Karl Rove, indubitably--he was the fat kid in the back of the class with his finger in up to the second knuckle. That's why he's so dang mean. That, and the wedgies, and swirlies, and being called "Arnold Ziffle's long lost brother."<br><br>Do you think it would make children kinder to their less...appealing classmates if they knew that one day that kid could be a Presidential adviser, indeed, a President's 'brain'?<br><br> <p></p><i></i>

[Dreams End]

Please refrain from insulting Arnold Ziffel. I think Jeff should add that into the guidelines. In fact, all pigs. <p></p><i></i>