Democratic Underground in a nutshell

[MacCruiskeen]

Abandon hope, all ye who enter here...

[url=http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x203745#204011]12. Locking

Lithos
DU Moderator [/url]

[Pele'sDaughter]

Been there and done that, heh. I knew it, too, but pushed their buttons anyway.

[8bitagent]

Content: Do not post messages that are inflammatory, extreme, divisive, incoherent, or otherwise inappropriate. Do not engage in anti-social, disruptive, or trolling behavior. Do not post broad-brush, bigoted statements. The moderators and administrators work very hard to enforce some minimal standards regarding what content is appropriate. But please remember that this is a large and diverse community that includes a broad range of opinion. People who are easily offended, or who are not accustomed to having their opinions (including deeply personal convictions) challenged may not feel entirely comfortable here. A thick skin is necessary to participate on this or any other discussion forum.


Lithos
DU Moderator

Crap, I thought 9/11 Truth was welcome at DU?

[2012 Countdown]

Crap, I thought 9/11 Truth was welcome at DU?

I am...well, WAS a DU poster ...my name was Al-CIAda on DU...

I used to be BannedfromDU here on RI, not that that would mean anything, but in the interest of disclosure...I was obviously a DU poster (Al-CIAda) over there and had many 'friends' as posters, but that is another story. I will just say the administrators are in denial about 9/11.
I was banned for insisting on posting a 9/11 issue (article) found in the mainstream news. When a moderator locked the thread, saying it was a link to a conspiracy website, I insisted CNN was not a conspiracy website and was banned. I kid you not. I was a contributing member and got along with most everyone there...and was banned. Its been over 2 years now.

I joined the (RI) site after I was banned, as I had followed Jeff's posts over there when he used to post on DU, and had been posting on RI under the bitter name (BannedfromDU) for a year or so.

I'd lost my password and I suppose I could have asked Jeff to send me my login info, but the handle I was using seems juvenile now. I have now rejoined the RI board under this name

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

I was banned for insisting on posting a 9/11 issue (article) found in the mainstream news. When a moderator locked the thread, saying it was a link to a conspiracy website, I insisted CNN was not a conspiracy website and was banned.

I don't have that cross-eyed slapstick emoticon that et in Arcadia ego uses so often.

DU allows only "mainstream" news sources, which is to say Operation Mockingbird CIA-Pentagon-corporate psy-ops.

And they put out cartoonish conspiracy theory cover stories like the Lone Gunman and Occam's Boxcutter to hide the ugly truth.

So CNN really IS a conspiracy website. But you knew that.
I just had to line it out.

[2012 Countdown]

I was banned for insisting on posting a 9/11 issue (article) found in the mainstream news. When a moderator locked the thread, saying it was a link to a conspiracy website, I insisted CNN was not a conspiracy website and was banned.

I don't have that cross-eyed slapstick emoticon that et in Arcadia ego uses so often.

DU allows only "mainstream" news sources, which is to say Operation Mockingbird CIA-Pentagon-corporate psy-ops.

And they put out cartoonish conspiracy theory cover stories like the Lone Gunman and Occam's Boxcutter to hide the ugly truth.

So CNN really IS a conspiracy website. But you knew that.
I just had to line it out.

lol...yes...when I got to that point in my post, I knew there was no way to word it simply here...perhaps I should have put "(according to DU)" afterward. BTW, I wasn't even the originator of the thread topic. Someone started a thread which asked about Bush saying he saw the first plane hit and if it was true. I posted a CNN story relaying his account. He claims he saw the first plane hit. This is fact. The thread was locked.

I then started a new topic (something like 'Bush claims he saw first plane hit towers' -or similar...with the CNN link. That I insisted that this was so, the thread was locked and I was banned. I was told links to conspiracy websites are forbidden and I broke those rules. I had been a contributing member there for years...

[OP ED]

what they mean when they say "links to conspiracy websites" is really "links that undermine our faith in our preconceived notions".

i also am a former DU member. so far as they know.

[8bitagent]

I feel out of place really.

On Republican and Democrat forums, they don't like my research revolving around how Arab and Muslim states are in bed with/funding al Qaeda with the US government more than willing to cover and partner with said countries.
they call that "conspiracy theory", but today's WashingtonPost article on the USS Cole debacle to me proves it once and for all

The 9/11 Truth community, I dont feel welcomes any real world discussion on this matter aside from cooperativeresearch. Because as we all know, "Islamic terrorism and al Qaeda doesnt exist, its all fake-ity fake fake! Its all Bush and the CIA"

So its rare to find people are into looking at the whole picture...even the 9/11 truth movement seems caught up in parroting memes, just like the leftgatekeepers and right wingers.

Actually you know...Ive found some of the right wingers are open to
hearing about how al Qaeda is state sponsored by America's close allies.

Tho very few people I've found are interested in talking about what really fuels Islamic terrorism, other than the "blowback" theme

[nomo]

It's typical of the 9/11 "truthers" that they can't be in any thread without it devolving into a mudfest. Good on DU for locking that shit.

[MacCruiskeen]

Ah, here's nomo to demonstrate what polite and reasoned debate looks like:

It's typical of the 9/11 "truthers" that they can't be in any thread without it devolving into a mudfest. Good on DU for locking that shit.

Hmm, yes, I see. Maybe you can tell us, nomo: Exactly what was it about the original post that justified the locking of the entire thread?

leftofthedial (1000+ posts) Tue May-06-08 12:08 AM
Original message

Other than the local OCT apologists, does ANYONE still believe the official 9-11 story? Much less the Commission report?

It just seems that most people are pretty openly scoffing at the OCT these days

Precisely why is this question "shit", nomo? Precisely what makes it a "mudfest"? And why did DU feel such an urgent need to defend itself from that intolerable question that it went so far as to ban it?

Enlighten us.

[Searcher08]

It's typical of the 9/11 "truthers" that they can't be in any thread without it devolving into a mudfest. Good on DU for locking that shit.

Hears sound of first mud-flinging

[nomo]

Exactly what was it about the original post that justified the locking of the entire thread?

The thread wasn't locked because of the first post. Duh. Thank you for proving my point.

[MacCruiskeen]

Other than the local OCT apologists, does ANYONE still believe the official 9-11 story? Much less the Commission report?

Seems as though nomo finds that original question so offensive that he won't even answer any questions about that question, much less the question itself.

Hard to see why he was so pleased to see the thread locked, though. Maybe he regards the question as unpatriotic, or disrespectful to the victims, or embarrassingly hard to answer, or something.

[MacCruiskeen]

Ah, there you are, nomo...

Duh.

That's very witty, not to mention polite and rational. Did you think of it yourself?

The thread wasn't locked because of the first post.

Clearly you have more than mortal knowledge. So why was it locked, then? Enlighten us, nomo. The suspense is killing me.

[nomo]

Seems as though nomo finds that original question so offensive that he won't even answer any questions about that question, much less the question itself.

I don't find the original question offensive at all. Naive and inconsequential, but not offensive. I'm just pointing out that invariably, the "truthers" end up throwing insults rather than debate anything substantial. We've had plenty of such threads here.