brekin wrote:
CW, I thought you were done in this thread? Like two-times.
yeah, so was searcher, or did you MISS THAT, too?
I see through you.
Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
brekin wrote:
CW, I thought you were done in this thread? Like two-times.
compared2what? » Tue Jul 09, 2013 5:52 pm wrote:Searcher08 wrote:This is from early on in the thread.ADs second post was
American Dream » 17 Jun 2013 18:13 wrote:
Who wants to drink a big glass of Kool Aid with extra vitamins?
It's at least 50% pure!
Slimmouse said
You see, this is the problem with this kind of discussion. You try to engage with someone about their knowledge of their critic, or better still with the very poster himself ( that would be you AD) and this is where we always end up going.
Its pretty much a waste of time as such.
I mean seriously, this isnt too RI to me.
So what does this actually mean? From Wiki"Drinking the Kool-Aid" refers to the 1978 Jonestown Massacre; the phrase suggests that one has mindlessly adopted the dogma of a group or leader without fully understanding the ramifications or implications. At Jonestown, Jim Jones' followers followed him to the end: after visiting Congressman Leo Ryan was shot at the airstrip, all the Peoples Temple members drank from a metal vat containing a mixture of "Kool Aid" (actually Flavor Aid), cyanide, and prescription drugs Valium, Phenergan, and chloral hydrate.
So it appears that Kool Aid was not actually even served LOLwhut??!!
Well this is what I took from it :YMMV
AD is suggesting that 'defenders of Icke aka CW/SLAD/SM/S08 have mindlessly adopted the dogma of a group or leader without fully understanding the ramifications or implications.
Except, again, it is ambiguous - was it directed at 'defenders of Icke'? a random rant?
Again there is no clarity about what is wanted back
Looking at it in the Wiki definition, this is putting Icke in the same camp as a mind-controlled cult leader and his mindless dogma hoovering drones.
If the ADs sources are then looked at and questioned (a VERY RI thing to do) this is labelled as 'avoiding the question'
and that as we say here in London, is total pants.
It doesn't seem very ambiguous to me that he's saying he thinks Icke is running a cult-like operation, though not a cult. Because I believe he's said it explicitly.
I agree that the ambiguous suggestion that others have mindlessly adopted the dogma of a group or leader without fully understanding the ramifications is bound to rankle those who feel implicated by it. In fact, I'd even go so far as to say I can understand why it might piss them off.
Because I can't count the number of times I've been on the receiving end of both ambiguous suggestions and flat-out declarations to exactly that effect on this board, including on both this thread and the one on vaccines during the last week. Happens all the damn time. And not just to me or on those threads. It's regularly the only rebuttal argument anyone offers in response to dissenting posts for pages and pages at a time on those big, busy current-and-breaking-news threads like "Connecticut Elementary School Shooting" or "Two Explosions at Boston Marathon."
I resent it and wish it would stop.
So yeah. That's an annoying suggestion. And in my experience, at least, all the more so when there's no legitimate case to be made that any affiliation with a dogmatic group led by someone who uses cult-like tactics exists.
In this case it does. But I have to admit, that since I'd still probably find it very annoying if I felt I were the object of an ambiguous suggestion to that effect under those circumstances, I can't blame you for objecting to it.
However. I'm still not getting where the personal accusations of anti-Semitism/diagnoses of extreme deficiency/other very offensive and intolerable attacks on you, SLAD, and slim come into play. In fact, I still don't see them.
Canadian_watcher » 09 Jul 2013 18:55 wrote:yep, the terrorists won. again.
yep, the terrorists won. again.
brekin » Tue Jul 09, 2013 9:04 pm wrote:CW wrote:yep, the terrorists won. again.
Mods? Am I crazy or is CW referring to board members as terrorists?
Or is this some type of off color joke I'm missing?
I once had a keen interest in WW2 military vehicles. My particular favourite was the German Tiger MKI. A splendid machine - built to exacting standards by many of the men that went on to build space rockets and advanced destructive ordinance for the USA and NATO (with better pay and conditions, but, I suspect, less zeal.) It just occured to me that I must be a tacit supporter of nazism.
justdrew » 09 Jul 2013 19:01 wrote:There seems to be ZERO verifiable concrete EVIDENCE for reptilians much less hybrids.
If you want to believe in that, argue at least for the UTILITY of the belief. What is the utility of that position? Why is it valuable?
but frankly the anti-Icke crowd could confront that. I don't really think the Icke-ism can be shown to be a on-ramp to anti-semitism. Can you show that it is? Note, that is not the same things as drawing "parallels"
Canadian_watcher » Tue Jul 09, 2013 6:16 pm wrote:good lord, how much of this am I expected to endure? seriously... anyone? can anyone tell me? Am I imagining being attacked here, or what?
Canadian_watcher » Tue Jul 09, 2013 6:55 pm wrote:yep, the terrorists won. again.
justdrew » Tue Jul 09, 2013 9:01 pm wrote:Canadian_watcher » 09 Jul 2013 18:55 wrote:yep, the terrorists won. again.
There seems to be ZERO verifiable concrete EVIDENCE for reptilians much less hybrids.
If you want to believe in that, argue at least for the UTILITY of the belief. What is the utility of that position? Why is it valuable?
I don't really think the Icke-ism can be shown to be a on-ramp to anti-semitism. Can you show that it is? Note, that is not the same things as drawing "parallels"
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests