
What an eloquent & carefully considered response.
Maybe you can just reduce it to pure emoticons in the future for the sake of brevity?
Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
I warned you ...you know how jealous I am ...you hogging all the denial stuff all the time
David is a pal of mine and I think he is cool
Russell Brand
American Dream » Thu Dec 19, 2013 3:04 pm wrote:Where were you when slad was putting up post after post (after post) of Winston Churchill and Irish Famine Holocaust pictures and whatnot?
Wombaticus Rex » Thu Dec 19, 2013 8:10 pm wrote:American Dream » Thu Dec 19, 2013 3:04 pm wrote:Where were you when slad was putting up post after post (after post) of Winston Churchill and Irish Famine Holocaust pictures and whatnot?
Laughing at the futility of "moderation" when you all love this shit so much.
Searcher08 » 19 Dec 2013 20:21 wrote:Focusing on the Original Post
Several (or maybe more than several) pages back, there was a point which I brought up with you that I think is worth addressing.
As an exercise, let's reverse things -
Say I (S08) <really> <REALLY> <R E A L L Y> despise and loathe and hate Rupert Murdoch and everything he stands for and how he does business.
Say you (AD) want to helm a new topic about the cartoon series 'Family Guy', because you are interested in animation, love the humour and it's boundary pushing.
How would you (AD) feel if for every post you (AD) or anyone else interested in animation or humour in 21st century cartoons posted in your topic called 'Family Guy' , I (S08) then posted reams of stuff about Rupert Murdoch, what a douchebag I think he is etc. to the point every thread about 'Family Guy' turns into an arguement about Rupert Murdoch?
Searcher08 » 19 Dec 2013 20:21 wrote:
As an exercise, let's reverse things -
Say I (S08) <really> <REALLY> <R E A L L Y> despise and loathe and hate Rupert Murdoch and everything he stands for and how he does business.
Say you (AD) want to helm a new topic about the cartoon series 'Family Guy', because you are interested in animation, love the humour and it's boundary pushing.
How would you (AD) feel if for every post you (AD) or anyone else interested in animation or humour in 21st century cartoons posted in your topic called 'Family Guy' , I (S08) then posted reams of stuff about Rupert Murdoch, what a douchebag I think he is etc. to the point every thread about 'Family Guy' turns into an arguement about Rupert Murdoch?
slimmouse » Thu Dec 19, 2013 11:17 pm wrote:
Not that I didnt appreciate the info about Kollerstrom. BPH correctly informed me, that the info was "just a google" away. What he doesnt appreciate is that in the third world, where I reside, that simple google click can sometimes take about 5 minutes to load. Posting stuff here can be even worse. Just thought I better get that out there, lest anyone thinks my editing of posts is slippery, and that Im subsequently trying to be evasive
How far down the rabbit hole do you go?
What's typical of the farthest reach your thoughts usually go?
Business interests or right wing define "acceptable" discourse.
1
4%
There was a 9/11 cover-up and LIHOP is plausible.
1
4%
The two-party system is a total corporate scam.
0
No votes
Conventional propaganda has achieved mass mind control.
1
4%
9/11 was an inside job from within the MIC.
7
30%
All big events and actors, including opposition, are scripted.
0
No votes
9/11 was produced as ritual by secret societies.
1
4%
Mass mind control is effected through water/food/radiation.
1
4%
Egregore is not a metaphor, demons or aliens already rule.
2
9%
This whole thing is a simulation / dream / matrix.
9
American Dream » Fri Dec 20, 2013 9:25 am wrote:Slad, don't you think your habit of spamming post after post after post of Winston Churchill quotes and Irish Famine pictures and whatnot whenever you are unhappy with criticism of David Icke's racist side could be- and should be- considered censorship?
Because that's how I consider your efforts to bury posts you don't like under a flood of extraneous information...
seemslikeadream » Fri Dec 20, 2013 9:28 am wrote:American Dream » Fri Dec 20, 2013 9:25 am wrote:Slad, don't you think your habit of spamming post after post after post of Winston Churchill quotes and Irish Famine pictures and whatnot whenever you are unhappy with criticism of David Icke's racist side could be- and should be- considered censorship?
Because that's how I consider your efforts to bury posts you don't like under a flood of extraneous information...
I consider ALL your posts as a flood of extraneous information
American Dream » 20 Dec 2013 14:10 wrote:Searcher08 » 19 Dec 2013 20:21 wrote:
As an exercise, let's reverse things -
Say I (S08) <really> <REALLY> <R E A L L Y> despise and loathe and hate Rupert Murdoch and everything he stands for and how he does business.
Say you (AD) want to helm a new topic about the cartoon series 'Family Guy', because you are interested in animation, love the humour and it's boundary pushing.
How would you (AD) feel if for every post you (AD) or anyone else interested in animation or humour in 21st century cartoons posted in your topic called 'Family Guy' , I (S08) then posted reams of stuff about Rupert Murdoch, what a douchebag I think he is etc. to the point every thread about 'Family Guy' turns into an arguement about Rupert Murdoch?
This strikes me as a truly odd comparison- at best...slimmouse » Thu Dec 19, 2013 11:17 pm wrote:
Not that I didnt appreciate the info about Kollerstrom. BPH correctly informed me, that the info was "just a google" away. What he doesnt appreciate is that in the third world, where I reside, that simple google click can sometimes take about 5 minutes to load. Posting stuff here can be even worse. Just thought I better get that out there, lest anyone thinks my editing of posts is slippery, and that Im subsequently trying to be evasive
That also is an odd response- you are a prolific poster. Do you really expect us to believe that the Internet is so hard for you to access?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests