Toss this in the firepit where it belongs

[brainpanhandler]

weird. the same people who will disembowel anyone who questions whether or not Sandy Hook or the Boston bombing evidence and witnesses are legit are the ones who are calling into question the true identity/motives of Snowden, a whistleblower.

There is a theme here, which to me, says: Anyone whose story fits my government's narrative and direction is someone who shouldn't be questioned. Anyone who goes against the motives and direction of the establishment is suspect.

That strikes me as very anti RI. But that's me. I'm an oddball contrarian in comparison to some here..

[OP ED]

blood from stones is more likely. the passive-aggressive approach to forum debate, utilizing thinly veiled insults has always been much more obviously ignored here for as long as i can recall. admittedly, it isn't as easy to parse out as someone calling you an asshole.

OP ED has sort of grown used to it after all these years. i don't know what i'd do if i managed to go an entire month's worth of continual participation without someone finding an underhanded way of suggesting i was some sort of child abusing satanist or a cia-asset/corporate shill, or a googlebot or some other such nonsense. i'd probably self-immolate.

this is a common practice. almost never does anyone say to me "you are an evil person who eats babies and has sex with farm animals"...its usually "no one could possibly hold the opinions of one such as yourself without being one of a kind who eats babies and has sex with farm animals...."

and then someone calls them an asshole, and gets in trouble.

its like high school, except with user avatars.

[Canadian_watcher]

what the fuck is this?

what the fuck did I do to deserve this, eh???? explain BPH.
--------

[OP ED]

oh i don't know. i wasn't even talking about you specifically. just remarking upon a general habit i've often experienced hereabouts.

i'm not even sure which thread is being referenced, although it wouldn't take me long to find out if i was so inclined, which i am not.

it is interesting to discuss the rules and regulations. or it is for me, anyhow. i find discussions of such, on whatever level they exist, to be greatly informative in their own right, regardless of whether they have any impact on the rules themselves or how they're interpretted.

that is, in effect, much of what goes on here, albeit on a larger not-so-self-contained scale.

it is important, also, i believe, for people who should maintain that the world's own rules and regulations are not implemented properly to at least take the time to consider how such things should actually be put into practice, and/or when/if/etc/etc.

...

OP ED will always participate in such discussion when OP ED can find it around. OP ED feels it is much more integral [consequential] to the general politics of OP ED than the majority of details contained in the majority of threads.

[seemslikeadream]

Toss this thread by brainpanhandler in the firepit where it belongs... actually it should be deleted

[OP ED]

OP ED doesn't like deletion. its makes it harder to catalogue things.

this being one of OP ED's hobbies in this place.

of course, OP ED has also complained before that it isn't permitted to START threads in the firepit. this would save the moderators some trouble.

[OP ED has received PM from a poster who seems to feel that they understand OP ED's motivations and that they must be secret and/or other than what they appear]

[for the record]