rigorousintuition.ca

Posted: **Thu Dec 19, 2013 3:10 pm**

American Dream » Thu Dec 19, 2013 2:05 pm wrote:C'mon- who do you think you're fooling?[/size]

What an eloquent & carefully considered response.

Maybe you can just reduce it to pure emoticons in the future for the sake of brevity?

Posted: **Thu Dec 19, 2013 4:04 pm**

Where were you when slad was putting up post after post (after post) of Winston Churchill and Irish Famine Holocaust pictures and whatnot?

Posted: **Thu Dec 19, 2013 4:10 pm**

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

Posted: **Thu Dec 19, 2013 4:10 pm**

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.

Posted: **Thu Dec 19, 2013 4:21 pm**

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?

Posted: **Thu Dec 19, 2013 4:26 pm**

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.

I discovered a video performance of every David Icke thread on RI $\<]$

Posted: **Fri Dec 20, 2013 12:17 am**

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?

I think my response, which is as vailid today as it was a week ago, was that one is left wondering if indeed the information of the show is the real target here.

See, As was the case back then, There hasnt been a single response to any of the CONTENT of the show. Not that it has stopped viigliant observers from quickly leaping all over one of the guests ( I could have posted other videos and leapt all over the guests myself due to their racist views - were that the point)

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

Posted: **Fri Dec 20, 2013 10:10 am**

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?

Posted: **Fri Dec 20, 2013 10:20 am**

Read this AD and then read it over again...let it sink in.....this survey is not an endorsement of DI but it does give you a glimpse of how people feel around here and why you get so much grief for trying to suppress the discussion of topics that the majority of folks here want to talk about without you frickin bringing anti-semitism and holocaust denying into every thread YOU deem worthy of shutting down....if slim wants to start a topic about DI or if I EVER decide to post a topic about him that should be our right as long time members here without YOU lumping us in with your hysterical.... over the top bullshit. Discussion of DI has not been banned from RI and I am sick and tired of you trying your damnedest to shut it down. TAKE IT ELSEWHERE! Or at least stop crying foul when you get backlash from your shenanigans...give it a rest and quit trying to scare people by labeling them anti-Semitic or holocaust deniers from discussing stuff or posting in a thread about DI

STOP YOUR CONSTANT FEAR MONGERING AND LABELING BY ASSOCIATION

STOP YOUR BRAND OF CENSORSHIP

Is Russell Brand an IDIOT?

Is Russell Brand ANTI-SEMITIC?

NO

and neither am I or Searcher or slim or anyone else that posts here

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

and maybe Jack should take note also of the results of HIS survey and then maybe he could stop his holier than thou opinion of me :roll:

Posted: **Fri Dec 20, 2013 10:25 am**

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...

Posted: **Fri Dec 20, 2013 10:28 am**

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

Posted: **Fri Dec 20, 2013 10:30 am**

AD

Is Russell Brand an idiot?

Is Russell Brand anti-semitic?

Is Russell Brand a holocaust denier?

Posted: **Fri Dec 20, 2013 10:32 am**

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

That's what I would call a non-answer.

Posted: **Fri Dec 20, 2013 10:36 am**

too fucking bad.... get use to it cause I have no intention of replying to you any other way

after all

This whole thing is a simulation / dream / matrix.

Posted: **Fri Dec 20, 2013 10:39 am**

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?

Well it happens to be the truth, believe it or not. I really dont care. I should add that on some days its a lot worse than others.

Meanwhile

Does a historical truth need a law to defend it?

What is money?

I really think youre punching beyond your weight on this forum AD.

rigorousintuition.ca

The peoples voice.

Re: The peoples voice.

Re: The peoples voice.

Re: The peoples voice.

Re: The peoples voice.

Re: The peoples voice.

Re: The peoples voice.

Re: The peoples voice.

Re: The peoples voice.

Re: The peoples voice.

Re: The peoples voice.

Re: The peoples voice.

Re: The peoples voice.

Re: The peoples voice.

Re: The peoples voice.

Re: The peoples voice.