rigorousintuition.ca

Belligerent Savant » Tue Aug 13, 2013 12:38 pm wrote:

brainpanhandler » Tue Aug 13, 2013 11:32 am wrote:

slimmouse » Tue Aug 13, 2013 11:29 am wrote:BPH, I wrote a considered reply when all the shite started getting thrown around here, explaining how it was a toss up between posting to the link, or posting to the website, cos I figured I would be duly damned either way, and decided to link to the project, although to be fair to me I ddi explicitly state in the OP that this was an Icke venture, and hence offered what I considered fair warniing.

All of the above notwithstanding If I seriously imagined for one minute that I would be soliciting funds for Icke by taking either course of action, then I would consider myself to be even more stupid than I sometimes am.

I mean seriously?

So... you did not hope that members here might contribute to The People's Voice?

A simple yes or no will do.

So the F what if he did? What's the worst possible outcome?

To be clear, any [or most] form of 'fund' solicitation should of course be frowned upon on this board. I think we can all agree to that.

You sort of answered your own question there.

Although I don't think fundraising here is such a horrible thing. But it is a slippery slope....

slimmouse » Tue Aug 13, 2013 12:59 pm wrote:Oh and BPH, what do you think of a free Internet TV show, that is free from all the mainstream constraints and BS, that along with selectively refusing lucrative sponsorship and adverstising contracts on principle, also isnt interested in any kind of investment capital, based on shares, which usually end up in all the wrong kinds of hands for all the reasons that are currently making this place the hell on earth that it is?

How we'd all like our mainstream media run or not?

A simple Yes or no will do.

I can do better than that. I already answered that question:

brainpanhandler » Wed Jun 05, 2013 5:07 pm wrote:Of course independent funding of journalism is a fantastic idea.

Yay for independent funding of journalism.

Now what?

Wait for the content would be my best guess.

And seriously BPH, one more thing about this "fundrasing" nonsense that AD and others are insisting was what I was doing.

If you read the OP, the entire content of the original page is there. Rather Like Slad, I tend to pos the whole thing these days, by which time anyone who wants more info, if indeed there is any can go to the link.

If I was fundrasing for Icke by giving them a reasonably detailed precis of who was behind the project, along with the contents of the linked page ( minus the video). The donate button wasnt in that post.

If people subsequently want more information, then is that their decision or mine?

ON EDIT.

In fact , the more I think about this whole thing, the more pissed off I get with the calculated accusations.

In the context of where this thread has both been and currently is, heres a Televised discussion I'd love to see.

Ali Abunimah and Gilad Atmon.

Or even to keep it completely topical, Tony Greenstein and Ken OKeefe ?

Totally non mainstream, totally frank and hopefully totally polite.

Any question suggestions?

But da Jury's still out on Icke.

We shall see.

Maybe I go meet him.

I could, you know.

That would be truly great HOL.

I would like to think youve actually already been there so to speak.

But for my own personal peace of mind right now, would you kindly check?

Im easy either way but IM me with your thoughts if you prefer.

brainpanhandler » Tue Aug 13, 2013 1:04 pm wrote:

Belligerent Savant » Tue Aug 13, 2013 12:38 pm wrote:

brainpanhandler » Tue Aug 13, 2013 11:32 am wrote:

slimmouse » Tue Aug 13, 2013 11:29 am wrote:BPH, I wrote a considered reply when all the shite started getting thrown around here, explaining how it was a toss up between posting to the link, or posting to the website, cos I figured I would be duly damned either way, and decided to link to the project, although to be fair to me I ddi explicitly state in the OP that this was an Icke venture, and hence offered what I considered fair warniing.

All of the above notwithstanding If I seriously imagined for one minute that I would be soliciting funds for Icke by taking either course of action, then I would consider myself to be even more stupid than I sometimes am.

I mean seriously?

So... you did not hope that members here might contribute to The People's Voice?

A simple yes or no will do.

So the F what if he did? What's the worst possible outcome?

To be clear, any [or most] form of 'fund' solicitation should of course be frowned upon on this board. I think we can all agree to that.

You sort of answered your own question there.

Although I don't think fundraising here is such a horrible thing. But it is a slippery slope....

slippery slope indeed.

[though my soliciting bit was more of a launching pad of sorts to my observations of the larger phenomenon Re: pronounced interest in ICKE in this board, pro or con.]

slimmouse » Tue Aug 13, 2013 12:59 pm wrote:Oh and BPH, what do you think of a free Internet TV show, that is free from all the mainstream constraints and BS, that along with selectively refusing lucrative sponsorship and adverstising contracts on principle, also isnt interested in any kind of investment capital, based on shares, which usually end up in all the wrong kinds of hands for all the reasons that are currently making this place the hell on earth that it is?

I'd think it was Democracy Now or Pacifica or any one of hundreds, possibly thousands of other listener-sponsored media. I'd never be (or pretend to be) so ignorant as to suggest that this idea in any way originated with Icke or that it's in any way remarkable that he is now trying it out himself. It is of course regrettable, first because he shouldn't get any money, and second because he might divert money from other causes. But he's free to do it and I suppose you're free to keep pretending (or being) astoundingly ignorant about its significance, which is pretty much zero.

JackRiddler » Tue Aug 13, 2013 8:37 pm wrote:

slimmouse » Tue Aug 13, 2013 12:59 pm wrote:Oh and BPH, what do you think of a free Internet TV show, that is free from all the mainstream constraints and BS, that along with selectively refusing lucrative sponsorship and adverstising contracts on principle, also isnt interested in any kind of investment capital, based on shares, which usually end up in all the wrong kinds of hands for all the reasons that are currently making this place the hell on earth that it is?

I'd think it was Democracy Now or Pacifica or any one of hundreds, possibly thousands of other listener-sponsored media. I'd never be (or pretend to be) so ignorant as to suggest that this idea in any way originated with Icke or that it's in any way remarkable that he is now trying it out himself. It is of course regrettable, first because he shouldn't get any money, and second because he might divert money from other causes. But he's free to do it and I suppose you're free to keep pretending (or being) astoundingly ignorant about its significance, which is pretty much zero.

I think the most interesting thing about it will be whether they go into the accusations of quite a few very top pols (of both sides) in the UK being involved in child abuse. From what I have NOT seen on the news in the UK, there must have been massive pressure keep the Jimmy Saville investigation 'firewalled' - at the same time there are a lot of sites, citizens and now investigative teams like Exaro working in the opposite direction...

hurting Palestinians more than Netanyahu


I don't see you dissin' ol' Benny around here...if you were soooooo concerned about Palestinians

seemslikeadream wrote:
...I don't see you dissin' ol' Benny around here...if you were soooooo concerned about Palestinians

Word.

brainpanhandler » Tue Aug 13, 2013 1:01 pm wrote:

seemslikeadream » Tue Aug 13, 2013 12:34 pm wrote:actually so did I...every time I posted a link to those sites when they were fundraising ...it was linking to a fundraising page

surely you see the sameness

My apologies then.

When you wrote:

seemslikeadream » Tue Aug 13, 2013 12:16 pm wrote:I post links to CounterPunch when they are fundraising

I post links to Alternet when they are fundraising

I post links to Truthout when they are fundraising

I post links to Anti-War when they are fundraising

I post links to Truthdig when they are fundraising

I am not fundraising for any of them

I misunderstood. I didn't understand that you meant you were linking directly to a fundraising page as Slim did.

Actually when one would open a link to a story at any of those sites during fundraising times (which happen very often) the fundraising ad would pop up automatically and not be a separate page.

seemslikeadream » Tue Aug 13, 2013 5:47 pm wrote:hurting Palestinians more than Netanyahu


I don't see you dissin' ol' Benny around here...if you were soooooo concerned about Palestinians

Maybe he would if that was the fucking topic. Why can't you stay on it? Too concerned about insulting AD it appears.

solace » Tue Aug 13, 2013 5:02 pm wrote:

seemslikeadream » Tue Aug 13, 2013 5:47 pm wrote:hurting Palestinians more than Netanyahu


I don't see you dissin' ol' Benny around here...if you were soooooo concerned about Palestinians

Maybe he would if that was the fucking topic. Why can't you stay on it? Too concerned about insulting AD it appears.

Did you even read the title of this thread?? Ken O' Keefe....AD had gone way off topic long long time ago...so tell it to the hand solace and chide your friend American Dream for that infraction


here's where AD brought up Palestinians...I'm not supposed to be able to answer that? He can bring up Palestinians but I can't in response?

American Dream » Tue Aug 13, 2013 4:34 pm wrote:Question is though how much David Icke is helping or hurting survivors of pedophile rings, Palestinians, folks opposing elite summits such as Bilderberg etc.

I'd say hurting way more than helping...

conniption » Tue Aug 13, 2013 4:54 pm wrote:

seemslikeadream wrote:
...I don't see you dissin' ol' Benny around here...if you were soooooo concerned about Palestinians

Word.

WORD X 2