|
|
halva
Joined: 04 Apr 2003
Posts: 513
Location: Greece |
 Sun May 23, 2004 3:33 am
|
 |
|
Well, there is a Jay Reynolds posting at Arianna's who is less unsophisticated than the bonehead who was or is posting there. And he is disputing what you say, not only about your mentor you say was killed in action, (what is the truth there, BTW?)
but about chemtrails. I think a lot of us would like to see a debate between your and his positions on "the chemtrail hoax". Are you going to debate him there or do I have to play messenger boy?
Look at this: http://www.ariannaonline.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=6429&start=1935
"The biggest problem these fake 'whistleblowers' have is their short lifespan under scrutiny. They get twisted up in their lies and fall down.
The longer CTC mods allow the obvious lies to continue the more obvious it is that they enjoy watching you fall for them Wayne, like they did with 'deep sky' little lance haubrick and jim phelps. In all those cases they sat and sniggered as you ran after yet another fake they wouldn't praise and laud, don't you get it yet? You are simply a form of entertainment for them.
Like I said before, bring 'archon' on. Right here, right now.
For starters would be to explain the lies exposed by Maverick at the link above."
|
| |
|
|
Archon
Joined: 15 May 2004
Posts: 23
Location: North Edwards, California, USA |
|
Tue May 25, 2004 5:10 am
|
|
|
Well, the truth is I am A-T, go figure. It is not my intent to attempt to explain the specifics of this confusing fact.
However, if you read the archives, you'll see I've faced bonehead and his counterpart maverick time and time again... and in my own words humiliated them. Now, this is just my perception of the incidence... but when you get banned for speaking your mind... that's when you know you're winning... and guess who banned me. Maverick and Bonehead's good buddy LuLu. Coincidence. Nah.
Anyway, if I thought there was an intellectual challenge involved, I would gladly take part in their debate. However, Knowing my would be opponents in this case only allows me to realize the obfuscation that would occur to which I would needlessly refute. There is no point in arguing with someone who has never presented a sincere challenge. |
| |
|
|
increase 1776
Joined: 07 Oct 2000
Posts: 3097
Location: Bizzaro World |
|
Tue May 25, 2004 6:35 am
|
|
|
What was UT working on when things got crazy and you got the boot from lulu? |
| |
|
|
Wolf_Larson
Joined: 08 Aug 2003
Posts: 442
Location: The Sea |
|
Tue May 25, 2004 4:50 pm
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Archon:
Well, the truth is I am A-T, go figure. It is not my intent to attempt to explain the specifics of this confusing fact.
Can we get a ruling on this, Mods? What are the forum rules for this?
|
| |
|
|
halva
Joined: 04 Apr 2003
Posts: 513
Location: Greece |
|
Tue May 25, 2004 8:35 pm
|
|
|
What are the Forum rules for what? |
| |
|
|
emfx13
Joined: 25 May 2002
Posts: 959
Location: Hayward Ca.U.S.A. |
|
Tue May 25, 2004 9:23 pm
|
|
|
Man, i like you too A-T.This little sick joke has just got you banned.Sorry. |
| |
|
|
halva
Joined: 04 Apr 2003
Posts: 513
Location: Greece |
|
Wed May 26, 2004 4:37 am
|
|
|
What specific item in the regulations do you cite to justify your banning of Archon, Eddy?
By the way, Archon, it is nonsense to say that getting banned shows that you are winning.
[Edited 1 times, lastly by halva on 05-25-2004] |
| |
|
|
Orwell knew
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 475
Location: Mid-Missouri |
|
Wed May 26, 2004 9:38 pm
|
|
|
Well just my few cents on this,
it seems a shame also to have lost any contribution "Archon" might have additionally made, as he seemed to advocate "reasonable" reason at least in his admittance of aerosol applications. I think he's accurate as he claims this is not a "debunker" position.
If, however he violated a clearly stated policy of "this board" then it seems clear IMO banning might have been in order concerning the seriousness of the "trespass".
I have wondered though, (after reading the locked thread on those banned) on occasion, if a "cooling off" period of "banning" rather than total "banishment" might be more applicable at least as concerns different offenses. Anyone can lose their temper when fired up about something they believe in (or don't believe in). I would think the only people that might really NEED to be restricted are those that come to boards to INTENTIONALLY DISRUPT and have absolutely no real visable interest in the subject. I think we all know of those kind. Those that pretend to be interested while all the time really trying to take one FURTHER from the "truth". The key word here is INTENTIONAL. Anyway just my thoughts here on this,
SmT
|
| |
|
|
emfx13
Joined: 25 May 2002
Posts: 959
Location: Hayward Ca.U.S.A. |
|
Thu May 27, 2004 4:03 pm
|
|
|
quote:
What specific item in the regulations do you cite to justify your banning of Archon, Eddy?
1) Its obvious he was previously banned, and signing in under another name is the main reason for being banned.2)This little "joke" concerning Alpha-Thetas death is reason enough for me. Explanation enough for you Halva? |
| |
|
|
emfx13
Joined: 25 May 2002
Posts: 959
Location: Hayward Ca.U.S.A. |
|
Thu May 27, 2004 4:08 pm
|
|
|
Lets not dwell. Time to move forward. THREAD CLOSED. |
| |
|
|
 
|
|
 Goto page Previous
1, 2
All times are GMT. The time now is Sat May 26, 2012 12:37 am
|
|
|
|
|
Login
