posted 10-25-2001 12:04 PM            

I posted those stories thinking that they were interesting and that if folks wanted more on them they could do some searching on their own. I hold no ones hand and lead them down any path. As for my being a chemtrail HOBBIST, no Duncan I am an activist.

I find that the theme of Thermits board has changed from chemtrailcentral to proveitcentral. No one, it seems, is willing to go the extra mile and become involved as a group effort. Has there been a time recenty when, as a group, this board rose up and did something as a body of chemtrail activists, no. Could we make a difference, I do not know for sure but would like to think so, however we will never know because, we don't try.
We are losing the battle with TPTB and need to focus. If you do not belive we are losing, check Cliffs site. Threads using the "key" words are being locked up...

This is corny but, "united we stand,divided we fall" has never been truer than right now.
And we are divided, very divided. As individuals we will accomplish next to nothing, as a nation of concern citizens grouped and united we can overcome anything we want. Something to think about.
This petty bickering, thread bashing, and debunking is driving us all down the road to domination, just what it is designed to do.
Divided we WILL fall, and soon.

Time is not a luxury given to me. Knowing this when I first came to this board, I thought we could make a difference and joined in the fray, hoping to make a small change somewhere. Or maybe, just maybe we, as a group could force some awareness and changes. I have children and a grandchild that will inherit this rotten mess, I want better for them.

posted 10-25-2001 12:41 PM            

"If the vote went to the side of taxation, it would be an internet tax, other wise it is a vote on whether or not to impose a tax. Either way TAX on the internet WAS the theme of the vote. Hence, my headline."

That's disingenuous lawyer-talk. When you place a comment like that on the forum, you know as well as I do that the bulk of the people reading it will make the assumption that there is a tax the congresscritters are voting on right now.

"I posted those stories thinking that they were interesting and that if folks wanted more on them they could do some searching on their own. I hold no ones hand and lead them down any path."

That's disingenuous, too. Placing a question mark after a statement does not mean squat. If I entered a bunch of posts that said 'David found to be child-molester?' I would be thrashed by Thermit and everyone else on this board -- and rightly so. They would know that my intent was to pass off my "question" as a backdoor way to make people think that you were a child-molester -- which, of course, you're not.

"As for my being a chemtrail HOBBIST, [sic] no Duncan I am an activist."

I never said you were a "hobbyist", although I am not aware that you do anything to make me believe otherwise. I do know that, when I came up with what I considered several good ideas to do sound and unbiased research; as well as a way to get one nationally-known chemtrail believer to support our work; everyone thought it was a great idea -- and no one followed through. I guess it all depends on what you consider activism.

As much as I disagree with the beliefs of Kim Weber and those folks who did the chemtrail protest in Ohio earlier this year, I have to admire them. Whether they were right or wrong, whether they did any good or not, they were doing activism. They were trying to inform people who were not already committed to their belief. They were not "preaching to the choir".

"I find that the theme of Thermits board has changed from chemtrailcentral to proveitcentral."

Nonsense. Thermit is committed to the belief in chemtrails and he is doing the best he can to make a place where people of different views -- even evil skeptics like me -- can discuss things rationally. He does not expect you to "prove" anything, although he -- and 3T3L1 -- are doing great work on that themselves.

The people that do expect you to 'prove' anything are the people you claim to want to reach: the mainstream media and the bulk of the American citizenry.

"No one, it seems, is willing to go the extra mile and become involved as a group effort."

Not true. See my paragraph above regarding the Kim Weber protest in Ohio.

"Has there been a time recenty [sic] when, as a group, this board rose up and did something as a body of chemtrail activists, no."

I don't know; I haven't been invited to any activism activities lately. But are you blaming me for that?

"If you do not belive we are losing, check Cliffs site. Threads using the "key" words are being locked up."

I don't go to Cliff's site. I have my own opinion about Carnicom, but that is a personal thing; I shall not discuss it here. Nonetheless, since most people who disagree with him seem to get either censored or banned, he has lost his credibility with me.

"This petty bickering, thread bashing, and debunking is driving us all down the road to domination, just what it is designed to do."

Nonsense again! This "petty bickering and thread bashing" is being done by everyone here. Are you saying that everyone here is "designing to drive themselves down the road to domination"? Are you saying that Thermit and Delphi and mark sky and 3T3L1 and Xpig and I are all in on the plot? Huh-uh.

And the debunking is not driving you down the road to domination. I mean, hey, I know I'm a great banjo-picker, but I can't even dominate my teenage son or my dogs! Had you ever thought to actually use the comments by skeptics like me to refine your arguments? In this board, just like everywhere else, skeptics serve a valuable purpose: we make you think. Use us!

"I do not have time enough left, none of us do, to spend it on doing battle with the debunkers on this board, other things call....I have asked Thermit (twice) to help me end the addiction and the temptation of continued posting to his site by removing my ID....I just hope he complies with my wishes."

Damn it, don't blame me for that! I am not responsible for your postings. If you don't want to respond to my posts, don't. If you don't want to be on this board, don't.

posted 10-25-2001 12:49 PM            

David, would you serve us possibly-tainted food and expect us to research on our own whether or not it was safe?

I have a friend who continually sends me stories that turn out to be urban legend material. Now when I get her e-mails, I just delete them without reading them. Maybe she has an occasional story in there which is worth something, but it's not worth my time to sort through all the chaff to find them.

posted 10-25-2001 01:22 PM            

Does the same apply to chemtrail information?

I am not sure i am able to do that...I have neither the time or inclination...If I find something on the net that I feel others may find interesting I post it. I never for one moment thought that people on this board took everything I posted as GOSPEL and with hours of added research behind each piece of information, till I KNEW beyond all doubt it was 100% true!!
I did think that a board with such intelligent people would know this wasn't the case...and didn't need nannying.

Who adjudicates whether a post is 100% verifiable? Is it then censored if not deemed to be up to the required standard?

posted 10-25-2001 03:35 PM            

I only know about three or four people on this board from actually talking to them in person or over the phone, and I don't know who XPig is. However, his (her?) style is not like Cydonia's; I doubt if they are the same person.

And I don't consider myself the 'god' of anything, (although sometimes my boss says 'god' followed by 'dammit, Duncan' when she wants me in her office). I am no better (or worse) than anyone else here.

But just as you and David would probably respond if someone came on and said something you didn't agree with, you can expect the same from me -- or anyone else, for that matter. The last time I looked, that was what a forum is supposed to be about: bringing up ideas and debating them with the hope that everyone learns more.

When I come up with a belief or a hypothesis that a person doesn't agree with, he certainly won't let me get away with it. He (or she) jumps me and tells me in no uncertain terms why he thinks my belief is wrong. I don't have any problem with that, as long as my colleague tries to avoid insults; indeed, I welcome it. But I'm not going to pretend to agree with someone whose ideas I don't think are valid; that would be dishonest.

Amber, I don't think that anyone expects you to "...research anything we post on here, taken from the internet ... know for certain that it is 100% true and accurate?" If that's a news forum rule, it's a big surprise to me (and probably to Thermit, too).

But I think that 3T3L1 made a good point when she told David that "...it would be nice to know that what you post can always be trusted".

Everyone gets things wrong. You could research something carefully and still have it turn out to be a hoax. You could also just pass along without research any sort of wild story and have it end up being absolutely true.

But if anyone hears something on the Internet and just pastes it in a forum, the chances are that, sooner or later, the people in that forum will realize that this guy posts stuff that is bogus, and fewer and fewer people will take his posts seriously.

I think 3T3L1 meant that "being trusted" is not the same as "being 100 percent right"; if that were the case, no one could be trusted. To me, "being trusted" means that I believe the person that posted an article took at least a few minutes to check out same basics about it.

Even if you make a mistake and something turns out to be different, if you're trusted, it means that your colleagues take you seriously.

And, as I told David in a previous post, if people don't take your stuff seriously, you'll never be able to convince them of anything.

It's your call, of course.

Regards,

posted 10-25-2001 08:34 PM            

How dare you use my name and child molester in the same sentence. Of all the comparisons you could use, this vile shit is the best you could come up with. YOU SIR, ARE AN ASS!!!

And this little tidbit Duncan;

"But I think that 3T3L1 made a good point when she told David that "...it would be nice to know that what you post can always be trusted".

Everyone gets things wrong. You could research something carefully and still have it turn out to be a hoax. You could also just pass along without research any sort of wild story and have it end up being absolutely true.

But if anyone hears something on the Internet and just pastes it in a forum, the chances are that, sooner or later, the people in that forum will realize that this guy posts stuff that is bogus, and fewer and fewer people will take his posts seriously.

I think 3T3L1 meant that "being trusted" is not the same as "being 100 percent right"; if that were the case, no one could be trusted. To me, "being trusted" means that I believe the person that posted an article took at least a few minutes to check out same basics about it.

Even if you make a mistake and something turns out to be different, if you're trusted, it means that your colleagues take you seriously.

And, as I told David in a previous post, if people don't take your stuff seriously, you'll never be able to convince them of anything."

So now I cannot be trusted, is this what you are stating.
You and 3t3 are acting like all I do is post lies and bogus material. What the hell is wrong with you two and why suddenly am I being fried for posting information. Nothing I have said or done warrants this behavior, nothing. You, Duncan, are twisting this far out of porportion. I stated clearly and plainly, I checked news sources, nothing there to either confirm or deny the story. What the hell do you expect people to do, go the the scene and take a body count.
And just where may I ask, is the information showing that bin laden is not dead.

You stated that I was wrong on the internet tax vote. I was not. You were wrong. There was a vote. s777. So does that make you a person not to be trusted.

You and 3t3 are far off course on this cyber gang bang and I am due an apology.

posted 10-25-2001 11:45 PM            

I suggest you avoid further heartburn and ignore any posts from people who upset you. If you really have a problem with doing something you can't really control -- like posting on forums like this -- then you may want to take some other action.

But in the interim, let me re-iterate my suggestion: don't read stuff you don't like to read, and don't respond to stuff that will upset you. Life is simply too short for that.

posted 10-26-2001 09:36 AM            

quote:

---

10.24.01 UPDATE:
BREAKING: UNITED STATES EXCLUSIVE-JAPANESE WIRE OSAMA BIN LADEN AND ADVISOR SHOT DEAD BY OWN AFGHAN TROOPS!!

**********UNITED STATES PRESS EXCLUSIVE-MUST CREDIT AHEADNEWS.COM 2:15 PST WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2001-ALL RIGHTS RESERVED********

Japanese language wires have just reported that on October 16, 2001 Osama Bin Laden and a henchman had been shot dead by his own troops. No political reason has been given for the act, details are scarce and it is not known whether this may have been an attempt at an overthrow of the government...The Chinese and Japanese report now goes on to state that Osamas wife and son may have been shot in the shoulders and arms in the ambush which may have come from behind. It is not know whether both are dead or alive...The Chinese language wire is reporting that there may be as many as 5-9 coffins for burial in the party that ambushed Osama Bin Laden. This may include wife child and the Taliban leader himself. More updates as the situation warrants... Stay with AheadNews through the night for updates.
http://www.aheadnews.com/gary.html

-----------------------------------------------------------
Filed by AheadNews.com http://AheadNews.com for updates
(c)AheadNews.com 2001

---

quote:

---

Can you not read well. I stated plainly, I checked, nothing to confirm or deny the story at that time. NOTHING. And what is this crap about me just coping something off the net, I recieve news letter and have correspondence with many. Don't try and twist this in your favor, stick to the facts.

---

posted 10-26-2001 11:05 AM            

Frankly, I don't really research any news items that I might happen to pass along. Although I tend to quote from some of the major news sources which do their own research and confirmations.

The way this kind of stuff works is this: If you want to be the first to know some exciting new tidbit of news, you may find it first on some alternative or non-mainstream news source. Later, if, and I emphasise if, it is true, it may show up on the mainstream news sources. But one also gets false alarms and bogus stuff via the non-mainstream sources. So it's a tradeoff.

posted 10-26-2001 11:49 AM            

What you said I said was:
"So let me get this straight - we need to research anything we post on here, taken from the internet; we need to know for certain that it is 100% true and accurate?"

"You and 3t3 are acting like all I do is post lies and bogus material."

"I am beginning to feel like the lone ranger on this episode of "Absolute proven truth of information or consequences". Hosted by 3t3 and duncan."