posted 10-31-2001 09:36 AM            

For the two that do the most disrupting, duncan and the seeker, it is like a sexual release, in other words, they really get off on this. Have you noticed that the amount of time spent by duncan kunz on these nefarious activities has increased considerably in the past few weeks, since 9-11? Why? The more it is tolerated the worse it becomes. The constant belittling of posts and persons is ridicules and unnecessarily disrupting.

posted 10-31-2001 10:59 AM            

I have never directly addressed you and I do believe that Duncan was WAY out of line with the molestation comment attached to your name...and an apology would have been appropriate. Since that it is obviously not forthcoming...GET OVER IT. Maybe the reason many of us don't post as much as we used to and some don't post at all is the endless bickering that goes one. Let people's comments stand for themselves, it certainly diminished Duncan in my eyes when he said that. I don't think rudeness or hurtful behaviors go unnoticed, just unremarked upon.

Don't let them "push" your buttons so easily. Stay on task. Lately your only task here seems to be to extract apologies from those not willing to give one deserved or not.

No one should be banned or censored unless they are constently vulgar and abusive (not one or two obvious social blunders as Duncan displayed). There was way too much of that at Carnicom's board.

Half of being hurt is allowing yourself to be. That being said, in agreement with you, I have often been curious as to why non-believers (if they are not plants) spend any time or energy at all on a board dedicated to the very subject they feel is horse hooey. Duncan seems to be intelligent enough and inspite of some rude behavior has contributed some interesting information. 3T3 did nothing about his rude behavior, and suggested that we do our "homework" before posting. This you felt was a reason to attack her...even though she has explained her emotional state and very personal reasons for reacting that way on that particular day. Are we not all flawed and human? Thermit has done his level best to accomodate this board with many diverse forums for outlets of all sort. Poetry to Science to those of us who just post reports of our areas to compare and try to learn more.

Where does the cycle of complaining end? If you are so unhappy here why stay?
Do you really need a vote of the entire board to feel vindicated? You've been a valuable contributor here too, try not to be so thin skinned. Your cut and paste from other sites have lead to some interesting reads. You did your share of twisting words too when asked to look in to things and do a little research you turned that into, "it must be gospel to be posted". Why not just come back with, "I post what I find interesting everyone do your own research" and let that be the end of it. Instead of these endless witless battles with Duncan and 3T3 that is a no win for any of us.

posted 10-31-2001 02:46 PM            

Seems you even want to argue with someone who agreed with you that Duncan was wrong. Kneweyes I'm with you. This will be my last post on this thread. And David? I don't remember registering to vote.

posted 11-02-2001 10:43 AM            

Although I have refrained from commenting on this thread, our ongoing relationship, based on courtesy rather than antagonism, leads me to read your posts with much more care and respect than some others. Because of this, I feel I would not be considered out of place if I responded to your comments. As usual, your comments in "quotes", mine in [brackets].

"Although Duncan has always treated me politely, I have noticed an increase in his attacks on other people."

[I don't think I have attacked other people, at least not by calling them names. I will certainly take issue with ideas with which I do not agree; I assume everyone else here does that. Note, if you will, that my gentle colleagues in this forum have referred to me with personal invective. Here is one individual's (David's) reasoned critique of my ideas: '... is a sick individual at the very least and a plant at the worst....a sick and twisted person ... in need of serious psychiatric help.']

[And what comment was it that got him carried away like that? Let's take a closer look at my post to poor David:]

[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.]

[To be honest, I do not see how anyone could confuse the above with an accusation that he is a child molester -- or a Lutheran pastor, for that matter. I think his anger was raised by the fact that I put the words "David" and "child molester" in the same sentence. You have to admit that that's a bit of a stretch.]

[Here're some comments of others to that same sentence:]

[AMBER: "This was sooooo not worthy of a person of your standing." Why? Am I held to a 'higher standard than others because I write better? Because I'm handsomer?]

[In the same post, Amber says: "You are obviously a very intelligent man....so I KNOW that you KNEW that placing David's name alongside that accusation WOULD upset him..." How am I supposed to know what would cause an irrational response? Am I held to a higher standard because Amber thinks I'm more intelligent than David? I hope not. I don't think I'm better -- or worse -- than anyone else in here.]

Invective has no place anywhere, especially in a board run by someone of Thermit's class I try to avoid that, and I am glad to note that you do, too.

"(Duncan, you are very good at what you do!)"

[Thank you. You should hear me pick the five-string banjo.]

"...I do not believe that every single post should end with Duncan's "opinion"."

[I agree. I look for responses to my opinions and am somewhat bemused that, after I've made a post, no one else responds to it. I'm not sure why this is; perhaps I've converted everyone to my views LOL! But if you think that I should not be the last one on a thread, then you or one of our other colleagues should step up to the plate. I'd do it myself, of course, but then, every single post would end... naah. That wouldn't work.]

"Duncan sure does have a lot of time on his hands to answer each and every post with such detail! (and flair)."

[It doesn't take that much time to respond, if you've done writing for a living. But, notethe amount of posts I've made (229), that you have made (260), that David has made (654); that Delphi has made (1513) That mark sky has made (1387) -- and bear in mind that I've been registered here longer than any of you. As a matter of fact, with the exception of Messrs. Thermit and Seeker, I have been on this board longer than any of the regularly posting people, I believe.]

[My point, of course, is simple -- I spend a lot less time here based on the number of posts) than most other people. However, the argument is irrelevant. How much time we spend here should not be subjected to either government inquiry or those of our colleagues.]

"I am a staunch advocate of free speech ... vote that Duncan be confined to the Neutral Zone, and the Science Forum."

[I will not comment on that. Perhaps you would care to in another post or by private mail.]

Regards,

posted 11-02-2001 11:11 AM            

[AMBER: "This was sooooo not worthy of a person of your standing." Why? Am I held to a 'higher standard than others because I write better? Because I'm handsomer?]

I wasn't holding you to a higher standard than others...I was holding you to the SAME standard...which on this occasion you fell well below....And 'Write better'...i take it this is meant to be funny...as it is gramatically and factually incorrect As for handsome - handsome is as handsome does!

[In the same post, Amber says: "You are obviously a very intelligent man....so I KNOW that you KNEW that placing David's name alongside that accusation WOULD upset him..." How am I supposed to know what would cause an irrational response?

Don't play DUMB and DUMBER DUNC...WE all know you knew....and you know we all know you knew. Now if you want us to believe you are socially inept, and lacking in both foresight and empathy...then carry on with this charade....

Am I held to a higher standard because Amber thinks I'm more intelligent than David?

Games...games...games...Dunky-poos...At NO point did I say or infer that you were in any way more intelligent than David...So you just did it again didn't you? Insulted him, and my intelligence with a sly, back-handed, under-handed, childish throw-away line.
And could I suggest, Darlink, a comparison bewteen you and an amoeba, rather than you and David...would make it much easier for you to come out the winner???

posted 11-02-2001 08:27 PM            

No, it's not personal. Duncan knows if he'd thrown the kind of crap he slung towards David at me, I would have subjectively (and in a very unquestionably "gentleman-like" manner) ripped him a new anal orfice right here on the web, very much for the entire world to see, and much more to marvel at.

No, Duncan appears to choose his "targets" well. Observe his "reply" to David [D. Kunz's comments will be noted in quotations].

"...our ongoing relationship"

This coming from a complete stranger, someone whom you would definitely NOT recognize even if you bumped into them in the street this very evening. That being said, this mock salutation is pure bulls**t.

"...based on courtesy rather than antagonism"

This, too, is nonsense. One could list dozens of ways to flatly insult or defame someone, all the while feigning "courtesy" (much as I did in my introduction in this very post) -- but I'll spare the slander, save for one such pertinent example of erudite, publicly transpired trash talk:

"David found to be child-molester"

POINT OF ORDER: Making an insinuation -- clearly, which D. Kunz has already self-admittedly done, and then proudly points out in his reply -- is in no small way a DEFINITE psychological attack aimed squarely against the person mentioned.

This is an old courtroom trick -- make a wild insinuation, fully knowing the defense attorney will object, fully knowing the judge will sustain. The prosecutor knows it's bulls**t and thus "withdraws the statement" without further argument -- though very real damage has already been done in the minds of both jury and onlookers.

Now in this instance, in case that initial insinuation wasn't enough, Duncan (we should assume that's his name) REPEATS the offense, obviously quite cognizant of the following fact:

That REPETITION INCREASES RETENTION OF THE DESIRED MESSAGE (whatever that "desired" message might be). This is an old psyops maxim -- and 'words to live by' within the profession of propoganda, in fact.

"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."

The key to understanding D. Kunz's strategem (in active use here) is to exerpt the repetitious phrase and/or idea, which most obviously is (from Duncan's point of view, anyway): "...to make people think that you [David] were a child-molester".

But just in case you didn't get the intended sentiment this second time, it's rephrased YET AGAIN in D. Kunz's reply (using still MORE repitition):

"I think his anger was raised by the fact that I put the words 'David' and 'child molester' in the same sentence."

Damn right he should be angry. A person would have to have no verifiable pulse to not be angry.

If in fact I were David, I would be livid. Personally, I think his response has been quite reserved, especially considering that Duncan has been teetering on the verge of "legality" ever since he (D. Kunz) made the initial insinuation and then feigned "retraction" -- clearly without provocation or call, clearly without even knowing who in God's name "David" is.

But why stop the analysis here? Let's keep dissecting Duncan's ridiculous claims at face value. Examine, if you will, the following statement of Duncan's -- relating to exactly the same offense outline above:

"How am I supposed to know what would cause an irrational response?"

Well now, let's see. Based on the strategem which I've very clearly just outlined, and of which Duncan's posts regarding David could be said to be prime examples, as relating to the obvious tactic in use:

1. it's been standard operating procedure in courtrooms for at least as long as jurisprudence has been around;
2. it's also a widely published technique for discrediting individuals in various psyops materials;
3. it's been a widely used political strategem for many centuries;
4. AND it's also listed in many of the so-called "dirty tricks" books on the market today.

Okay, I give up -- there's absolutely no way Duncan could have known what effect this would have had on David -- NOT. In short, it's one of the oldest and better-established dirty tricks one can use against another human being. Since Duncan is NOT up for any sort of re-election at this board, he should be held accountable for his actions -- that is, to a higher standard than say that of the "average politician" (for whom I believe "most anything" goes).

Further -- Duncan has been VERY active at this board for a "true non-believer". Don't let his distractive plea of a "post count" fool you. I myself have placed well more than 2000 posts at Cliff's board alone -- and yet Duncan outweighs my post count at Chemtrail Central by a factor of nearly 5. That's a hell of a lot of interest for someone who doesn't "believe" in something -- and besides, "posting" does not constitute time spent "lurking", which could yet be substantially more.

And "Yes", I would say that there is likely some sort of mental malady or other emotional disturbance behind this inordinate amount of interest in our posts on Duncan's part -- and that would be his problem, not ours. Others should feel free to post here without being subjected to D. Kunz's snide remarks and insinuations.

As for his "professional credentials" (which he may well possess) -- Duncan Kunz, while representing himself as being both "employed" and quite "knowledgeable" within the aircraft field, has on at least one very memorable past occasion been demonstrated to have been "blowing smoke up our skirts" -- most notably on the issue of aircraft cabin air filtration. He flatly, vehemently denied it existed at Cliff's, and yet several others at the board not only discovered that it indeed existed, but that the filtration systems in common, widespread use in passenger aircraft since the 1980s were the antithesis of what Duncan had led everyone to believe. In fact, for Duncan to NOT know this was plainly inexcusable and an obvious fabrication on his part.

Needless to say, Duncan pretty much 'vanished' from Cliff's board -- for months -- shortly after his deception was discovered. To the best of my knowledge he was not 'banished' from posting at the board for this quite obvious and intentional 'infringement of the truth', regardless of what he contends -- but if any are in doubt, they may contact Clifford personally, via the administrator's email, at any of his various sites. Be sure to mention the previous paragraphs in this post relative to 'aircraft cabin air filtration' when you do.

In my humble estimation, D. Kunz is a bulls**t artist, of the highest order, with a questionable degree of some sort (in what, I will not hazard a guess) and limited-to-questionable credentials. He may (or may not) be exactly who he represents himself to be. And yet, much as his flatly erroneous (and well-documented) statements regarding the fundamentals of aircraft cabin air filtration, there is virtually no way in hell that he could NOT have known that David would be insulted by this obvious attack.

posted 11-02-2001 08:39 PM            

Duncan Kunz's 'post count' at Chemtrail Central outweighs my own here by somewhat more than a factor of three (3).

posted 11-03-2001 01:29 AM            

[Garbage, djembeboy. The reason I haven’t posted anything your way is that you’re simply not
worth it. And the reason you haven’t posted anything to me is simply because you prefer
sideways stuff addressed to other people instead of a direct approach, And, of course, you
wouldn’t think of e-mailing me, since you prefer to hide behind a made-up name and not divulge
your e-mail. Not to worry, though, djem, there’re lots of people like you -- afraid.]

[Now I’m not going to waste any time beating around the word-bush with you; an engineer loses
to a pre-law dropout anytime. But regarding the cabin pressure discussion that you’re so fond of
misquoting, look back in the archives of this very board.. You will find, to your dismay, that at
http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000058.html

there is a complete discussion of the fact that (1) I made an incorrect assertion; (2) it was pointed
out that I was wrong; (3) I immediately agreed that I was in error and retracted my post; (4) one
of the more excitable members of the carnicom board (sorethroat) accepted my retraction, then
continued to say that I had erred and not retracted it; and (5) one of the more naive members
(guess who) picked up on it and kept passing it around. Read the stuff, djembie.]

[Now as to the fact that my posts on this board outnumber yours, I was comparing myself (as you’d notice
had you read my post carefully) to regularly posting people – and
people who, in my view, are important. You fail on both counts.]

[Now, djembo, I’m not going to waste any more of my time playing verbal mumblety-peg with
you here on this forum. If you have something to say, you know what my e-mail address is. You
know what my real name is. You know what my telephone number is. Unlike you, I am not
afraid to post my information because I am not ashamed of who I am.]

[I personally think you are ashamed of who you are, but since I propose to neither waste
time reading your posts or responding to any of them – and if you want to involve yourself in anal
“orfices” (hey, whatever turns you on) – then work up enough courage and e-mail or call me. I won't bite, although I'll probably laugh at you.
You can always call from a phone booth or go through an Internet “anonymizer”, if you’re afraid
that I’ll climb through the wires and tweak your nose.]

[Other than that, don’t waste my time.]

posted 11-04-2001 12:46 PM            

Crocodile Tears, shed by someone caught red-handed but cleverly disguised as defiance, and then projected in another direction (which is merely a misdirection ploy, aimed at giving the true target of the attack a "breather").

Of note:

Wrong (re: "pre-law dropout"). Not even a pre-med dropout. Not even a dropout. Not even a MENSA fugitive, so don't flatter yourself.

sorethroat was far more forgiving of your blundering suppositions than most. You were not banned from Cliff's board in any case, and did vanish there of your own choosing.

I post regularly at this board and several others. Not only does my email function work perfectly at Chemtrail Central, but it matters not to me who that "counts" with, and I answer such at my leisure and personal discretion (for by appearance, I must be far busier than a "humble engineer").

"Orfice/Orifice/Artifice"
My spell-check doesn't work with this particular browser. Sorry you were offended, but I didn't write the software.

For the record, the last time I heard anyone mention "tweaking their nose", that individual was abusing a particular white powder substance. Suggestion: Robin Williams once said, "Cocaine is God's way of telling you that you have too much money."

Take that as you will, humble engineer.

posted 11-04-2001 05:10 PM            

How DARE you insult Mr. Kunz! He is so courageous that he uses his real name for God's sake! (unlike the rest of us pathetic cowards?)... He's an engineer.... who's been to Japan!!!... and he really respects Thermit and Norrin Radd!

All he did was equate David to a childmolester!

What were you THINKING!!!

___________________________________________
BTW, it doesn't take any courage to support the status quo!! Even if D.Kunz is using his real name, what has he posted that would require him to use a moniker?!?!

posted 11-05-2001 09:16 AM            

Actually, I was thinking that the esteemed Mr. Kunz was (and has been) behaving very much as if he were actually a paid disinformation agent -- regardless of his professed or actual circumstances.

posted 11-05-2001 10:11 AM            

In a world supposedly full of "suicide bombers", paranoids, hackers, freaks and other such closeted mental shut-ins, one might just be plain stupid to paste their name/telephone#/email/address all over everything they write or do on the web.

All the same, it is nice to be able to freely (and nearly instantly) communicate the world over from one's desk.

For the most part people are not "hiding behind" any of their sign-ons while posting on the web (in fact, some take their sign-ons far more personally than they do their given, "Christian" names). A sign-on is merely a token guarantee of a reasonable amount of privacy for the individual -- one which, I might add, can be quite easily violated by various actions of nefarious sorts (commercial and otherwise).

posted 11-05-2001 10:58 AM            

Year’s back, we had two child members of our family taken by strangers. This happened on two separate occasions. One, a boy and the other a girl, both under 11 years old.
Both were molested, sodomized, raped and beaten. The little girl did not survive her ordeal, she was not only raped, sodomized, and beaten, but was mutilated and murdered as well, then left like a sack of trash under a bridge. Our family and our faith was shaken to the core, how could someone do this to a trusting and innocent child was and still is the question.

The first son of a bitch was never found, but the second one, the murderer was. And what do you suppose happen to him? Very little.
He was allowed to live out his life in a mental hospital, with a name change, under protection of the state. Locked away from those that would have extracted a measure of revenge for his heinous act, and rightly so.
To this very day, if I could find those responsible, I would kill them without hesitation.

Nothing that he, duncan, could have said could have as much impact on me as did that analogy. Thoughts and memories came flooding back, memories that I would just as soon not have had to deal with again.

To have my name used in that association is despicable to say the least.
I seek no response from this post, I just want those of you who say “get over it” and "move on” to know that it is not possible to get over it …never.

Thank you duncan kunz, you are very good at what you do. May you burn in hell for all eternity.

David

posted 11-05-2001 11:49 AM            

Duncan...you may argue that you were not to know...but even if these dreadful crimes had not been part of David's life...your analogy was crass....even if your intent was innocent....just say sorry?????

posted 11-05-2001 12:29 PM            

It seems that DJ scored a direct hit in his postings of 11/2 as evidenced by the response of the extinguished[sic] Mr. Kunz.

We've been through this tactic of trying to get people to reveal their identity online before with other 'debunkers'. Not that this is necessarily (in this case) evidence of a CIA plant, but possibly an attempt to goad people into revealing an identity to any twisted wacko who may want to get closer to their target (as DJ has pointed out).

IMO, CIA, etc. would have no trouble identifying any of us if they wanted to, so posting your true identity would only give an excuse for any hostile entity to give us a hard time, (thereby doing the CIA's etc work for them?).

It may be that Duncan Kunz (if that's his real name) doesn't believe that being a child molester is such a bad thing? But I hope that's not the case.

IMO, Duncan Kunz should do the right thing and make a decent and sincere (if that's possible) apology to David and promise not to do anything like that again. If he did make that kind of attack on a member again, I'd hope he'd be banned from CTC. To me there is nothing in this world more reprehensible or repulsive than a child-molester... not even a 'debunker'.

Reacting as David has to the child-molester comment is in no way an 'irrational response' as Mr. Kunz has stated in this thread. Any normal and decent human being would react in that way, even without having experienced this kind of nightmare as a victim/survivor or family member of the victim(s).