posted 04-21-2004 02:28 PM            

All members please go to

Administrators Forum!

We'll get this board cleaned up!

For now ignore all distractors! Ignore extraneous questions, ignore posts of those who do not subscribe or know about chemtrails. All other subjects are open to debate, but not this one!

Letxa, you have banned yourself with the present rules in place, anyway. So leave!

posted 04-21-2004 02:35 PM            

quote:

---

BoomerChick: or now ignore all distractors! Ignore extraneous questions, ignore posts of those who do not subscribe or know about chemtrails. All other subjects are open to debate, but not this one!

---

posted 04-21-2004 03:16 PM            

Lexta hon, read the threads here and do the homework yourself. If you can write paragraphs such as...

>>>HAARP exists and persistent contrails exist, there is no doubt. Whether HAARP has clandestine uses and whether some persistent contrails are "chemtrails" is far less certain and certainly not established fact. To suggest otherwise is simply inaccurate. I don't doubt that you believe in both, but neither have been established with a level of certainty such that the statement "there is nothing to debate" would be even close to accurate.>>>

....then I assure you that you're capable of finding out here what you came to learn for your paper.

posted 04-21-2004 03:32 PM            

quote:

---

ScaredForTheFuture: I just skimmed this topic, but I think LETXA is articulate and smart enough to do her own dang research here. What are we supposed to do, write the paper for her? Lexta hon, read the threads here and do the homework yourself. If you can write paragraphs such as...

>>>HAARP exists and persistent contrails exist, there is no doubt. Whether HAARP has clandestine uses and whether some persistent contrails are "chemtrails" is far less certain and certainly not established fact. To suggest otherwise is simply inaccurate. I don't doubt that you believe in both, but neither have been established with a level of certainty such that the statement "there is nothing to debate" would be even close to accurate.>>>

....then I assure you that you're capable of finding out here what you came to learn for your paper.

---

I'm not sure what to make of the above. Stacy was looking for information for her homework, not me. But I did write the paragraph you quoted above and I appreciate your comments about me being articulate and smart enough to do my own research.

quote:

---

electricmojoman: you might want to pay closer attention. By now you should know she is a he.

---

posted 04-21-2004 09:00 PM            

This is the addition to CTC regulations that I proposed last year and Mech did not support:
“CTC moderators reserve the right to exclude from the forum any person falsely claiming to know that a very large-scale programme of aerosol (chemtrail) spraying is not being implemented, or indicating explicitly or by his/her attitude or manner of that he/she regards as unworthy of serious consideration claims made by other participants that they do have knowledge of the reality of such an ongoing aerosol spraying programme.”

posted 04-21-2004 09:09 PM            

So far Mech hasn't posted on the Administrators Forum, but many members have. Would you please, halva, post your response and your version of the tightening of the rules. It's really needed here. Many of us are so tired of various distracting influences and I can't hide in "Other Trails" and allow the disrespect toward the issue of chemtrails go on!

My reasoning backing my conclusion, almost identical to yours which is far more eloquent -- is also posted. Please read it and post?

Thank you so much and hopefully this time around Mech and the others will realize that change is good and tightening the rules would protect this board and its goals!