THE "CHATBOX"

[hoi.polloi]

:: shudder ::

Yes, very disheartening.

I suppose that is a clue in a way. Many people assume the government is like a God or demon or something. We find it difficult to credit mere humans with the stories we tell each other about how the world works, which is something only humans give to one another (or we give to ourselves). Probably because lacking stories we find our imaginations untenable. Stories have a hold on us, and other people shape those stories, so we credit it to divinity.

And yet we attribute divine superman powers to people for things humans have little control over - such as animals, nature, wildlife, natural law.

Instead of changing the bad stories we tell ourselves, we insist on changing the much more sturdy natural laws of our world. And somehow we are surprised when our attacks on natural law start to collapse our bodies and our systems ...

[fbenario]

Instead of changing the bad stories we tell ourselves, we insist on changing the much more sturdy natural laws of our world. And somehow we are surprised when our attacks on natural law start to collapse our bodies and our systems

Such as after some folks feed their bodies fake food for decades, and then are surprised at having chronic health probs, and head toward an early grave.

[lux]

I found an interesting little blurb on a site called PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America):

Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications

Abstract
A detailed review of all 2,047 biomedical and life-science research articles indexed by PubMed as retracted on May 3, 2012 revealed that only 21.3% of retractions were attributable to error. In contrast, 67.4% of retractions were attributable to misconduct, including fraud or suspected fraud (43.4%), duplicate publication (14.2%), and plagiarism (9.8%). Incomplete, uninformative or misleading retraction announcements have led to a previous underestimation of the role of fraud in the ongoing retraction epidemic. The percentage of scientific articles retracted because of fraud has increased ∼10-fold since 1975. Retractions exhibit distinctive temporal and geographic patterns that may reveal underlying causes.

Source:
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/ ... bce0d0391f

That's quite a statement to make for a major establishment authority like the Academy of Sciences, no?

And, one might wonder if the percentages aren't perhaps even a bit higher than they care to admit!

[brianv]

Lock the fracking board!

[hoi.polloi]

sorry - deleted new spammy users.

It ultimately comes down to which is more work:

individually vetting new users by e-mail introduction
~ or ~
occasionally deleting the crazies/robots/shills

Since we have to do the latter anyway, I figure locking the board will just be annoying for our e-mails. But I will go with whatever admins decide.

[reichstag fireman]

sorry - deleted new spammy users.

It ultimately comes down to which is more work:

individually vetting new users by e-mail introduction
~ or ~
occasionally deleting the crazies/robots/shills

Since we have to do the latter anyway, I figure locking the board will just be annoying for our e-mails. But I will go with whatever admins decide.

maybe option #2 is better. A new poster might need to air a very pressing matter, and option #1 is a hindrance in that case?

[brianv]

sorry - deleted new spammy users.

It ultimately comes down to which is more work:

individually vetting new users by e-mail introduction
~ or ~
occasionally deleting the crazies/robots/shills

Since we have to do the latter anyway, I figure locking the board will just be annoying for our e-mails. But I will go with whatever admins decide.

individually vetting new users by e-mail introduction - why not?

*occasionally* - The board is spam ridden daily! We are an open invitation to the scum of the earth!

[fbenario]

I don't want to make it too hard for new members to join, so I don't want to move toward opening the forum to new members only a few days per month. Brian's suggestion that the required introduction be vetted by an admin, before the person joins as a member, seems a quite reasonable middle ground, requiring less overall work by the admins than the current system.

Most shills/trolls/bad actors are smart enough to jump-over the first hurdle to membership, whatever it is. The later work we all do (of identifying, educating, warning, and banning bad actors), will occur under any system. To repeat what I said fairly recently, I don't want to lose reichstag or libero, as examples of recent new members producing good work, because entry somehow got to be "too much trouble" - such as forcing interested folks to remember to return only on, e.g., the first 2 days of a month.

[fakeologist]

Need some help from fellow members about what appears to be a psyop. Amanda Todd we are told hung herself over ongoing cyber bullying on Facebook. So much of this story doesn't add up I started a list. Story: http://abcn.ws/Xyfucg

1. Video is high production, complete with an alleged bloody arm. It even comes complete with a (credited) psycho-dramatic soundtrack.
2. Video uses cue cards, to evoke the memory of (alleged) dying teen who used same method earlier on YouTube
3. October is anti bullying month (is this a UN program?)
4. Teen drank bleach and didn’t die
5. Mother’s reaction is odd. She immediately wants to write legislation
6. Facebook RIP page allegedly set up two months before “death”
7. All details surrounding “death” are sealed for usual “family privacy” reasons
8. Government “reaction” already in full swing
9. “Anonymous” on the case. Do people think this is a single person? Do they think anyone other than facebook (NSA) or other law enforcement has a chance of tracing the alleged “stalkers”?
10. Whole YouTube campaign reeks of similar Kony2012 psyop earlier this year.
11. Timing. October is anti-bullying month. Coincidence?
12. Ground troops already fanning out across the country. Today in school two hour math class replaced by visit by police “service”. Subject: Amanda Todd.

http://youtu.be/vOHXGNx-E7E

[lux]

I recently found this photo. It's hosted on a site whose language I can't read. I haven't found any info on its origin as yet.

Does the little girl look familiar?


http://kazani.gr/uploads/posts/2010-09/ ... 79086q.jpg

[pshea38]

I recently found this photo. It's hosted on a site whose language I can't read. I haven't found any info on its origin as yet.

Does the little girl look familiar?


http://kazani.gr/uploads/posts/2010-09/ ... 79086q.jpg

Scheisse!

[fbenario]

I recently found this photo. It's hosted on a site whose language I can't read. I haven't found any info on its origin as yet.

Does the little girl look familiar?


http://kazani.gr/uploads/posts/2010-09/ ... 79086q.jpg

Google 'Helga Goebbels'.

[maggie]

No.
Who knows who this sturdy little girl is in the picture, but Angela Merkel was purportedly born in 1954, and looks that age.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angela_Merkel >
Not that Wikipedia is that reliable, but I don't believe for a micro-moment that Merkel is as old as that picture makes her out to be today. She'd be pushing her 70s in that event.

[maggie]

But having now Googled Helga Goebbels, it doesn't look like that child either.

[lux]

I can't read the non-English text on this page but the photo below from that page appears to be captioned as Angela as a child:



Here is a little larger version gotten via TinEye:



Actually, the girl in the Hitler photo looks more like Angela than the girl above to my eye though they could be the same person with a few years of age in between. Children can change their appearance pretty quickly as they age because the skull & face bones are still growing.

Another possibility: the girl in the Hitler photo may be related to Angela such as an "undocumented" sister.