THE "CHATBOX"

A place to relax and socialize - to muse, think aloud and suggest
bostonterrierowner
Member
Posts: 853
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 10:01 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by bostonterrierowner »

RogerSmith ,

Lux has been too soft on you so let me cut in and share some thoughts :

Stop selling various MSM whores on this forum ! Judge Napolitano is just another prostitute otherwise he wouldn't be employed by this zionist cesspit called FOX . I don't care if he was "fired" or whatever it is all bullshit . Why do you even watch this shit ???

Take your head out of your ass and come back or go to infowars.com
RogerSmith
Member
Posts: 48
Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2013 6:26 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by RogerSmith »

With due respect there bostonterrierowner, lux's statements were articulate enough that I decided to do some research on my own and have come to conclude, that indeed, Mark Dice does appear to be an Alex Jones shill. In contrast, had someone responded to me with thoughts like your own, I think it would have not encouraged productive research in any way.
I don't care if he was "fired" or whatever it is all bullshit
I don't care either. Lux brought that up too, but I never mentioned it, my interest was in what he was saying in the video, which checked out as correct. But as lux said, it's what he doesn't say that matters.
Why do you even watch this shit ???
Well, if you read my post above, I watched one of his videos as various comments on YouTube suggested he had reasonable things to say.

I don't feel there's any worth in even responding to your last statement - let's just forget it and move on, unless anyone wants to see the Mark Dice shill evidence I found for kicks.
bostonterrierowner
Member
Posts: 853
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 10:01 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by bostonterrierowner »

Roger ,

Just quit lending credibility to media whores . If you wanna keep doing it ,infowars.com is a place to go .

Please work on your bullshit filtering skills and keep the board neat and clean .

How can a person in his/her right mind even suspect that something of value may originate from FOX "NEWS" ??????
RogerSmith
Member
Posts: 48
Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2013 6:26 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by RogerSmith »

I never said Fox News has any value to it at all, and you're the only one bringing up infowars.com, it's pretty amusing at this point in fact.

Whatever the case, all I was saying if you want to prove the validity of someone, it's inappropriate to treat your argument as solid truth based on no more than they've been associated with certain others. Any typical layman could go watch Loose Change for example, get excited about 9/11 truth, and then go attend some Alex Jones run, 9/11, missiles hit the WTC party. Are they magically disinfo agents now? Can someone not just be mislead by that which they don't know?
bostonterrierowner
Member
Posts: 853
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 10:01 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by bostonterrierowner »

RogerSmith wrote:I never said Fox News has any value to it at all, and you're the only one bringing up infowars.com, it's pretty amusing at this point in fact.

Whatever the case, all I was saying if you want to prove the validity of someone, it's inappropriate to treat your argument as solid truth based on no more than they've been associated with certain others. Any typical layman could go watch Loose Change for example, get excited about 9/11 truth, and then go attend some Alex Jones run, 9/11, missiles hit the WTC party. Are they magically disinfo agents now? Can someone not just be mislead by that which they don't know?
Can an anal sex loving slut that never had a regular (vaginal) intercourse be considered a virgin ? :) The fact that she might have been misled in regards of what virginity means doesn't make her less slutty . Right ?

Do you follow my metaphor ? :)
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7341
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by simonshack »

bostonterrierowner wrote: Do you follow my metaphor ? :)
I do follow your metaphor, dear BTO.

Roger Smith has been complaining with me about your manners through private e-mail, but I will respond to him right here. I have been following his posts - as well as the responses to his posts. All I can say to Roger Smith is:

There is no more time for pussyfooting. The very reason why we are in trouble today is due to the excessive caution exerted by intelligent / rational / well-educated / reasonable people - when confronted with massive lies and deceptions. Morality, honesty, brotherhood-of-man and such seemingly outdated values have evidently been superseded by the lowest and crassest forms of arrogant power-building that mankind has allowed itself to enslave itself with. The natural containment upheld by people still nurturing the aforementioned noble principles is, evidently, an obstacle to the change that we - as a human race - need to undertake. We need to grow bigger balls than those bobbing in the scrotums of the psychopathic scumbags currently running this planet - and we now urgently need to start calling a spade a spade. Is time running out - in order to achieve such a change? Yes. That is - if we keep behaving like stupid slaves!

"You have no right to tell me - that time isn't running out". Just as I sing in this ol' song of mine:


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtUG66r4Xwc
RogerSmith
Member
Posts: 48
Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2013 6:26 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by RogerSmith »

Well, I didn't follow the metaphor and think it's a very nasty one to have in mind. I'd rather talk about what things actually are than revert to sexual metaphors, as personally, I find that immature.

I like September Clues and the Vicsim idea because they're both heavily evidenced, broken down to be understandable, and effectively proved beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm not thrilled to see assumptions and two bit evidence used to propel ideas behind other matters - like determining the validity of someone, and then so forcefully insisting on it. The "Introduce Yourself" thread on this own forum says that perps rely on the tactic of "discredit by association", and yet, here we have people discrediting others solely based on association.

I think this sort of aggressive and unreasonable attitude will just scare people away, a good number of them in any case, rather than waken anyone. I personally feel less inclined to visit this forum or contribute now, not that I think anyone cares, but that's just the perspective I have, so there it is.

Perhaps the ideals of believe everyone is a phony or join infowars.com should be added to that same introduction thread, I certainly did not expect such an attitude prior to signing up. Time is running out, sure, but I feel it's better to remain calm and composed as we examine things, don't you yourself?
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7341
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by simonshack »

RogerSmith wrote: Time is running out, sure, but I feel it's better to remain calm and composed as we examine things, don't you yourself?
Dear Roger Smith,

I think that you will find this forum, once you get profoundly familiar with it, a haven of calm and composed discussions. Of course, once in a while you will see some anger trotting out of the minds of people who now understand how deeply they have been fooled - ever since they were born. Does such anger surprise you? What if YOU , Roger, lived in a world where most of your information was faked? Would you not at times express your emotion over such a fact?

Would you like to see Cluesforum as a completely emotion-less place?
RogerSmith
Member
Posts: 48
Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2013 6:26 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by RogerSmith »

Fair enough then, when such expressions of anger are let out, I will simply withdraw myself from the situation as I personally do not enjoy such things. This anger does not surprise me, because there are many who have long felt angst over knowing the media continues to tell lies - only now, we have serious evidence.
What if YOU , Roger, lived in a world where most of your information was faked? Would you not at times express your emotion over such a fact?
I mentioned in my first post on this forum, but my name used here comes from the main character of an anime series called The Big O. By the end of the series, Roger finds himself in a city that's proving to have all been a fictional stage for his prearranged life. At one point anger, at another despair, but ultimately, he confronts it courageously.

There definitely are emotions to be expressed, but anger is not the one to become concerned with, lest we lose our ability to take productive action.
I, Gestalta
Member
Posts: 149
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 9:00 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by I, Gestalta »

RogerSmith,

What you are (somewhat understandably) unable to see, from within the present state of your quest for truth, is that every aspect and angle of major media (and "alternative media") is controlled. For the members of this forum, it is a very simple matter to infer that, say, someone who has written heavily-researched, "comprehensive" material about 9/11 and has had such work published and distributed worldwide is likely on "the payroll". Why? Well, think about how you arrived at cluesforum. You're not some Ph.D professor with 25 years of experience in hardcore, academic research, are you? Yet, you somehow managed to land here, and have since (I assume) learned the truth about what didn't happen on 9/11. How much more likely is it that someone whose actual occupation is to conduct scholarly research would also arrive at this very fundamental conclusion about 9/11? Seen any films, "documentaries", television interviews discussing the VicSim research? Any majorly distributed novels discussing it critically? Any widely-listened-to radio shows discussing the VicSim research and September Clues in any capacity other than saying, "yeah, pretty interesting stuff; now let's talk about these holograms a little more"; or, "I've read the VicSim report, and I don't buy it. It's hogwash" etc.

It is our duty to remain vigilant in our contempt for the social engineering and thought control which is constantly bombarding us every day, through every medium. If you cannot comprehend the simple fact that anyone touted as a "leading 9/11 researcher" or some such who isn't critically discussing the ongoing research of this forum is subject to immediate suspicion of gate-keeping, then I don't know what to tell you. It's a simple, basic concept. You know Mark Dice has had several videos bashing media fakery research, right? You know that he has appeared on the hilariously innocuous "Conspiracy Theory" television show, of course. The fact that these aren't enormous red flags to you serves as a testament to the depth of your research and, furthermore, your understanding of just how complexly manufactured the "truth movement" is.

I think one of the keys to you having your eyes opened is hidden in your sentence about finding one's own truth. This is relativism. Are you familiar with how much of a problem relativistic/post-Enlightenment-Era thinking has become for the human race? Especially on matters of critical importance! Do you understand how unproductive and dangerous it is? The truth is not a favorite band, a state of mind, nor an item of food on a buffet line. "Find your own truth". Please. One person contends that nuclear weapons took down the towers, and another insists that it was remote-controlled planes while another believes that the planes were holograms. These "theories" receive LOTS of attention and exposure by prominent figures in the "truth movement" and various "alternative media" sources. I guess they must all be correct (and far more worthy of mention than this forum's research), and that we should all just get along, eh? Can't go stepping on anyone's toes. Heavens, no. Let's all just exist in harmony, believing in whatever we want because it makes us feel better.

Again, it's dangerous to function this way, as you open yourself up to all manner of nonsense without realizing that you are not being as objective as you think you are.
Last edited by I, Gestalta on Tue Oct 01, 2013 10:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7341
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by simonshack »

RogerSmith wrote: There definitely are emotions to be expressed, but anger is not the one to become concerned with, lest we lose our ability to take productive action.
Roger,

I actually enjoy the philosophical discussion that you are proposing. So allow me to add some thoughts here. I do agree that we need to take productive action - and I will treasure all of the advice you may provide towards achieving productiveness.

Anger has never been my driving force - I have mostly been laughing my way through the silly psyops that America (and other allied nations of course) have been sending my way - as the fairly average person that I am (although I do not watch TV). I just think that what you may accuse me and this forum of difussing "anger" is more correctly defined as "disbelief".

DISBELIEF is not something aggressive. To be sure, it has nothing to do with anger. It is just the result of not believing in something that is told to you - by the media, in this case. I believe that ALL the members of this forum are motivated by their DISBELIEF in what they are told by the media. "Anger" is just an ancillary and redundant (yet very human and understandable) feeling. I wouldn't blame my dog for angrily barking at another dog peeing upon him. But my disbelief would be great. Why would a dog pee upon another dog?
brianv
Member
Posts: 3971
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 10:19 pm
Contact:

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by brianv »

I daresay Roger has not been exposed to the dictum Falsis in Uno, Falsis in Omnibus. I'll explain it briefly for Roger : When a Witness in a Court of Law gives evidence and is found to be lying about any part of the event he "witnessed", the Judge may direct that his whole testimony should be discarded. False in One - False in All.

It's all bullshit Roger. Not some of it, or take-your-pick parts of it, but all of it.
RogerSmith
Member
Posts: 48
Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2013 6:26 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by RogerSmith »

Of everyone's statements, brianv's simple sentence clarified things the most for me:
It's all bullshit Roger. Not some of it, or take-your-pick parts of it, but all of it.
After reading that I figured that's correct, yes, but how do we determine what is and isn't part of it to begin with - oh yeah, association.
lux
Member
Posts: 1913
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by lux »

RogerSmith wrote:... how do we determine what is and isn't part of it to begin with - oh yeah, association.
Roger, I think you may have a misunderstanding regarding the concept of fallacious "guilt by association."

This is an example of fallacious guilt by association:
- Joe is a thief. Joe wears a red hat. Therefore all people who wear a red hat are thieves.

This is NOT fallacious:
- Joe is a member of a gang. The gang commits crimes regularly. Therefore Joe is probably a criminal too and should not be trusted.

Do you see the difference? The first example is completely arbitrary and nonsensical but the second example is not because a person who associates with known criminals IS likely to be one too.
RogerSmith
Member
Posts: 48
Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2013 6:26 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by RogerSmith »

I understand the difference but didn't bother specifying, I'm pretty tired of discussing this.

J > T
J > R
---
R > T

Bad logic.

J > G
G > C
---
J > C

Good logic.
Post Reply