THE "CHATBOX"

[arc300]

NYC buildings collapse in explosion, two dead
source:http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/ar ... d=11218677

"... At least two people were killed, 18 injured and an undisclosed number were missing. ..."

Maybe it's nothing, but:



EDIT:
OK, it was nothing:

[sunshine05]

This is all I needed to read:

Ashley Rivera, 21, said an odor of gas had lingered on the block for weeks.

"We saw people flying out of the windows. Those are my neighbors," said Rivera, holding back tears.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/upt ... z2vmLiq7Vb

[anonjedi2]

From the link above...

A thunderous explosion in East Harlem sent "people flying out the windows," killing two women, injuring 22 and leveling two buildings Wednesday morning, the Fire Department and witnesses said.

Mayor de Blasio said the search continued for people still unaccounted for three hours after the blast at 9:31 a.m.
An NYPD source said nine to 12 people were missing...

...Officials said 250 firefighters were fighting the five-alarm blaze where the two five-story buildings containing a piano store and Spanish Christian Church once stood. One building had six apartments, the other nine, according to de Blasio...

Diana Cortez, 56, went to Harlem Hospital desperately searching for her 67-year-old cousin, Carmen Tanco, who lived above the church...

Residents of a building neighboring the site had complained of gas at 9:13 a.m. — 18 minutes before the explosion, Con Edison spokeswoman Elizabeth Matthews said.

Related - Queens woman, 92, killed in morning house fire

They fought the blaze at 10:30am



http://www.nydailynews.com/news/harlem- ... -1.1718915

[hoi.polloi]

Why use the passive "I was accused of being a shill" to target the entire collective attitude of 100+ different members of CluesForum? Why can't he be specific about who was accusing him and why? We are not a fucking hivemind. When has being insulted not been par for the course in a debate of this level of intellectual import? Practically anyone can be and practically everyone has been accused of being a shill or perp or of being intellectually dishonest across most recent research into revisionist science and history.

I used to post on Cluesforum. I started a topic that ran to several hundred posts before I was accused of being a shill at which point I "resigned" from posting. I haven't been banned (as of yet) but I no longer share info with them. While they have extremely valuable, interesting and useful information there is a force pushing back against intellectual advance. Possibly the issue is since they have "solved 9/11" they want nothing and/or no-one to go farther than they have gone. So while they do excellent analysis on a variety of issues it's all for show, entertainment in a certain sense.

That's a bit annoying. We are not a "we" acting in concert. CluesForum is composed of a bunch of different people who not sometimes but often disagree. What set him off so? Did he expect universal acceptance of his theories without question? What kind of spoiled behavior is that? He received better treatment here than most any other random user, despite our range of questions, and he handled them with grace, patience and aplomb. It sounds like he just isn't comfortable with the idea of questioning and testing his information beyond a certain point. It seems to me it has very little to do with anyone's inability to get past an intellectual hurdle, except his own inability to be comfortable with the facts that the next conclusions and questions from his theory are as of yet unknown. What did he even present that was left unaddressed? Has he incorrectly imagined he posted something that never actually made it to the board? Did I miss something?

Is he upset that a Christian called him out on recycled information and lazy research into Christianity? Is it that a few people asked him questions about his "free expansion" theory? Where and how did anyone here "push back" on "intellectual advance"? What he's said at LetsRoll is a manipulative and disappointing distortion of his treatment and anybody with a brain could read all his posts here and see how well he was treated relative to any one else with new information to share.

If he is just angry that he hasn't been given administration status at the drop of a hat, he needs to learn that part of intellectual discourse is satisfying a certain range of intellectual questions raised by research. Hardly anybody subjected Boethius to much more than cursory questions, and still he's offended or put off and acting ill-treated? Did most users not just absorb his information and create new questions based on his premise? What does he expect, devotion? Worship?

There is no good reason we are accused of being "all for show" — but very good reason to recognize we are the opposite; we are serious about questioning information. We are really all about emphasizing the importance of testing information.

Boethius, if you are uncomfortable having your information get the slightest rebuke because people want evidence and proof first, don't go play victim with the folks at LetsRoll. Please, respect the attitude of science, and don't play the boring old game of distorting your treatment because of your own intellectual cowardice.

[lux]

^ His LetsRoll post was written in Dec 2013. The Christian posts he left here were written later, in Feb 2014. So, his comments about Simon and the forum must be referring only to his earlier "free expansion" posts. After posting his LRF comments he returned here in February with his Christian posts which were not well received according to the replies posted.

[truthseeker]

The amount of "created" confusion this month is more than I have noticed in along while.
Huge airplane missing, falling buildings "gas leaks" ,symbolic numbers being published in these events.
China knife attacks. It seems to be getting even more global than before.

Strange days indeed...

[hoi.polloi]

^ His LetsRoll post was written in Dec 2013. The Christian posts he left here were written later, in Feb 2014. So, his comments about Simon and the forum must be referring only to his earlier "free expansion" posts. After posting his LRF comments he returned here in February with his Christian posts which were not well received according to the replies posted.

Okay, I thought I noted the timing on that. It's stranger he should return without explanation after such casual statements about what he says we are "all about". I guess it was a phase of feeling like he had to whine and thanklessly spread ill rumor about how he was received.

[ElSushi]

To be honest ElSushi, I just felt you were being quite forward and presumptive and it didn't bode well for a personal meeting. I observe people online for a while before I decide to meet them in person. Perhaps you and I will meet one day, but it just wasn't the time.

Quite forward and presumptive.Right.
Based on some quite pedant / arrogant emails of yours which we exchanged afterwards during that time, I don't really think we will ever meet and you know what that's totally fine with me.

[hoi.polloi]

To be honest ElSushi, I just felt you were being quite forward and presumptive and it didn't bode well for a personal meeting. I observe people online for a while before I decide to meet them in person. Perhaps you and I will meet one day, but it just wasn't the time.

Quite forward and presumptive.Right.
Based on some quite pedant / arrogant emails of yours which we exchanged afterwards during that time, I don't really think we will ever meet and you know what that's totally fine with me.

I said at the time. Why are you bringing your problems up now? In this setting?

We are not friends, and we might not have experiences to share as you presume, so you can't just throw your digital arm around me and call me your pal and act like you might with your buddies. That to me is the flipside of the way I tried to create emotional distance between us. Perhaps this is a cultural thing. You are French, non? As much as I'd like to be able to do that with people right off the bat, I just don't mon ami. This "role" I am in seems to require of me a lot less warmth than you expect. I need to maintain my doubt of people, particularly it seems in this research, until a time we meet. I don't understand why my skepticism of you and your experiences — the same I might give anybody — specifically seems to make you so emotional and heated with me.

And it may sound pedantic and arrogant to you but you are the one inflating our language barrier if you choose to take my e-mails to you as permanent rebuffs, and to the extent that you would never want to meet in person under any circumstances. All I repeat is that I am skeptical of you and your experiences, which I say to everyone. I am not treating you with implicit benefit of the doubt like I have with researchers with a large body of work I admire, like Simon. And it doesn't help that you act so emotional when you don't get your way. I don't respond well to that. That's the kind of thing I'm talking about when I say you are being brusque in your manner. I don't mean offense, it's "our" problem, not yours, I am not targeting you or saying you are bad. If you are an emotional person, then I am sorry, but I would ask you to please turn that stuff "down" a little if we met.

To me, your saying you never want to meet seems a bit extreme. I think you could be genuine but forgive me if I am just patient for a time that you are not so "touchy" in your demands of me. I am not sure why you act so furious that I do not comply with your expectations. But if I'm misreading you as being overly forthright and presumptive or emotionally manipulative again, please correct me. I honestly thought at the time that I was not ready to meet you. And your responses now also seem a bit "flame-war"-ish even though nothing has transpired between us except attempts to negotiate our expectations. Why do you treat me like a monster when I suggest we take it easy?

[ElSushi]

" I said at the time. Why are you bringing your problems up now? In this setting? "

My problems ? There's no issue señor Hoi Polloi. Just found a little odd the way you seem to be observing people on line according to some of your specific criteria.

" We are not friends, and we might not have experiences to share as you presume, so you can't just throw your digital arm around me and call me your pal and act like you might with your buddies."

Oh my, if I remember well,I just humbly asked you if you were interested in setting up a meeting in S.Korea during that time. I have never asked anything else as I have also never expected us to become "friends". The rest is up to your own interpretation Monsieur.

" Perhaps this is a cultural thing. You are French, non? As much as I'd like to be able to do that with people right off the bat, I just don't mon ami. This "role" I am in seems to require of me a lot less warmth than you expect. "

Born and raised in Spain until the age of 10 and later moved to France,so I guess that makes me some kind of half Spanish half French given that I had to speak both languages at home.Latin European if you prefer.
As for the warmth part, I can understand.Simon and I never had any kind of mis communication problem so far and yes,perhaps this could have to do with some background / cultural issue. Minneapolis must be a cold place for sure.

" I am not treating you with implicit benefit of the doubt like I have with researchers with a large body of work I admire, like Simon "

That's all right too. I have never been implicitly looking for any sort of consideration coming from your behalf. Hope this helps to clarify that point.

" I don't understand why my skepticism of you and your experiences — the same I might give anybody — specifically seems to make you so emotional and heated with me. "

Well, I don't understand your pedantic attitude with me either so yes you can expect some people to get a "little" emotional sometimes,although I feel totally relaxed while writing this message.

" I think you could be genuine but forgive me if I am just patient for a time that you are not so "touchy" in your demands of me. I am not sure why you act so furious that I do not comply with your expectations. "

Once again,it's your own interpretation not mine and that's totally fine.I don't remember acting "furious" with you, décidément, you have a certain talent for embellishing our few past digital interactions.

" Why do you treat me like a monster when I suggest we take it easy? "

Am I, really ?
As previously mentioned, you haven't really seen me "trolling out" here on the forum.
Learn how to be a little more courteous and less pedantic,I guess that would surely help a bit.Or just don't waste your time answering my emails,definitely the best way to avoid being a little too emotional.

[hoi.polloi]

Well, alright. It just seemed like you were dissatisfied just because I say "No, I don't want to meet just yet." and your response seems to be, "If not now, never!" which I am not sure how to take. I am glad you don't really feel that way (?). I admit it has been perpetually hard to read you in a straight fashion because of the emotionality.

I am not without emotion myself but I do have to consider rationally about meeting people in person. Don't you?

I am glad to be reminded of your background. It sounds like a passionate/interesting mix, like Simon's. Minneapolis is cold, but there are sunshine and warmth (and beautiful thunder storms) in the summer. Weather and people about as varied as they come. I still don't know why you feel the need to make insulting puns and take little digs at me just because I don't trust you. You seem to think I'm "arrogant" and "pedantic" and "cold" if I think you are acting irrationally. Have I called you any names that I don't mean? Is this how you treat strangers? Friends? I am concerned about your ability to control yourself in person.

[ElSushi]

Ouh la la, now I would have a tendency to act "irrationally".

Well, ask Simon in case you would want to do a personality "check" with me.

I admit it has been perpetually hard to read you in a straight fashion because of the emotionality.

I'm going to repeat myself again, the idea of not being able to meet you in person has never really been an issue in itself, it has more to do with the "way" you've expressed yourself regarding this issue and the few mails we exchanged afterwards. I just don't know, I sincerely hope you will find more trustworthy , more reliable and "less emotionally involved" CF members to meet in person.

Looks like I failed the test, que lastima...

I am concerned about your ability to control yourself in person.

I will try to take this last comment not too seriously, I promise, I will try.

[hoi.polloi]

???

I will try to take this last comment not too seriously, I promise, I will try.

Actually, I would like you to consider its seriousness. It's like your fingers are loose and you just let your emotional thoughts out as you type. I am concerned that someone like that may be someone like Simon's friend who suddenly allowed his emotions (playfulness?) to control his fists.

Here are some examples. They are some things you may find pedantic but I would just like clarity on.

You use turns of speech as if you are not aware that they carry particular meaning. For instance you decide we are not meeting and then add, "You know what? That's fine by me!" but in English when you use the term "You know what? That's fine" it translates into something like, "Guess how much I don't care!"

It is like a childish taunt. Like "I know what you are but what am I?"

So I am left to assume you either don't know what that means or you are using it incorrectly or you are using it with the intention of trying to be emotionally manipulative. Does that make sense to you?

You insert "Ou la la" as if it imply something happening is fancy, as if something I have done is an action of the bourgeois. Is this true? What do you mean exactly by "Ou la la" if not that? Please feel free to explain this because it could be interpreted a number of ways, pleasant or unpleasant or nonsensical or ... ? I hope this continues to make sense. My line of reasoning in trying to interpret your words.

You say "Qué lástima" as if to imply you should be pitied about not meeting. Are you being caustic here? What is the meaning of it? If it's not being caustic, why is it a pity?

You call me "Monsieur" a number of times. What does it mean to address me as Mister in the French? Why use these terms? I presume this is just a playful return of my saying "mon ami". But am I wrong?

I am sorry, ElSushi, I just don't understand these things. How am I meant to take them? You feel that I am being imaginative in interpreting phrases in English typically used to interact with someone thought haughty and better than the speaker. You say you feel I am crafting this interpretation with you artificially and embellishing meaning, when in fact I am doing my darnedest to wrap my head around your curious use of the language while denying the implicit meaning your words would have if I were to assume you and I were speaking the same language — which I have been doing up until now, when it occurred to me that perhaps that was a poor assumption on my part. (No offense meant! English can be a terribly difficult, confusing and badly organized language when spoken let alone written, according to many an English teacher/professor!)

So, what more courtesy could I show you? You say I should be courteous, but does that mean I must forfeit my right to distrust you, mistrust you, be suspicious or even wary of meeting strangers? Probably not. Does it mean I should assume you don't know how you read to some "native" English speakers? Perhaps?

I am not being witty. There is no "test" to pass or fail. This isn't sarcastic sparring or intellectual debate. But you seem to think it is. (Unless that was additional sarcasm? Unless I am continuing to misinterpret you?) Could this be why you seem to be taking my most innocuous comments a little personally? Responding sarcastically? Because you cannot believe how dense I am, you actually think I am writing everything with ulterior meaning?

Perhaps because of this cultural difference that Simon does not have with you, but which I do, you genuinely will not accept that I do not understand your meaning and desire clarity on these terms which generally, in English speech, connote a taunting, chiding person.

Does that make sense to you? Maybe the missing element here is that you should not be assuming I am understanding you? Perhaps you could assume that we are both sensitive? Would that help us communicate? How shall I talk to you? What are your rules for a "way" someone may express distrust of you, without incurring what seems to be your sarcastic "way"? And I am not writing this sarcastically.

Normally, on this forum, you could be banned for such language, despite the possibility it is a misunderstanding because we simply do not have time to decipher every English that comes across as very rude, but I have been trying to hear you being as courteous as you want me to be and I am having a hard time of it. Perhaps I am dense. So because of our personal correspondence I am prepared to make an exception for you and so I am asking: please explain how this is my miscommunication or misinterpretation or as you put it "embellishment" of your words. You can do so here or through my e-mail, whichever is comfortable!

[ElSushi]

Mail sent.

Done.Hopefully for good this time.

[lux]

We had a very mild earthquake in LA this morning. Nowhere near enough to cause any damage. My neighborhood's dogs didn't even bother to bark.

But, here is how a couple of our local news twits responded to it:


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiB7ny52-xw