9/11 > The Pentagon Strike
Pentagon first responder
Approaching Infinity:
Sorry for the off-topic (or not) one-liner, but does anyone else smell baking?
Heimdallr:
--- Quote from: stevenwarran ---Dear Joe the Administrator
First of all, I didn't go over to the RI forum--they came to me. Got it?
--- End quote ---
Chill out dude. It was a perfectly legitimate question that Joe asked. You react as though someone asked you something that was obvious. It was not, thus the question.
Would you care to elaborate on what you mean by "They came to me"? Did someone contact you personally?
--- Quote from: stevenwarran ---Which is also how I got over here: a flurry of visits via links in SOTT threads.
--- End quote ---
Let me clarify that people who are visiting your site via links on the SOTT forum is not "SOTT coming to you", as you would put it. It's people surfing the web. If a SOTT editor would personally contact you, that would be an official contact by SOTT. You are implying in the above quote that that is what happened.
--- Quote from: stevenwarran ---And why you seem to have gotten the idea that I would advocate a theory that I myself find implausible must result from some pure masturbatory impulse on your part, which you then classically throw out as an offense when you should just rely on it as a sordid defense. I advocate truth to the best of my considerable abilities, AND THAT'S THAT!
--- End quote ---
Well, that would be for everyone else to determine, that is, whether you advocate truth or not. Based on your reaction to Joe's perfectly legitimate questions, I would say you have a lot of work to do on just communicating in a respectful manner.
--- Quote from: stevenwarran ---Then umm...(my way with eh) since we know what it is not, pray tell, what is SOTT? Is this too hard a question? Want it in sterilized iambic haiku?
--- End quote ---
Again, you are being rude. First of all, since you haven't asked "what is SOTT?" before, why are you acting like it's a question that hasn't been answered yet. No, it's not a hard question. Since this is the first time you have asked, I don't understand why you have reacted in such a defensive manner.
You say, "is this too hard a question"? What gave you the idea that it would be a hard question?
--- Quote from: stevewarren ---Really, there's no accounting for taste.
--- End quote ---
That's a fairly ridiculous statement, considering the post I am responding too.
anart:
Well, Steve, if this is how you interacted on the RI forum, I see why you were banned and it probably had little to do with the 'no plane hoax'. Verbally abusive and offensive posts are the fastest way to get banned on any forum and your above post qualifies on both counts.
SOTT is an internet news site - were you not aware of that? www.sott.net - it's pretty simple, really. The purpose of the SOTT forum is clearly outlined if you click on the 'rules' tab at the top of the page.
By the way, it's also a bit ironic to complain about feeling 'lonely and bereft' and then display the kind of behavior that is more than enough to turn you into an instant outcast - just my two cents.
Perceval:
--- Quote from: stevenwarran ---Dear Joe the Administrator
First of all, I didn't go over to the RI forum--they came to me. Got it? Which is also how I got over here: a flurry of visits via links in SOTT threads. (And while I'm at it, Craig Ranke and company CAME TO ME, not vice versa.) And why you seem to have gotten the idea that I would advocate a theory that I myself find implausible must result from some pure masturbatory impulse on your part, which you then classically throw out as an offense when you should just rely on it as a sordid defense. I advocate truth to the best of my considerable abilities, AND THAT'S THAT!
--- Quote from: Joe ---
--- Quote from: stevenwarran ---Dear Ottershrew-- I hadn't caught on that, at base, SOTT was about channeled communications, and that explains a lot.
--- End quote ---
Eh...(that interrogative utterance is rather useful on this thread) SOTT is not at base about channeled communications.
Joe
--- End quote ---
Then umm...(my way with eh) since we know what it is not, pray tell, what is SOTT? Is this too hard a question? Want it in sterilized iambic haiku?
And Craig, stop playing little games with me. You are as insider as left-over peanut butter in a jar. I come up with Isabel James--you come up with her husband. I come up with Aziz--you come up with an undisclosed Ingersoll photo of him. If you were the one chasing demons YOU WOULD HAVE BEEN MUCH NICER TO ME, ESPECIALLY NOW!
Really, there's no accounting for taste.
--- End quote ---
Steve, why so defensive? Why are you having a freak-out attack in response to some simple questions? While it seems to be important to you that RI "came to you" rather than you going to them, it is of no importance to me, I said "you went over to the RI forum" because I assume that you had to "go over there" in order to post a comment, yes?
I said that you advocated a theory that you find implausible because that appears to be what you yourself said:
--- Quote from: steve ---I just got banned this morning by Jeff over at Rigorous Intuition because of my support for the No-Planes and T.V.-Fakery theories (neither of which is even in my area of 9-11 advocacy,)
--- End quote ---
What you wrote makes it pretty clear that you do not advocate "the No-Planes and T.V.-Fakery theories" but you were on the RI forum "supporting" these theories. Now tell me, if I support something, does that not mean that I advocate it?
Sott is a news and political commentary web site, even a cursory glance at the site makes that clear.
Btw, we don't tolerate abusive language here, the same goes for agenda pushing and an inability to discuss and share in a manner befitting normal human beings. Those are the rules. If you don't like them, then this forum is not for you.
Joe
stevenwarran:
Ottershrew said, "As you may already have gathered, the background to this forum lies in channeled communications."
I said, "I hadn't caught on that, at base, SOTT was about channeled communications, and that explains a lot."
Joe the Administrator said, "SOTT is not at base about channeled communications," without further elaboration.
So it is rude of me to on the surface say an obviously vexing and provocative thing like, "Got it?" Unadorned. Unshielded.
Yet Joe, the "Administrator," can tell me where I am wrong, with nary a concern for constructively righting my misinformation, and that is seen as sophisticated sophistry and not rudeness. This coming after his light chiding I was likely to find my beliefs will be found insane here.
Is all this because of my imprecision with language? "At base," for "background." "My area of 9-11 advocacy," instead of "My area of 9-11 core competency?"
And who are all you other people? I was talking to Ottershrew and Joe. Is it fun to "lay on?"
Maybe I was having a bad day.
And maybe I don't know how to get off on the right foot.
Maybe I have a spanking fetish and Joe is an authority trigger.
And what the hell does "baking" mean?
I can hear your voices talking behind these words. Can you hear me? RI "came to me," is translated as either "I don't go trolling," or "I have been working in painful isolation. I don't reach out to while away the hours"
I can tell you I believe whole-heartedly in every word I've ever written, especially the mistakes. and if that reads as "agenda pushing," or "abusive language," or "an inability to discuss and share in a manner befitting normal human beings," to you, then I guess somewhere along the line I'll figure out what the spending the last half-hour of my life was worth. But not here. And not now.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version