Pentagon first responder

S

stevenwarran

Guest
Dear Ottershrew-- I hadn't caught on that, at base, SOTT was about channeled communications, and that explains a lot. Craig Ranke was the first person to ever call me clairvoyant. Last I heard Narcissus wasn't considered an oracle of Apollo (although he had other...um...talents,) so my malaise is properly attributed to jonesing for the thrill (ego alone?) that I feel when that stuff is coming through me. And since it's not at present, I'll try and "tighten up," and your kind and timely missive is an enormous help for me to carry on in the mean time.

Yours is also the first word I've had that my blog has been poisoned by hacking. I understand that it's a compliment to be worthy of sabotage, but what to do? I have loads of inchoate research (imagine how much fun it is to realize the construction industries--especially the Italian-surnamed concrete companies--are involved in the conspiracy!) but I am so far behind the times technologically speaking, I wouldn't know how to begin promoting myself. Maybe I should start a new blog using computers at the library and just copy and paste?

In any event, thank you for being there--from the beginning I might add. To say you see the heart in my efforts compensates for those times when people call me an "internet hate machine."
 

Joe

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
stevenwarran said:
Hello Any Intelligent Life Out There--

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,) and I'm feeling lonely and bereft.

Then, in a bit of synchronization, someone from over here visited my little-known corner of the universe at _http://stevenwarran.blogspot.com[ I had had all my bookmarks (and passwords) eaten again recently by some insatiable monster, and while I hadn't forgotten about SOTT, it probably would have taken drugs for me to have focused enough to find my way back here.

Apparently, there is some overlap of memberships between RI and SOTT. Anybody who cares to visit me and feed the maw of my SiteCounter, I'd appreciate the company, although I don't think I've contributed much recently. According to many of the high-brow RI types I'm the problem, and I must state for the record, I like Lyndon LaRouche, and if he's a fascist, so am I.

There. I probably have said too much. So be it.
Well, we won't ban you for supporting the "no planes TV fakery" theories, but we will question your sanity! :-) Then again, it seems you are saying that you went over to the RI forum and advocated a theory that you yourself don't believe to be plausible. So, eh...what was your goal in doing that?
 

Joe

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
stevenwarran said:
Dear Ottershrew-- I hadn't caught on that, at base, SOTT was about channeled communications, and that explains a lot.
Eh...(that interrogative utterance is rather useful on this thread) SOTT is not at base about channeled communications.

Joe
 

Craig Ranke CIT

Padawan Learner
stevenwarran said:
Craig Ranke was the first person to ever call me clairvoyant.
I was?

Didn't we tell you that your 6th sense was "cracked"?
;)

While you are a pretty good picture starer I must admit the fact that you have cast us as one of "them" has turned me off to your work a bit.

But keep your chin up......lots of progress is being made.

We've got the demons on the run.

They are scrambling for sure.
 
S

stevenwarran

Guest
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!

Joe said:
stevenwarran said:
Dear Ottershrew-- I hadn't caught on that, at base, SOTT was about channeled communications, and that explains a lot.
Eh...(that interrogative utterance is rather useful on this thread) SOTT is not at base about channeled communications.

Joe
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.
 

Beau

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
stevenwarran said:
Dear Joe the Administrator

First of all, I didn't go over to the RI forum--they came to me. Got it?
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?

stevenwarran said:
Which is also how I got over here: a flurry of visits via links in SOTT threads.
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.

stevenwarran said:
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!
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.

stevenwarran said:
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?
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?

stevewarren said:
Really, there's no accounting for taste.
That's a fairly ridiculous statement, considering the post I am responding too.
 

anart

The Living Force
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.
 

Joe

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
stevenwarran said:
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!

Joe said:
stevenwarran said:
Dear Ottershrew-- I hadn't caught on that, at base, SOTT was about channeled communications, and that explains a lot.
Eh...(that interrogative utterance is rather useful on this thread) SOTT is not at base about channeled communications.

Joe
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.
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:

steve said:
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,)
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
 
S

stevenwarran

Guest
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.
 

Beau

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
stevenwarren displayed a complete inability to control his emotions and communicate in a civil manner. He also was taking up the time of others to try and get him to calm down. He did not show any ability to do that, so he has been banned.
 

anart

The Living Force
stevenwarran said:
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.
What further elaboration was necessary? Joe was being honest. Ottershrew was sharing his/her understanding which is simply not complete. Some of the associated web pages of this forum deal with 'channeled communications' but SOTT, by definition, does not. I really don't see the reason for your continued aggression.

sw said:
So it is rude of me to on the surface say an obviously vexing and provocative thing like, "Got it?" Unadorned. Unshielded.
Actually, yes, it is rude.

sw said:
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.
Actually, Joe was being extremely polite in his response, considering your provocation and aggression. If you were familiar at all with this forum, then you would realize that anyone advocating the 'no plane' theory here would have their sanity challenged - and - hmmm - didn't you previously say that you didn't advocate this theory - so how, then, are these your 'beliefs'?

ws said:
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?"
Perhaps. So, are you now saying that you do advocate the 'no plane' theory, but it's not your 'core competency'? Does it depend on what the meaning of 'is' is?

sw said:
And who are all you other people? I was talking to Ottershrew and Joe. Is it fun to "lay on?"
:lol: 'lay on'? In case you were unaware, this is a forum, not a personal telephone conversation. When anyone posting on this forum makes aggressive and offensive comments to another person on this forum, it is noticed, and quickly - because we do not tolerate such behavior here.

sw said:
Maybe I was having a bad day.
Perhaps, but why should this forum 'pay' for your bad day by being the recipients of your verbal abuse? Judging from this last response, it seems a rather long day for you.

sw said:
And maybe I don't know how to get off on the right foot.
Perhaps, but that is not this forum's responsibility.

sw said:
Maybe I have a spanking fetish and Joe is an authority trigger.
Perhaps, but there are other forums for engaging in such behavior - let me guess - you think that was funny, right?

sw said:
And what the hell does "baking" mean?
Hmmm - I believe it means 'cooking' with heat.

sw said:
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"
What do you mean you can 'hear your voices' - is that literal? It also seems that 'came to me' means - by your definition - visited your website? Please correct me if I'm wrong - but if so, that's a rather interesting definition, especially when used as a defense against pushing your own agenda on another site. Perhaps you should put up a disclaimer on your web site stating that any visitor has 'come to you' thus you are free to return the favor and interact any way you see fit? It might cut down on confusion.

The painful isolation aspect is rather well understood, however - most truth seekers do find themselves at that point sooner or later, until they learn to network effectively.

sw said:
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,"
Apologies, but are you saying that you do not consider the language you used to be abusive? Are you also stating that you believe - especially - the mistakes you have written?

sw said:
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.
I'm a bit confused by this last part - are you stating that this is the 'last half hour of your life' - as in you are going to commit suicide? Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, and I hope that I am, because committing suicide over getting banned by a website is indicative of much deeper problems and much deeper pain than we are able to deal with here. If this is the case, all I can suggest is that you hold on until tomorrow - just one more night. See how things seem tomorrow and look into getting some support - no one can do this alone.

If this was another sarcastic joke of yours, then it's still not a bad idea to get some support.
 

Joe

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
beau said:
stevenwarren displayed a complete inability to control his emotions and communicate in a civil manner. He also was taking up the time of others to try and get him to calm down. He did not show any ability to do that, so he has been banned.
More than that, he was clearly not suited to this forum given his statement:

stevewarren said:
I can tell you I believe whole-heartedly in every word I've ever written, especially the mistakes.
Joe
 

Ottershrew

Jedi Master
Hi everyone

I've sent Steven an email (and if you're reading this, Steven, check your email!) trying to explain some things about this forum, which he may not have appreciated before.

Agreed - Steven did a great job of losing his temper - and at this stage, at any rate, he proved rather too volatile for this place.

stevenwarran said:
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.
I don't understand that point about believing especially in the mistakes one makes. I guess it might mean "je ne regrette rien" or something of the sort, i.e. one's mistakes are especially useful because it's through them that we learn useful life-changing lessons. I imagine that's what he means. After all, you couldn't yourself call them mistakes unless you had learnt that they were mistakes. But there's not much clarity here ...

I hope he learns something from this incident. Which he might - but, as he says, "... not here. And not now." If I've read it right, it seems to be his choice that he moves on - as well as that of the administrators.

For what it's worth, Anart, I don't imagine he's considering suicide, or even making a joke about it. After all, why would he say he would later figure out what significance this last half-hour of his life had (presumably the one he spent on the forum, not his last ever), if he was dead?
 

Joe

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Ottershrew said:
Hi everyone

I've sent Steven an email (and if you're reading this, Steven, check your email!) trying to explain some things about this forum, which he may not have appreciated before.
I can't say I agree with your decision to email him, mainly because he gave no indication that he was interested in having the rules of the forum explained to him. As I see it, all he wanted was to be right. If I were you I would prepare myself for a response email that is full of attacks on sott and justifications of his position, all with a large helping of "poor me".

In short, a direct experience with a "right man"

http://www.rightmansyndrome.com/

Joe
 
Top Bottom