wake_up_bomb wrote:
i-baster has been back for at least a couple of days now and having very civil conversations on a bunch of threads. Nor has he called anyone crazy.
Some might say it's rude to level totally bullshit accusations at people.

Mike wrote: Sorry, I haven't got time to answer this properly. In short, I don't favour any form of representative democracy, even if constitutionalised.

wake_up_bomb wrote:
Except you haven't.
If you want to say things without knowing why you've said them that's up to you.

Mike wrote:
Yea Mike, I think half & Half is fair to say and it makes this forum a better place imo.

It's just to hard to go thru alot of the scattered madness on the DIF, there is more Balance here at SZ.

I find myself reading almost all of Dogsmilk & i-basters post on threads like this and and yours are good also.

knobmeup wrote:
I wasn`t talking about here. I was making a general point about various circles. The sanctumzone has the milder end of the conspiracy spectrum I think. Although on this topic we have seen mention of how the government will use this event and that in itself can easily slip into a conspiracy theory. Dread fella also mentioned it was a false flag which of course would be a conspiracy. Oioioi said hmmm to something that might lead to a conspiracy theory and he posted the guy on the roof picture. Nothing wrong with posting these things but they do lean in a certain direction and like I said I was not talking exclusively about this forum.

dogsmilk wrote: If you want to understand, ask Space Bandit as he thanked me for the original post so evidently understood it. I'm sorry, I don't have the time to explain things to you.

i-baster wrote:
They lead in the direction of people having open minds, and wishing to explore possibilities, while recognising that there is the realistic possibility of 'conspiracy' (not, as DM said earlier, automatically assuming there must be) which seems perfectly sensible and reasonable to me. Stubbornly refusing to acknowledge that that's even possible is not really indicative of just wanting to know the truth at all.

If it's specifically DIF threads people here are objecting to, go & whine about it on DIF!

wake_up_bomb wrote:
That is a personal attack on my character. It implies that I do not answer direct questions. It is not true.

wake_up_bomb wrote:
I appreciate that but I am not watching youtube videos right now. I am just letting you know that if there is an additional insight to be gained from that video I have not seen it.
What exactly do you have issue with? In my posts where I used the words crazy I imagine that I associated it with something.

You just have to read it. Did I call you crazy? No.
Well once again it is not relevant in my mind why I stopped posting for a while. I am back now and so you can rejoice or complain or whatever but it does not mean I am asking for you to be positive or anything. I did what was best for me. I really didn`t plan to return to be honest. I looked for another outlet but found myself drawn back here. Now I am here for the time being at least.

Gilly wrote:

I have not been to DIF for a long time for the record.

You see things one way and I see them another way. I think that seeing the conspiracy before looking at the evidence is clearly biased. We still know very little but the conspiracies are there. You are taking it personally for what reason ? I mean apart from your personal mini vendetta against me.

Imagine you are a NAN as this forum likes to mention.
1: incident happens.
2: response = Jews

That is not how to approach a search for truth.

He left for a while because he thinks it's OK, for example, to call me gullible (as per an earlier post on this thread) along with a great many other insults aimed at anyone who questions the official line on anything, yet is all injured at your 'personal attack' on his character when you accurately point out that he's evasive with his answers.

Thanks for responding to my q i-b. My mobile is set up to not show most pictures and no videos. I often just see a blank box when people have posted them. I guess that I must miss a lot...

yeah I am having a rare spell on a laptop right now but usually I am on my phone and the video posts etc can make it hard.

i-baster wrote:
Well since this is not how things are approached around here, it strikes me as a particularly stupid comment. I have no mini-vendetta against you btw - I find you insulting and often illogical, and exercise my right to say so.

I think I just accidentally deleted a post I'd made. It was an observation about how you feel it's OK to call me gullible (a few posts ago) despite that I've given no opinion re the bombings (except that it was an horrific and cowardly act) yet you cry 'personal attack' when WUB accurately points out that you often don't give direct answers.

My questions were: in your post you use the word 'crazy' more than once, and the word 'conspiracy' numerous times, along with words like 'absurd'. Anyone can read this for themselves.

Who specifically is 'crazy'?

Who on here has been spreading 'conspiracy theories'? And where?

And whose specific views are 'absurd'?

Quite straightforward questions, really. If you're not referring to someone on here, you should make it explicitly clear. If you are, who or what are you referring to?

You just said that "sanctumzone has the milder end of the conspiracy spectrum I think". Anyone can read this. So you think we're 'conspiracy theorists' presumably, and that these things are 'crazy' and 'absurd'. Why come back then?

I don't have a personal problem with you. I just think it is quite rude to come back to the site after a break and start throwing this sort of language around. Gilly agrees with me. So does knobmeup. If you've been affected by negativity in the past, don't come back and start making these sort of statements, it will tend to result in people being negative towards you!

knobmeup wrote: i-baster wrote:
Yea this forum is so much better on a laptop than phone dubs, maybe you could check thru the videos and pics from a library.

I try to watch alot of the media people post here in many sections of Sanctum Zone when i can.

Tbf wub I don't have a problem with i-b going, coming back, expressing his views or anything like it. I just asked for clarification of where people here had brought a conspiracy 'angle' into these bombings.


@mike. I'm not an advocate of overthrowing governments. I suggest people walk away from them en masse. So I'd have to answer your q with a negative.

@..... aye tis much better if you have broadband. No chance of that here though. I really don't have time for libraries or cafes either. I is a busy boy. Have had a day off today but had to to to trago for work boots and stuff...

wake_up_bomb wrote:

wake_up_bomb wrote:
I agree with his statement that "sanctumzone has the milder end of the conspiracy spectrum I think"

And what's this "don't come back and start making these sort of statements"?

He has the freedom of speech to come back and make any statement he want's.

So chill before i force oioioi to moderate you...

Gilly wrote:
I disagree. Not most people here but certainly some.
The difference is that one is my opinion and one is a false statement. I personally think that you are gullible regarding Sandy Hook mostly and sure that might be unfair to you as I do not know you that well but it is my view. Sorry if you don`t like that.

I always try to answer questions but people might not always like or accept my answers. If you ask a loaded question for example and then say "yes or no" as if no other answer is acceptable then you will not get an answer to satisfy you as I try not to answer loaded questions like that. I will give you my honest answer though. I think if anything I am too open on the internet.

.......... wrote: Perhaps I could have written "it would be advisable" instead of "don't". Would that be acceptable to you? Ultimately, I agree, he can do whatever he wants, I'm merely pointing out that it doesn't make much sense to complain about negativity, while implying that people on the site are 'crazy', 'absurd' and guilty of some sort of conspiracy madness, and now telling Gilly that she's 'gullible' as well, when in fact she's a very intelligent person. Obviously you will encounter negativity if you put forward these views. You know, like if you say over and over again that British people all live under the royal sceptre and just lie down and accept it, for example.