Why do we respond negatively though? That's the question for each of us no?

i-baster wrote:
Fucking Sandy Hook arguments belong on the Sandy Hook thread. You talked evasive crap on there and got into the insults, but cleared off sulking when you couldn't offer any proper argument - but not before you'd showed yourself up, announcing that a topic I posted was BS, and having RA point out to you that you were mistaken.

So you think I was gullible on a different thread than this one, and I think you're a soppy, sly idiot. That's got that out of the way. Now perhaps we could stick to debating the bombings here, eh?

knobmeup wrote: I personally respond this way because I think it's rude, especially when you've been away from the site for a while, and then as soon as you come back start telling people who've been here in your absence that they're 'gullible', and implying that others are crazy and so forth. It's really quite rude. While stating that the reason they left previously was because they got upset! Imagine if as soon as he'd come back to the site, people had attacked him and called him crazy, etc. Wouldn't have been very good form, would it? This didn't happen, and he's only been here two minutes, and he already feels qualified to tell Gilly that she's 'gullible'! But gets upset himself because other people are negative!

It's also completely unreasonable for someone to demand the right to have they say, and then deride other peoples' views as being crazy.

knobmeup wrote:
No.

What i'm getting at is we are responsible for our headspace. It's up to us how we respond to others. They may be the biggest pita ever and be really annoying. It's our fault though if we get annoyed, not theirs.

I do it, I know I do. I let my 'energy' be affected by others. I'm slowly learning to take my own power back.

That's for another thread though eh...

knobmeup wrote:
Well said dubs...

knobmeup wrote: I understand how you feel, Dub, and you're absolutely right in principle.

Would you like me to list the people we've lost, in many cases because their views were rubbished or derided? It's not a short list, I assure you. I would rather have kept these people than defend the right of someone to call others 'absurd', 'crazy', 'gullible', etc.

wake_up_bomb wrote:
Go ahead and list them because if they lurk you can make them aware.

knobmeup wrote:
You should start a thread about it y'know. It's worth giving some thought to.

wake_up_bomb wrote:
No need on my account wub. I gave a list myself just before I 'flounced' last time. That derision ting is widespread here innit.
Always has been and I see no sign of it going away as yet.
Kind of feeds back to the subject I just touched upon.

I would start a thread gilly but I've caned my allowance this month and will have no more after tonight. One or two may be happy that means I won't be about for a few days....

D'oh - do it when you come back then.

I think a healthy skepticism of the ofiicial story is a good thing but I can see the risks of assuming that every wild theory is to be accepted without similar skepticism. Otherwise one is easily mistracted.

Gilly wrote:
I was not making a Sandy Hook argument.
I don`t know what you are talking about. I stopped responding to the thread because I saw no point in going around in circles. It served no purpose for me. I made it clear how I saw things. You saw a big conspiracy and for that I think you are gullible.

WUB:
I have not that I recall called anybody crazy but like I said to you already please feel free to quote what I said that you have an issue with.

If I use the word crazy it is not necessarily aimed at an individual and It seems rather tiresome to have to constantly define basic English words and the meanings of those words.

i-baster wrote:
WE KNOW IT WASN'T AIMED AT AN INDIVIDUAL!!! That's the whole point!!! It was a smear on everybody who entertains the possibility that there's ever anything that's not as presented by the authorities. You know that, so stop wasting everybody's time and acting innocent. You knew what you were doing, and have done it and been pulled up for it before. Talk about rather bloody tiresome!

You clearly have a problem understanding what I said. Read what I said again or continue in your ignorance it makes no odds to me.

i-baster wrote:
It may shock you to learn that we can all read here, and are easily capable of comprehending your simplistic compositions. And it's here in this thread for everyone to see with their own eyes.

Well since not everybody has the same interpretation of what I have written I would suggest that it is a matter of personal interpretation. If you wish to take a vote or something feel free to start a topic about but otherwise I think this topic would be better on the topic of the Bombings and not on the topic starter.

i-baster wrote: Don't feel that you have to define the word 'crazy' for me, if I get confused, I'll look it up!

Everyone can look back at page 7 of this thread, if they can be bothered!

Who specifically on here is 'crazy'?

Specifically whose views are 'absurd'?

Who has posted any 'conspiracy theories' and where?

If no-one has, what is your reason for talking about it on about it on this thread?

I consider it rude, to say the least, to come here and start implying that people are crazy, and that their views are absurd. We have lost several people due to lack of respect. If you don't believe me, please feel free to contact the people that founded the site and those who have acted as moderators.

Who's expressed a different interpretation then?

i-baster wrote: Gilly wrote: i-baster wrote:
Kindly identify who these people are, and give examples.