toby-c-boon wrote:
Isn't that a bit of a narrow view though? I'd prefer a forum that discusses anything and everything, and I reckon SZ has got that balance just right

toby-c-boon wrote: Isn't it just sooo annoying when people don't comply with your narrow wishes and end up colouring outside the lines!!
Fucking humans and their whimsical ways!

On the other hand is that really your gripe?
Because what I witness here is someone who has wandered out of the ethernet mist with a messianic air delivering the answers to the ignorant masses and apparently not receiving the knee-bending deference they feel they so thoroughly deserve.

Yet this messiah has not yet even determined the nature of their would-be subjects. They are multi-faceted, they can be exceedingly strong or incredibly fragile depending upon the circumstances playing on them at the time, knowledgeable and interested in some areas, contentedly disinterested in others, They can often flit between the intensely serious or extremely flippant in a heartbeat.
In short, They tend not to be punched out with a cookie cutter designed to your specifications.

You were surprised at the reaction you received at 4chan?
Because you saw 4chan as a preconceived entity rather than a mass of individuals, each with their own story, experiences and interests.
You appear to be dissatisfied with your reception here. Again, the individuals fail to meet your preformed conception of the entity.

I note that you have not responded or contributed to any thread other than this one since your arrival. From that I conclude that you are not here to participate in a community discussion forum. You are here to hold court.

Of course when your head is in that self-aggrandising, distorted mindset it can't be you that's doing it wrong, it must be the whole community who's at fault and not worthy of your valuable time.

Cut the patronising bs mate. Climb down off your rickety pedestal and stick the fucking kettle on, it's your turn to make the tea.
Milk and one sugar ta.

xxx

irrepressible wrote:
To me everything in our reality is interconnected and everything is part of a grand conspiracy from subtle to gross.

I agree with you there noob, up to a point, this reality is pretty fucked up, but there are things and places the conspiracy can't touch

^^^^

Was talking a spot of nonsense due to insomnia

feather wrote:
I have already said that I came here with no preconceptions, same with 4chan. They have differed in that one group played the game and the other group has resisted. I would like to know why. That interests me. Especially as one of these groups purports to be interested in conspiracies and then tries to deny the fact and the other has no such veneer but was accepting.

The notable difference is that one is populated by people who are anonymous and the others have identities and therefore egos attached and all that goes with it.

Look at the way you are communicating. Who says "ta" in this day and age apart from you and other users on this site? I have not heard that since I was a child and read 'The Beano' where characters used to say "ta". Look at the way you are talking about subjugation by way of making the tea. That is the kind of thing that I mean. 4Chan is more homogenous and better for it. It engenders a more efficient way form of communication.

Yes, in a sense I am here to hold court but I have never once implied I know more or am worth more than others, it is your ego that is threatened. The process is selfish in a way because it is an excercise for my mind and a way of consolidating my understanding of reality. But are you honestly saying you can gain nothing from it? The only thing stopping you is you ego coming up with all sorts of reasons not to ask questions. Are you afraid on answers?

toby-c-boon wrote: That is obviously not true as you made the arrogant preconception that the members here, (and presumably at 4chan), were unable to determine answers for themselves and you possessed superior knowledge which you were prepared to graciously impart to them.
(1) Did it ever occur to you that those who participate in conspiracy discussions have had their fill of all-knowing gurus?
(2) No human, whether concealed behind an anonymous descriptor or avatar is without an ego. The word literally means 'I' or 'self'.
The occasion when you are having a discussion with an egoless entity on the web is the one where your talking with a bot.

toby-c-boon wrote: Just about everyone I know but I can't believe I even bothered to respond to that to be honest.
toby-c-boon wrote: I indicated it was "your turn" to make the tea. Rather than being symbolic of subjugation, it should have indicated that you were an equal and someone else would be making you tea when it was their turn.
toby-c-boon wrote:
(a)"All ques­tions will be answered." Not a lot of room for limits or humility in that statement eh?
(b) Why on earth would my 'self' be threatened? Please expand upon the dangers to me?
Do you mean my self-confidence perhaps because you may expose a lack of information or perception on my part?
My entire life has been spent in such exchanges with people from tiny children through to professors and all stops in between. I mostly enjoyed the experiences. The less enjoyable ones were the revelations of just how barbaric and disturbed people can be.
(c) Again you take the self-centric viewpoint. We all enter into knowledge and perception discussions to refine our understanding. Otherwise why would we bother? The difference is that everyone else would view it as a two-way exchange not a pontificating platform.
(d) Nice little bag of attempted derisory assumptions there. I asked you a question earlier regarding the whereabouts of Peter Piper's peck of pickled peppers. You replied with the co-ordinates for Edinburgh, rather than truthfully respond that the subject was merely a device in a tongue-twister and did not actually exist. So either you are not a trustworthy source of accurate information and therefore I should spend no more time indulging you or you were being jokey and flippant which apparently, according to your own standards, is not de rigueur for a conspiracy forum.


Here's your tea btw.

I say "ta", as do most of my family.



Sorry Toby...I liked the ask any question bit, but you've lost me somewhat now. And it is for this reason, (to coin common parlance that I know is relatively modern, as opposed to "ta", apparently) "I'm out".



Nice to meet you, though. And I do hope you continue to contribute to other threads here in the future.

toby-c-boon wrote:
G'day Toby-c-boon.

And how does equating having "left out the definition of "straw man arguments"" to you "not having used one" ?

That in itself is a straw man argument, of which a quote of the definition for it is here ...

A straw man, known in the UK as an Aunt Sally, is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

...

The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially similar position Y. The position Y is a distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including:
1. Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position.
2. Quoting an opponent's words out of context — i.e. choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent's actual intentions (see fallacy of quoting out of context).[2]
3. Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then refuting that person's arguments — thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.[1]
4. Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
5. Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.
3. Person B attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position fails to constitute an attack on the actual position.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
toby-c-boon wrote:
So, by making the statement, "In the end ...", you are making a positive claim that there is an "end", yet when questioned on the validity of such a thing as "the end", you are unwilling to provide evidence to support your claim and simply repeat your claim AS IF it can be the only answer ... yet on top of arguing from ignorance by attempting to shift the burden of proof, you add a straw man to defend your position.
toby-c-boon wrote:
A reminder of what Boots stated ...
Boots wrote:
... to which you commented on, stating ...
toby-c-boon wrote:
... and which I replied with ...

"Boots actually proposed that there isn't an end as time loops back around on itself, not that "it begins again". There would have to an ending for it to begin again."

So, yeah, no "end" means there wouldn't be a beginning, of which you stated, "Your argument that there is no end because it begins holds no weight ...", makes no sense as you now state, "Without the end there can be no beginning ...".

As is clearly shown, you falsely presented Boots statement. Where's the difficulty in comprehending that ?

Or is it only in admitting it ?
toby-c-boon wrote:
Boots stated what he stated, nothing more, nothing less. Instead of responding to what Boots actually has stated, you have built a straw man argument.

I find it interesting that you appear to not like being questioned about the statements that you make, yet have started a thread requesting questions ?!?!?!?

Personally, I think that it is rather ironic.

toby-c-boon wrote:
G'day Toby-c-boon.

And other forum members are calling it as they see it ... where's the problem ?

Are you unwilling to accept that others are entitled to call it as they see it ?

This thread has evolved in the manner in which it has evolved, not withstanding your expectations of the manner in which it could have evolved. The only possible 'blame' that could be involved is yours for having expectations and not having those expectations met.

That two new forum members are singing from the same song sheet ...
Master11 wrote:
... means jack shit. Though isn't it interesting that you appear to harbour expectations and are both disappointed in the manner in which you have been interacted with on this forum. If you are both so disappointed, why are you still here posting ?

It appears that you both enjoy projecting your own issues onto others.

toby-c-boon wrote:
'Ta' is northern slang for thanks. Loads of people use it.

Dear toby,

I liked your thread, and you didn't do anything wrong, because you never claimed to be anyone you aren't. I was impressed by your answers, and viewed it as both interesting an fun.

Had you approached things a bit differently - perhaps by making yourself known to people here by contributing to existing threads - I think the outcome would have been better than this unpleasant slanging match that's developed.

In fairness, it doesn't seem very balanced to present yourself as the fountain of all knowledge, and then accuse everyone else here of being egotistical. It seems to me that if you're so unimpressed with this whole forum and it's members and the way it's run, you could either change your expectations and take it for what it is, or go and be an oracle elsewhere, where you feel you're suitably appreciated.

Says you IAM who was projecting your issues the other day... Cant barely stand or sit down! HAHA, yeah you get my sympathy vote... NOT!
Read my thread on negative and positive energy and understand that you too must therefore accept yourself as a person who is projecting negative energy towards others and therefore is an energy vampire... This is shown by the fact you won't just ask a question yet will continue to project foul language just to bully your way around the forum... Yeah, that's another assumption of yourself from myself seen as that's the only way you accept criticism. There are a few more personal assumptions I could give about yourself but I would be stupid to go about shouting those out. Its not professional nor clever... It just shows a poor sense of self wealth and lack of education.

Try been nice instead of cantankerous for once and you might not need to seek that inner peace and you might start gaining some good luck and positivity in your life.

I'm amazed at how quickly this forum has rejected and become defensive towards posters it all seems very abrupt... If you don't like the post, how about YOU don't reply... That would be the positive and constructive way to go about it. Not telling people to go elsewhere that is just over assertive when there is no need to be and won't help a thing... People aren't just going to go away when they are trying to voice valid research and have some fun in regards to topics of like-minded people.

This was a game... ask a question and try to enjoy it, so the rest of people looking at this can enjoy it.
If you don't you are just going to drive other users away and end up like the David Icke Forum... People won't want to be associated with a forum full of negativity and will just class it as a broken offspring of the DIF that proved the same thing.

Maybe a reality check should be taken here for the good of all...

Master11 wrote:
Can you point me to this thread please Master cos I can't find it? Ta

I thought this was a members only section? I can still read it when I'm not logged in

To the best of my knowledge, Bobster, the only forum that was unviewable by non-members was the 'Private' one, which, as per discussion elsewhere here today, has been removed. I'm not sure what the ins & outs of it are.

*Edit*

Here...

sanctumzone.co.uk/forum/The-Community-Ch...vate-forum-gone.html

dubmeup wrote:
G'day Dubmeup.

I think Master11 may be referring to this thread ...

sanctumzone.co.uk/forum/General/41567-Do...it=20&start=80#46156

... which is (I think) that Master11 first posted on it (post # 98), which was started by Rick.

Master11 wrote:
G'day Master11.

I haven't asked for your "sympathy vote", I wouldn't ask for your "sympathy vote" and I couldn't give a flying fuck whether you offer your "sympathy vote" to me ... I'm not interested in "sympathy". I've made my thoughts clear about "sympathy" on this thread ...

Is being hon­est and blunt hard for you?
sanctumzone.co.uk/forum/Members-Chat-Are...nt-hard-for-you.html

... post # 2.

As to the rest of your commentary about me ...

bobster wrote:
If You look at the bottom of the forum section list you'll see the forum/members stuff bit and the vent room. Those two sections are only available to logged in members. All other areas are now viewable to guests as well as logged in members.
There WAS a private invite only area which was initially set up as a form of protection from the prying eyes of certain DIF admin who were at the time banning people here from the DIF left right and centre. As the site grew it became less and less useful/justifiable and it's now been scrapped.

I AM ALL I AM wrote:
Cheers IAAIA, so in other word's " Read my thread on negative and positive energy " is um ah um what? Misleading? Mistaken?

dubmeup wrote:
Oh yes - I see the, "Only logged-​in mem­bers can view this category", message on those two categories now. Thnk you for that clarification (even though it wasn't addressed to me).