Changes to Blog Entry Submissions
Blog entries submitted will no longer instantly appear in the blog section. Blog entries must now be approved or rejected by the Team+Members of this site.
There are numerous reasons why this change had to be made. In simplest terms this change had to be made to preserve the integrity of this site. Before this change anyone could setup an account and post whatever they wish instantly. While this is great in terms of free-speech, it is bad in that this type of system is open to abuse. While we have been relatively lucky in that no one has gone to the extremity of posting pornography, viruses, etc., we cannot continue to leave this door open and wait for even worse abuses of the system to occur.
Obviously this will put the team members of this site into the position of deciding what blog entries will and won't be posted. Until we have such a system that this moderation can be put into the hands of the community instead, we will make the decisions as to what is and what isn't published. Please keep in mind that there may be times in which blog entries go hours before being approved.
We fully expect these changes to spawn a wave of comments regarding our 'covering up' this, or 'being CIA' that, but I trust that users of this site over the last 2 years would understand that these steps are necessary to ensure that the intentions of the blog section are not abused.
For further information on the intent of the blog entry section please see: Misuse of User Blogs and Commenting Abilities.
Please deter No Brainers
This seems reasonable. Would you please deter No Brainers from flooding the blog section with their delusions? It seems like many substantive posts from bloggers get swept aside by a torrent of No Brainer nonsense on a fairly regular basis.
actually, when I first came
actually, when I first came here I was amazed to find that out and was kind of waiting for this to happen
I think this is a good decision.
"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." - George Orwell
Good move dude!
Good move dude!
"Freedom is the Freedom of those who think differently"
I'm feeling really uncomfortable with letting a few people (even if they are my best personal friends!) decide about everyone's blog publication.
This is little no difference from DailyKos (and other web opinion outlets) who do censor *all* 9/11 truth related stuff.
911blogger will now censor *some* 9/11 truth related stuff.
I hope this is only a temporary measure, and you'll soon succeed to put a community-moderated system in place...
I myself am relatively new to 9/11 truth research.
Well, I do not do much research myself -- I'm still reading up all previous research others -- the pioneers of this movement -- have done over the last 5 years.
What I learned so far: *some* of the people who were amongst the 9/11 truth pioneers who questioned the government fairy tales already in 2001, are nowadays deemed the "crazy faction". They made invaluable contributions back then, and have contributed evidence, interpretations and explanations which are today accepted by the mainstream 9/11 truth movement.
Today, they put forward theories which are not readily accepted by the movement -- and today we censor them??? Come on -- that can't be right!
To be clear: I myself do currently *NOT* subscribe to a "No Planes at all", or a "No Big Boings" or a "Mini Nukes" or a "Secret Laser Beam Weapons" theory. But I defend the right for anybody to put forward his theories! "Freedom is always the Freedom of those who think differently".
However, I think it should be made clear that some theories are not "mainstream" 9/11 truth movement positions, but that they are topics of research, and even of fierce and controversial debates within the movement. I also do not want to have a wild mix of fringe theories and mainstream-accepted evidence put to the front pages of 911blogger.
In the past I already made suggestions to the effect of introducing a separate section for "controversial topics" and "non-mainstream 9/11 theories" to 911blogger.com.
This section would be freely accessible to the public (with one extra click) and to contributors.
A community moderation system could consist of ratings from "-5" to "+5" (not the current "+1" to "+10" range) for stories and blog entries. Same for comments. Any negative rating should be made partially "invisible" (show only the headline) in the default user settings, and fully visible only after an extra click (or by changing the personal user settings from the default). [Hint: Slashdot has a similar system]
Regular contributors with consistent and overall positive ratings would appear in the "mainstream" section by default, but each of their individual stories could be voted into the "controversies" or "unpopular" section any time (and the system would do the move automatically).
Contributors with consistent and overall negative ratings would not be blocked altogether, but would appear in the "fringe" (or "controversial" or "non-mainstream") section by default,. However each of their individual stories could be voted into the "main" or "popular" section any time (and the system would do the move automatically).
This way,
This website would gain strength and authority. Debate could take place unhindered by censorship. Community control would be prominent. Progress of the movement would be safeguarded. Freedom of those who think otherwise would be protected.
Today, they put forward
Today, they put forward theories which are not readily accepted by the movement -- and today we censor them??? Come on -- that can't be right!
I disagree, people have had pretty much a free pass here since the inception of 911blogger. Unfortunately, since some individuals seem incapable of discussing certain topics without resorting to name calling and personal attacks, this sort of thing becomes necessary.
Unfortunately it only takes a few bad eggs to ruin it for everyone. About a week ago,I made a plea in a comments thread asking people to immediately inform me of any abusive or off topic posts and I would remove them and warn/ban the offender if they continued to practice this behaviour.
I received exactly zero reports of these off-topic and abusive posts, so either there are none of these such posts, or people can't be bothered to report them.
In any event, we have to do something to try to maintain the integrity of this site. 911blogger is a news site primarily, not a debate site, or an open forum for every person in the world to air their opinions.
Somebigguy, your response
Somebigguy,
your response is appreciated.
But your arguments do not address (let alone refute) the point of mine you quoted: the point of censorship.
Your arguments do deal with an entirely different topic: name calling and personal attacks.
(Hmm... I can't even follow this specific line of argumentation: First, you say you had no complaints coming in. Then you hint at the fact, that there indeed were various offenders nevertheless (unreported). Last, you imply that because of that, the current measure of general censor is justified. It is beyond me why you didn't remove the offender comments and blog entries according to your own observations --after all, you yourself must have seen them (even if they remained unreported)??]
You write:
Sure. That was exactly what I had in mind when I wrote down my ideas. But unfortunately, you do not say a word about the suggestions I made.
Just tell me in one short sentence: Are my suggestions (in your mind) useful to maintain the integrity of this site, yes or no? (You don't need to agree with every single detail to answer "Yes", just with the general spirit and direction. And an answer of "No" would however make your stance clear enough to me, and I could stop wasting my [and your] time with further debating them here...)
You write:
Thanks for this clarification. I did take it for a debate site as well. And in fact it was one. And that's good. And that's useful. A pure "news" site is limiting its own usefulness very severly.
If you "stay this course", I'll probably delete my account, and to me, 911blogger will have lost a big part of its appeal and usefullness.
Adiós...
...
stallion4, you may think
stallion4,
you may think that you perform a "cool" stance here by just replying with "Adios" to my contributions in this thread and my last sentence above.
Could you please have a look at my previous blog entries and my comment history to see whom you so much want to get rid of?
I bet you have not done so, and I doubt you will do now.
You obviously seem to firmly put me into one of the "No Planers", "No Brainers", "No Big Boings", "Mini Nukes", "Secret Laser Beam Weapons" camps.... (Otherwise you would not be so keen to tell me Goodbye, no?)
If your example is the general template of how to treat 9/11 truth newcomers, or people who express different ideas from yours, then good luck to this movement!
I fear your response is an unfortunate expression of the general maturity of this movement's public appearance, which seems more and more to degenerate into infighting, namecalling, unfriendliness in debating controversial topics, and trying to "expell" everyone else who does not support one's own exact opinion.
I fear that COINTELPRO tactics may already have succeeded better for this movement than the originators of that tactic may ever have dreamt of.... And this to a big part by self-inflicted, internal unfriendliness which didn't even require any COINTELPRO agent to start off.
Cheers.
Bye...
...
hahaha... the infighting in
hahaha... the infighting in the 911 truthers starts. Next: expulsions, split, turmoil. :-P
This is what all leftie nutcases do, All the time. And nutcases you are, both sides. Hehehe.... This situation reminds me of Monty Python's brilliant movie: "The Life of Brian".
I'll get some popcorn and a beer from the fridge now. This is going to be fun. Keep on rolling, guyz! :-)
I'd be sorry to see you go.
I certainly sympathize with your position, but I feel that as a community we failed to protect this site ourselves, through some pro-free speech avenue, from organized disinfo. That's what I believe it is, and I have thought about it a lot and basically read every goddamn blog entry and post from these people, trying to figure it out.
Today, they put forward
Today, they put forward theories which are not readily accepted by the movement -- and today we censor them??? Come on -- that can't be right!
I disagree, people have had pretty much a free pass here since the inception of 911blogger. Unfortunately, since some individuals seem incapable of discussing certain topics without resorting to name calling and personal attacks, this sort of thing becomes necessary.
Unfortunately it only takes a few bad eggs to ruin it for everyone. About a week ago,I made a plea in a comments thread asking people to immediately inform me of any abusive or off topic posts and I would remove them and warn/ban the offender if they continued to practice this behaviour.
I received exactly zero reports of these off-topic and abusive posts, so either there are none of these such posts, or people can't be bothered to report them.
In any event, we have to do something to try to maintain the integrity of this site. 911blogger is a news site primarily, not a debate site, or an open forum for every person in the world to air their opinions.
I think what you propose here is ideal.
I know that dz is very uncomfortable with anything close to censorship, and I would be very surprised to see this place devolve into anything like DailyKos. On the other hand, this puts an additional burden on the team members who run this site, and if that burden could be shifted to registered users via a system such as what you describe, things would be peachy.
If this were a new website
If this were a new website with an undefined subject matter, I would probably agree with you; however, it is not. The people who run 911blogger have shown demonstrated good judgement, and perhaps as the people who operate the site, and the people who have invested the most time in it, they deserve the right to some editorial control. They already exercise some control by placing some blog entries on the Daily News page.
The problem with the current arrangement, I believe, is not so much that it allows fringe ideas to take up space on the blog page but that it allows any group to dominate the blog page. Substantive posts with real information can be pushed down the list, before people have a chance to read them, by flooding the blog page with entries, good, bad, or otherwise. This tactic circumvents your proposed ratings system that would create a space for "controversial" topics.
As for fringe ideas like the No Planes nonsense, it has been thoroughly debunked and is used by corporate media at every opportunity to undermine the movement. At some point, someone has to recognize that some ideas are no longer valid. We can't keep spinning our wheels with long-dead issues.
If No Brainers want to speculate about holograms and other nonsense, let them create their own website to do so. The ratings and comments that accompany their posts on this site make it very clear that the vast majority of 911blogger patrons are sick of them. The fact that No Brainers don't take a hint and move on suggests that they are here only to disrupt, not to engage and develop.
Not taking a hint.
"The fact that No Brainers don't take a hint and move on suggests that they are here only to disrupt, not to engage and develop."
After thinking a lot about how the campaign of the No Planers could be combatted within a completely laissez-faire free speech environment, I've given up. They may not all be disinfo agents, maybe even none of them is disinfo. Their effect is disinfo, and that's enough for me.
This sounds a little too reminiscent of junior high to me, but I can't think of anyway else to put it: We've all enjoyed a great privilege with unmoderated blog posts, the No Planers have abused that privilege (IMO), and now we don't get to have it anymore.
"If this were a new website
No, this site is not a new one (I agree). No, this site does not have an undefined subject matter. Yes, this site is devoted to the subject "9/11 truth". Yes, this site is already somehow "established".... So much we agree.
However -- why should a community system built around the basic ideas I put forward work only for a site with an "undefined subject matter"? And why should it fail for a subject like "9/11 truth"? (This subject is broad enough, and also links to many related topics, to also hold a good degree of "undefinedness" in itself.)
Again, we agree (by and large).
However, people operating this site (I remember dz) in the recent past have explicitely stated they didn't want to take responsibility for censorship. And they wanted community involvement in the rating and moderation tasks. So, if they "deserve the right of editorial control" is not a question. The question is: they want to limit their personal editorial control, and they want the involvement of the community. How to achieve that best?
You disagree with my ideas about community involvement. Can I now hear your ideas about this issue? Maybe they are superior to mine, and I can support you?
I can't quite follow your argument. You say that the "flooding tactic" would "push down the list" what real information gets posted and hence circumvent my proposed rating system. Possibly I made my proposal not clear enough and left too much room for misunderstandings. Let me try once more:
I don't think it is easy to find a tactic to "circumvent the proposed rating system" as long as there is a functioning community.
Yes. My proposal takes care of that:
I'm not in favor of spinning "invalid theories" forever. But I'm also not in favor of censoring/suppressing those who want to spin the exact theories I disagree with. I'll turn my back to them, if I'm tired. You should do the same. But please defend Freedom, and give them their place and section, and a fair chance to proof themselves. If you are tired to disproof them, just don't visit their section.
Last point:
everybody who repeatedly uses "No Brainers" towards anyone else in a debate, IMHO is guilty of a personal, ad hominem attack. I don't even fully understand what "No Brainers" means (I assume it is meant as a funny reference to "No Planers" [after all, it rhymes and hence, must be funny]. However, it dIdn't sound very funny to the colleague of mine who asked me (and I gave him above explanation). His words: "Sounds like pretty childish comic-book speak". I doubt that "No Brainer" term gets better (or funnier / more efficient / more convincing / less abusive) by repetitions.
We shouldn't want to sound childish to the outside world, however much we do like insider joking and insider mocking. Agreed?
I personally think you're full of shit...
Your posting style mimics many of the "no brainers" posts.
For those who don't believe me, compare some of little pipe's posts to the no brainers. I'm thinking that LP is really u2r2h.
I personally think you are somehow enraged & now let me atone it
I personally think you are currently somehow enraged, by something unrelated to me or the 911blogger.com website, and I'm just unfortunate enough to sit in your current line of fire.
I hope you'll feel better soon. Honest. Because most of your blog entries I did rate fairly high in the past, and I appreciated your contributions.
No further comment.
I assume with "many of the 'no brainers'" you mean people who more or less regularly post in support of "No Planes", "No Big Boings", "Mini Nukes" and "Secret Laser Beam Weapons" theories?
First off -- you'll have a hard time finding any posting of mine supporting one of these theories.
Second -- my personal observation is, that most posters of above mentioned fringe theories do indeed not only put forward (right or wrong) arguments to back up their case, but do also frequently attack ad hominem opposing "mainstream" truth supporters, call them mocking names, or replace proven facts with personal assertions.
Tell me: which ones of my postings is guilty of that same methods? Tell me where I ever did make an ad hominem attack on anyone, or where my tone was insulting to people.
Third -- why are you insulting me? Where did I do the same to you? Did I kick your dog, or what?
For those who don't believe you, it would be helpful if you'd post some URL links (which help with said comparisons) to back up your statement. Since you seem to have done the hard compare work already for yourself, you should have them handy, no?.
Oh, man.
(Maybe the site admins will confirm or refute if there is any evidence for that from their perspective.)
Hey, Little Pipe
I noticed that you don't have the PM function enabled on your user profile and I was wondering if that was intentional or if you just haven't switched it on. Thanks.
It wasn't intentional, since I didn't notice this was possible
It wasn't intentional, since I didn't notice this was possible before I saw your comment.
However, it is intentional from now, since I don't want to switch it on just yet.
I'll get in touch with you at yahoo. (Don't expect me to have too much time for private chit-chats. though).
I'm not referring to the
I'm not referring to the content of your posts, I'm referring to the style in which you and some of the no brainers post, namely u2r2d2. Oh did I offend you with my no brainer comment? Well that's just too bad now isn't it. I've worked too hard for too long to let a few disinformationists attempt to discredit the 9/11 truth movement with their debunked bullshit.
How long have you been in this movement? If you're story is true, you said about a year? You have some catching up to do, kid. But I honestly don't believe you are who you say you are, so it really doesn't matter.
If you have a problem with dz's decision, then leave. No one is stopping you. Don't go away mad, just go away.
"I'm not referring to the content, I'm referring to the style"
And the point of targetting my style (instead of my content) is.... what again?
And what would similar writing style even proof, if it were true? (Are you aware that I may even use the same English grammar, more or less? And the same English words for many things? And do "similar" style, grammar or words [used likewise by myself and some criminal perpetrator in, say, New Zealand] proof that I'm aiding and abetting said oversea criminals? Do they proof my thought crimes? Do they proof any of your points?)
Anyway, let's assume for now that I use exactly the same posting style as "no brainers" do. And let's assume that style is somehow bad, and deserves being eliminated.
Now that you've successfully shot down my (hopefully sober, non-insulting) style -- could I please also hear some sober, non-insulting comments of yours about the content of my proposals, as outlined here:
http://911blogger.com/node/4131#comment-84537
http://911blogger.com/node/4131#comment-84639
Remember, these are proposals which would clearly help differentiate and put into distinct sections.....
No -- I didn't even really feel addressed by this comment. But your "you're full of shit"-comment is obviously intended as an insult.
Oh, that's important in order to make you at all consider my arguments?
But to answer your question: Not very long. Read some more here: http://911blogger.com/user/450
In my lifetime I've participated in various other social movements though, since more than 30 years (with some pauses in between as well).
I always respected seniority of members of any movement I became involved in. However, seniority never prevented some people to say or do the most stupid things one can imagine. And those "leaders" who need to invoke their seniority upon the first discussion with a newcomer, usually don't deserve it.
The question itself you should not have asked. It merely proofs that you had done no research whatsoever about me, but you....
Do you think that was a very convincing scene of yours?
What makes you think you could have reason to call me a "kid"? Don't you think even for neutral readers you are now appearing a bit too arrogant here?
However, if you have been one of the few dozen people around the world who looked through the 9/11 fairy tale from day one, I do honestly applaud you.
And you really imagine with this attitude towards arbitrary newcomers you are continuing to build the 9/11 truth movement which you seemingly helped to bring to life?
Yap yap yap.
Let's break it down like this; I don't trust you or anyone else who would go out of their way, like you have done here, to chastise others on this board who want to get rid of obvious disinformaition artists who've been spamming the blogs relentlessly with debunked theories about no planes at the World Trade Center. It's been debunked -period. End of fucking story. Have you not been paying attention? Have you not done your research?
If you truly are who you say you are, which I highly doubt you are, you'd realize that dz's decision is long overdue.
I trust him and the rest of his staff to decide what does and what does not get posted. You should too. If you don't, you know what your other option is...
Look, Old Man:
Look, Old Man:
I've not chastized others on this board. You have -- me.
I've made a proposal which I think is in the spirit of the intention of this blog. Here for everyone to read and discuss. Even you, if you care. But you prefer to chastize my writing style, not its content.
(And I hope my proposal is in the spirit of what dz envisaged with this website; he has repeatedly said he didn't like censoring, and he wanted to implement a community involvement via a rating system.)
S4: time for a chill pill.
Your anger is completely understandable and I share it. Just try to aim it in the right direction, and Little Pipe is not it, okay?
How do you you know LP isn't it?
Sorry, but I'll trust my bullshit detector long before I'll ever trust this LP person, who I believe set up an account here for the specific purpose of defending the no planers when the time came to defend them.
Sure LP's posts aren't about no planes, but it wouldn't be too smart for a disinformationist to show us all their cards before playing them, because that would be too suspicious.
I've been watching how these shills operate for years on message boards and websites such as this one, and LP fits the description to a T, in my humble opinion of course.
I've already given what I believe are examples of LP's deception on this thread, so I won't list them all again. Perhaps you know something I don't. If you have proof that LP "is not it" let's see it.
What are you...
nucking futz?
Go away spammer.
Sigh.
How clever of CB, to find a recent post to respond to, completely off topic.
I have a bullshit detector, too. Mine is saying that LP is not a shill, and that is based in part on some private communication. But for all you know, I'm a no-plane shill as well -- a sleeper no-plane shill.
It was just friendly advice.
Less time spamming, more time
working on reading comprehension. No Planery was completely tangential to what LP was discussing.
Thanks, casseia...
Works for me.
And no, I would never in a million years think that about you;)
I better get going now before CB comes along again to "set me straight that tv-fakery is not disinfo" ...lol
Nite
"not referring to the content -- referring to the style"
And the point of targetting my style (instead of my content) is.... what again?
And what would similar writing style even proof ?
And what would similar writing style even proof if it were true? (Are you aware that I may even use the same English grammar, more or less? And the same English words for many things? And do "similar" style, grammar or words [used likewise by myself and some criminal perpetrator in, say, New Zealand] proof that I'm aiding and abetting said oversea criminals? Do they proof my thought crimes? Do they proof any of your points?)
Let's assume for now that I use exactly the same posting style
Anyway, let's assume for now that I use exactly the same posting style as "no brainers" do. And let's assume that style is somehow bad, and deserves being eliminated.
Now that you've successfully shot down my style...
Now that you've successfully shot down my (hopefully sober, non-insulting) style -- could I please also hear some sober, non-insulting comments of yours about the content of my proposals, as outlined above.
BTW, above mentioned proposals are here:
BTW, above mentioned proposals are here:
http://911blogger.com/node/4131#comment-84537
http://911blogger.com/node/4131#comment-84639
Remember, these are proposals which would help to clearly...
Remember, these are proposals which would help to clearly differentiate and put into distinct sections.....
"Oh did I offend you with my no brainer comment?"
No -- I didn't even really feel addressed by this comment. But your "you're full of shit"-comment is obviously intended as an insult.
Is long prior membership in movement required to participate?
Oh, that's important in order to make you at all consider my arguments?
But to answer your question:....
But to answer your question: Not very long. Read some more here: http://911blogger.com/user/450
In my lifetime I've participated in various other movements...
In my lifetime I've participated in various other social movements though, since more than 30 years (with some pauses in between as well).
I always respected seniority of members of any movement...
I always respected seniority of members of any movement I became involved in. However, seniority never prevented some people to say or do the most stupid things one can imagine. And those "leaders" who need to invoke their seniority upon the first discussion with a newcomer, usually don't deserve it.
The question itself you should not have asked.
The question itself you should not have asked. It merely proofs that you had done no research whatsoever about me, but you....
Do you think...
Do you think that was a very convincing scene of yours?
What makes you think you could have reason to call me a "kid"?
What makes you think you could have reason to call me a "kid"? Don't you think even for neutral readers you are now appearing a bit too arrogant here?
However, if you have been one of the few dozen people...
However, if you have been one of the few dozen people around the world who looked through the 9/11 fairy tale from day one, I do honestly applaud you.
And you really imagine with this attitude of yours...
And you really imagine with this attitude of yours you are continuing to build the 9/11 truth movement which you seemingly helped to bring to life?
Now that you've seen me posting in "Jon Gold" style....
Now that you've seen me posting in "Jon Gold" style, I hope you have gained enough experience to *NOT* conclude that "Little Pipe's identity is in fact the same as Jon Gold's". :-P
Bwahahaha
n/t
Umm...
Let's see, now that you've screwed up the entire thread with your multiple posts one after the other, i.e. spamming which is another trait of a disinformationist, I now have to edit this post so it makes some kind of sense:
You asked "And the point of targetting my style (instead of my content) is.... what again?"
It's proof that you might be a shill pretending to be someone you're not so you can fly onto this blog and defend your shill buddies and say "look at me! I'm not a no brainer and I defend their right to post their lies and so should you!."
Makes perfect sense to me. You?
Anyway, compare "Little Pipe's" posting style (i.e. HTML usage). They're almost identical to u2r2d2. I also see a lot of similarity to Thomas Matingly(sp?), Still Diggin' and a couple other no planers.
Whatever the case may be, you know where the door is if you have a problem with the way dz runs this website. Have a nice day.
I hope you'll feel better soon.
"Have a nice day."
Thanks. Honestly, thanks.
I hope you'll feel better soon.
Yes! Yes!! Yes!!! Go, stallion4, go! Hit 'im hard!
I enjoy this (though you're still a bit lame). Can you step up the heat a bit, stallion?
@ Jon Gold:
stallion4 wrote:
@ Jon Gold:
please note that I do not consider your occasional posting style (when you chain-reply to yourself) as "screwing a thread", nor as spamming, nor as a "trait of a disinformationist" (even though I've on occasion expressed my difficulties to follow and "get" this type of argumentation flow).
Please accept my apologies for having "stolen" and imitated a style you occasionally use. I've done so in order to drive a point home.
But I seem to have failed. Which is sad.
Looks like the only way to have certain people stop accusing someone of being a "shill", a "disinformationist", a "kid, full of shit" and worse is if that someone stops contributing.
Which is what will make disinformationists (all real ones) jump for joy.
I hope this will not happen too frequently. And you'll help prevent it happening on one or the other occasion.
THE ART OF CRITICAL THINKING
Distinguishing high quality research from rubbish, hearsay and disinformation.
Oh GAWD go cry me a river why don't ya
" I've done so in order to drive a point home."
No you've done so because it's your nature.
The no planers = no brainers. They're getting their just deserts (and I'm lovin' it). Why wouldn't you want that to happen after all the strife they've caused here?
By the way, Jon is pretty much the only person on this website who posts with that style that you just mocked and profusely exaggerated and wittingly made fun of. Shame on you! I think "I'm feeling really uncomfortable" from your mocking of Jon's posting style...lol
If you would have been posting like Jon from jump, the way you post like a couple of the no brainers, I think many here, who don't know Jon very well, would possibly think you were both one in the same person -- meaning that the point you were trying to "drive home" is pretty much irrelevant, wouldn't ya say?
Here's an idea. From now on, let's try NOT to make this all about you, me and Jon and our feelings and our posting styles, mmmkay?
Respect the decision that dz made (or don't) and move on.
you're mentioned in this article...
as a troll !!!
HAHA what bullshit
I expose the no planers for being bullshit artists and they write a hit piece on me. Oh man, I have arrived! I'll wear this as a badge of honor. Thanks for posting it CB.
Here's the link to the thread that this shitbag below (and above me) is referring to in the article:
CGI / Hologram / No Planes
http://www.breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=515
"There is one Troll on the BreakForNews and 911Blogger Forum whose modus operandi is to post a picture of an ‘Exit Door’. The idea is that he (or she) is ‘showing you the door’. He (or she) is a time-waster, and manages to ‘dominate’ a topic with these pictures. Quite why this person is allowed to get away with this behaviour is anyone’s guess."
I've only posted an exit door at break4news forums, not at 911blogger that I can remember.
The no planer who wrote this hit piece also fails to mention that they weren't shown the exit door until after their nonsense had been thoroughly debunked and after he/she tried telling me that all the witnesses who saw planes hit the towers are "liars". That deserved the door IMO (and a foot in the ass too perhaps).
Unlike many of us, this Troll uses a pseudonym (actually “Stallion4”). If anyone ever reads any of my posts you will see that I don’t (generally) use a pseudonym. Use of a pseudonym (in my case) only occurs where the name “Veronica” has already been claimed by someone else. (Why don’t I use “VeronicaChapman”, then? I don’t particularly like my surname … never have in my entire life. So, if I need a pseudonym, I use “Cassie_O_Calculator” … simply because it is a nice play on words, and tends to be unique).
This is not to say that the use of a pseudonym is ‘suspicious’. As we all know, and as pointed out above, it can occur for many normal reasons.
The essence of Troll Detection is more subtle than any pseudonym.
It actually comes down (to a large extent) to “What have you done then?”. Expanded, that means “What is your contribution to 9/11 Research … to the 9/11 Truth Movement?”.
Have you written articles? Have you written a book (that sticks to the Truth)? Made a video (that sticks to the Truth)? Have you actually gone out and campaigned to strangers (sticking to the Truth)? Etc. Primarily “Have you made any unique contribution to the research (sticking to the Truth)?”. (If so, what was it?)
You see, there is a great deal of difference between ‘posting links to other peoples work’ in Forums, and actually working out some aspect oneself … and sticking to the Truth.
Isn’t there?"
I've been waking people up to 9/11 since 2003. I know the work that I've done for this movement and so do many of others. Personally I could care less who this shitbag is and what they wrote about me. It's just more evidence that the 9/11 criminals are getting more and more desperate.
stallion4, you are calling names...
stallion4, i\'ve not seen many posts of you yet (that\'s my fault, i\'ve not yet looked through all of this website). however, based on this single thread here, i\'ve to ask: can\'t you make your point(s) calmly, without namecalling someone \"shitbag\", please?
i _can_ understand you being enraged because of the article cb_brooklyn pointed you to. still, please do refute it without name-calling; that works better in your favor.
i can _not_ understand you being enraged about little pipe\'s proposal. he didn\'t point to any article showing you in an unfavorable light. in this case you clearly _started_ the name calling, and you continued it without getting yourself names called by littel pipe.
you say:
\"I\'ve only posted an exit door at break4news
forums, not at 911blogger that I can
remember.\"
i remember you \"showing the door\" to little pipe more than 4 times, within a few short hours, in this thread alone, without little pipe being guilty of any same accusations that you assign to your break4news adversaries. please try to fix your short memory.
i\\\'m not attracted by your way of debating and handling other people in this forum.
Learn to read.
The hit piece was in regards to a "photo" of an exit door that I posted. I've only done that at Break4news that I can recall. I'll cut you some slack, though since it's late on a Saturday night.
Oh and please explain to me why I should care what you think about any of this (just so you know, that was a joke. You really don't need to try and explain why I should care what you think about any of this, because I don't. Sorry, but I just don't).
Goodnight...
In 6 out of 7 posts of this thread you \"showed the door\" to s.
goodnight....
ok, so while you are sleeping, i\'ve taken a crash course in reading. and one in counting.
looked at your first few postings on this thread. result: 6 out of 7 of your posts did end in showing the door to another participant. sounds like a recurrent pattern of stallion behavior to me.
doesn\'t matter if on another occasion, on another website, you did use an digital photograpy of a door to \"say\" the same thing without words.
it\'s still the same pattern.
i didn\'t even read the break4news site. just looking at the quote you gave in your own post makes one think \"yes, he does the same in this thread here, today\".
do you find fun in a roleplay of chasing away other 9/11 movement supporters you happen to disagree with, stallion4?
Stalk much?
...
TV-Fakery is PROVEN By Newton's Law's of Motion. (Links Inside)
You're wrong Stallion4. Tv-fakery has been proven by standard Law's of Physics. Your claim that tv-fakery was debunked is faulty and delusional. If you disagree, kindly show where this simple example has been debunked.
My first hit piece, YaY!
http://www.breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1133
stallion said: \"Here\'s an idea.\"
\"Here\'s an idea. From now on, let\'s try NOT to make
this all about you, me and Jon and our feelings and
our posting styles, mmmkay?\"
from what i can see reading your exchange, little pipe did start talking about his proposal, not about posting his or jon\'s styles. you started this. and you jumped on him in a completely un-acceptable way if i take civilian human behavior as a rule of thumb. so your \"new\" idea is completely acceptable, thanks for listening to my appeal further below.
now i\'d like to hear your opinion about the proposed website community rating system. do you have one? then bring it on.
i myself liked it. if it comes, i\'ll sign in and start contributing. casseia seems to like it too. what about the rest of you guys?
What are you talking about?
LP opened up with his feelings. Read his/her first post on this thread. OMG I could hear the violins playing.
He/she then threatened to delete his account if dz didn't meet his demands, which I then replied "Adiós..."
He/she then says I'm trying to be "cool" (whatever that means).
No I was just saying "Adiós". Look it up if you don't know what it means.
Also check out how this LP person treated Jon on this blog:
A Critical Review Of WTC "No Plane" Theories
http://911blogger.com/node/4122
Sorry but I really don't like or trust this person at all -- that's why I "jumped" on him/her as you put it.
Anyway, I want to thank and commend dz for making a tough decision that needed to be made.
Let's move on, shall we?
stallion4 proclaimed this about little pipe:
stallion4 proclaimed this about little pipe: \"I honestly don\'t believe you are who you say you are\"
i find this an absurd statement. it raises more questions about yourself (like \"is this guy paranoid?\") than about the one you\'re attacking.
btw, I now looked at these user profiles:
lttle pipe: http://911blogger.com/user/450
stallion4: http://911blogger.com/user/191
you don\'t have any info about yourself. in other words: your \"profile\" is a big nothing. so no food at all for any of my potential \"honest disbelieves\" here.
little pipe does have a _few_ things about himself. so yeah, sophistically speaking, that something i could utilize to nurture my chronic disbelief with.
you have a funny way to talk to people and engage them in discussions.
thanks for listening.
You wouldn't perhaps..
be related to Little Pipe now would you, Anonymous?
I'm all for this.
I have been strongly opposed to raining on people's free speech parade here, but yesterday I had just had enough, and I now welcome moderation of the blog posts. If this moderation can eventually be shifted to the community as a whole, that would be great. For now, this seems to me necessary and justified.
I think dz and the other team members are likely to get an enormous amount of flak from the disgruntled. I am sorry about this -- it seems completely unfair that people who generously provide a service like 911blogger -- which none of us here are OWED but receive as a gift -- should have to deal the crap that is going to come their way from certain parties. I hope the rest of the community can express enough gratitude to somewhat offset this unpleasantness.
I can respect and understand
I can respect and understand this policy, however I am concerned that we will now have a delay on "breaking" and "timely" posts. I started to rely on the blog section for such, oh well, a few bad apples ruin it for the rest of us! So if you feel as I do, I will shamelessly plug my site where people can post right away (probably until the same happens to my site!) http://911blog.org
I have very little concern...
That "Breaking News" is something that will be affected by this new policy.
___________________________________
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."
Are you...
On Nico's mailing list? Are you one of the individuals he calls on to disrupt this site?
___________________________________
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."
No...
I'm outting you. You have been outted.
___________________________________
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."
None of my dictionaries
None of my dictionaries contains the word "outting". What does it mean?
Exposed...
...
___________________________________
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."
And yet...
You haven't even refuted anything I said in this thread that proves you are a scumbag.
And I'm not talking about the science scumbag.
This is a game to you... How much can I fuck up 911Blogger.com?
___________________________________
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."
Is that like "Resistance is futile"?
"You still have a chance to switch sides. If you don't you'll evenually be replaced."
"You will be assimilated"?
Do you guys function like some kind of Borg entity? Are you, like, Four of Nine? And maybe Peggy Carter is Seven of Nine?
It derives from the word "out" in a gay cultural context.
Gay people who are open about the fact of their gayness refer to themselves as "out." This almost certainly came from the expression "out of the closet" (open about gay identity) versus "in the closet" (attempting to keep gay identity secret.) At one time, there was a prominent journalist who began disclosing people's gay identities without their permission, generally because they were big honking hypocrites. He "outted" them.
Thanks for your explanation,
Thanks for your explanation, casseia.
Thank you
....all omnipotent blogger beings
Firestorm of Idiocy and name-calling ruins a true blog
So, what is a blog? It's a stream of contributors that DEBATE ideas. I had no idea what a closed-minded bunch of people some of you have become. I, today, have merely suggested that some of the VIDEO of the airliners was troubling to me. I offered this as a topic of debate. I have never claimed that there were no planes. But I am suggesting somebody kitbashed the videos, and was looking for commentary on same. For my trouble, I've been called all manner of childish names and ridiculed by the Flat Earth society.
So, here is a topic I tried to post earlier, today, we'll see if it makes it past the review board a second time: How about the group "pilotsfor911truth.org? A group of active and retired military and commercial aircraft pilots that have big problems with the "BY WHOM AND HOW" the planes were purported to have been operated that day. Firstly, I'd have trouble calling this group "No Brainers", given that they know more aobut the operation of a 757 or 767-200ER than virtually anybody else I've encountered on this site. Just this week, they released their analysis of the Flight Data Recorders of Flight 77. Said information having been released by the NTSB. In the analysis of "Pilots for the Truth", they calculate that Flight 77 was moving slower than the reported impact speed, on a course of true north, rather than northwest as the object that hit the Pentagon was, and finally, TOO HIGH to have hit either the light poles or the Pentagon. I think this is interesting, valid information for the 9.11 truth cause, and none of it involves "NO planes".
How about "Planes that are Lying to Us"?
please show Pilots for 9/11
please show Pilots for 9/11 Truth this post
If the door is open a little . .
So, if we allow that the research of "pilotsfor911truth.org" holds water, (and we must like them, because we reference their site just over there to my left on "9.11 inquiry sites"), we allow that although there was apparently a Boeing 757 AT the Pentagon, there is apparently no plane IN the Pentagon.
But, there are those dreaded words again, no plane.
Said subject plane having flown over this establishment, rather than into it, you see. I like this alot, because it reconciles the eye witnesses to the 757, and the missle damage to the building. But you have to open the door a little bit to get there. And what is so awful about that?
And what of our newest hero, the silky-voiced Sophia (narrator, editor and co-producer of 9.11 Mysteries, which could well be the best 9.11 movie of all). And it's only the first installment. She just stated in an interview with Eric Hufschmied that she intends to "Look into" the mirage plane phenomenon she has become aware of in the truth movement. God, how dare she? I guess she's a no-brainer too, just for daring exlpore an alternative idea. And we quote her movie under "Recent Media" over on the left column as well.
So, what is it? A free blog, or a platform for one point of view?
And if it is a one-voice platform, get the conflicting sites off the reference tabs. It's hypocritical
The only true experts . .
And correct me if I am wrong here, but to me the essence of the 9.11 truth movement is to look for any documentable discrepancies between the empirical data and the official "story" posited by our Government.
Because, let's face it.; the only people that know EXACTLY what happened that day were either behind it, or are now dead. Everybody else is making an educated guess. Some more educated than others. But it's ALL theory.
So when ANY data emerges that doesn't mesh with the Official story, it ought to be the stuff of sincere review by this body of passionate truthers. Some theories are goofy. Some need more research. Some are dead on. I don't think anybody can conclusively state they have an answer for every anomoly and occurence from that day. If they do, they are dreaming or scamming. It will take a concerted effort by many truthers, digging in many directions, to even come close to figuring out the greatest crime of the century. That concerted effort does not spring from a group of name-calling bloggers of dubious scientific background. When I first found this site, I was thrilled at the thought of having an "up to the minute" resource for 9.11 truth items that I could also share ideas on. It would be a sad day if that resource was lost to closed minds and name callers.
please stop the infighting
please stop the infighting.
just so you know who i am: i\'m not an 9/11 truth activist (yet).
i\'m sitting on the fence of wether to actively dive into this movement more deeply.
in the past i\'ve been involved in the european anti-nuclear power station movement.
here i\'m only a lurker for now, since about 5 months.
i\'m visiting this site a few times each week because the topic has triggered my curiosity.
meanwhile i\'m convinced the government lies, and the three wtc towers did not come down because of fires and jet fuel alone.
somebody must have helped the 19 suspected terrorists (or replaced them).
it is a pity to see stallion4 and little pipe engaged in that much infighting over a lame proposal.
actually, the proposal by little pipe is not lame -- i find it even compelling.
i just don\'t know if that proposal is at all implentable by the site admins, code wise.
after reading the complete exchange between stallion4 and little pipe i did not find any evidence for stallion\'s accusations against little pipe.
little pipe argued his case convincingly.
he did not retaliate with personal insults against stallion4, not even to stallion\'s own personal insults towards little pipe.
stallion4, please stop the name calling.
both of you, please stop the infighting.
please implement a system similar as proposed by littel pipe.
i hope this website will not degenerate into a number factionalized cliques like the anti-nuclear movement did.
we also had this type of infights, instigated by the secret service.
these fights made the anti-nuclear movement dead.
we could have avoided them if we had recognized in time the true friends and the true enemies (shills).
shills usually do most of the name calling.
please also recommend to me other websites which have free, uncensored 9/11 discussions without having a \"nuts only\" reputation.
Wow the bullshit is really piling up now
It's quite obvious that the person above me is also Little Pipe aka no planer defender extraordinaire. and the person who was stalking me earlier on this thread.
Listen, don't try to insult our intelligence by posting an obvious attempt to make others feel sorry for you. If you don't agree with dz's decision, lump it and try to get over it. If you can't (and you OBVIOUSLY can't) then leave. Go away. No one is stopping you, really. There are plenty of other 9/11 places for you to go.
What are current community ratings of this site's bloggers?
Just so that everbody understand what implications my above proposal (which unfortunately got burried by the side controversy provoked by stallion4) may have with current community ratings, please have a look at this table:
http://911blogger.com/blog/UserBlogRatings
My actual proposal is outlined here:
http://911blogger.com/node/4131#comment-84537
http://911blogger.com/node/4131#comment-84639
HAHA See...
I knew it was you!
Thank you
This is necessary. I have seen so much time and energy spent on here either fighting with or trying to be fair to no-planers and Nico Haupt supporters. I personally wish this valuable time and energy could be dedicated to finding new and effective ways to spread the truth to our friends, family members and surrounding community.
That said, I love a good fight! If this site were set up differently, perhaps with forums, we could let the no-planers have their say and anyone who wishes to fight with them can do so. However, as the site is designed, this is not possible. The Internet being what it is, no-planers can create their own forum and duke it out on there.
Like the official story that jet-fuel fires brought down 3 steel-frame buildings at free-fall speed, all within a few hours, no-planes theories defy common sense.
I want to commend the moderators for having managed this problem for so long and wisely deciding that it's time to move on lest we become stuck in the mud of constantly debunking fantasy theories on this site in order to prevent new visitors from thinking ALL of us are nuts, and hence, leaving the site ill-informed.
Only other thing I want to say is that anyone who has been involved in a political campaign and participated in related blogs can spot a shill & a troll when she sees one. Perhaps we should call them "trills." And so, trills, if the stakes weren't so high, it might be fun to get into these endless, circular arguments with you. But we don't have that kind of time and there's too much at stake to play these kinds of games.
Requesting Comments From Bloggers Who Are Being Censored