I'm outta here - and a few observations

[heath7]

Qutb, I too have respected your input; you've been very reasonable... up until now. Any open board is going to have undesired elements; it seems you couldn't take the bad with the good. <br><br>Since everyone else is going to stroke Qutb's hurting pussy, I'm going to opine that its emotional sniping such as Qutb's last post that hurts open discussion; it's a morale reducing distraction (by all means, it is your right to state your opinion). The Rigorous Intuition board is an amazing place to go on the web, but you definitely wouldn't get that impression from the aforementioned diatribe. Does everyone have to be as smart as you to participate here? Can this not be a place for learning, seeking people who don't yet know in an instant that a story about Zionists killed on the NY subway is fake?... If your going to test 'controlled demolition' theses in a room where of course nearly everyone is going to be against your point of view, then please have the appropriate armor on when going into that battle. Don't attack the rest of us as a whole because you weren't mentally prepared for failing to convince everyone else that the towers probably fell due to burning jet fuel and melting steel. <br><br>Pick your battles, and pay respect where respect is due. We're not going to find better discussion on the entire internet than right here at Rigorous Intuition. <br><br>Qutb, please do come back, and I mean that, but let's not mistake bellyaching for a call for reformation. <p></p><i></i>

[Dreams End]

firstimer,<br><br>You just basically said that you still think Qutb is an agent but you are sorry for saying it out loud. In other words, you just used this thread and your "apology" to once again make your weak, pathetic, unsubstantiated case that Qutb is an agent. <br><br> You also praise those who suspected he's an agent but didn't say so, further trying to strengthen your juvenile-namecalling-as-a-substitute-for-logic by implying that there are others on this board who agree that he's an agent. That's the most unapologetic apology I've ever seen. <br><br>You are aware, I'm sure, that calling people agents is a technique used with great frequency by COINTELPRO agents in order to sow confusion and discord. Therefore, we can only conclude that you, in fact, are the agent. It is obvious to ME you are an agent, so anyone who disagrees with me must also be an agent. <br><br>Why don't you come back, say, after your thirteenth birthday, and post a real apology.<br><br><br> <p></p><i></i>

[heath7]

BTW, The controlled demolition thread, big thanks to Qutb, has turned into the best, reasoned discussion on the WTC collapses that I've ever read (not to say there weren't some bonehead posts). That's what I love about this board<!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :) --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/smile.gif ALT=":)"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <p></p><i></i>

[prunesquallori]

You're my favorite poster here.<br><br>I hope I'll come across your insightful and well-informed posts again in some other forum... <p></p><i></i>

[proldic]

Bullshit! Deep deep cover sophisticated placement -- they can't <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>all</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> be obvious. Posting stuff like the Donovan file is in-and-of-itself instant credibility for many, no? But does it really tell us anything, without making these kind of judgements in the here-and-now? It leads to understanding how disinfo is used, but doesn't help us understand who is using it. In fact it only fuels the smokey fire. Could apply to anyone of us at this point. Their multiple subtle disingenuous plays are evident to me. In the middle of the Ramsey Clark-defends-Nazi-War Criminals II thread, he pops in with a post that quotes this piece:<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I'll tell you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been since 1990 -- it's the threat against Israel," Zelikow told a crowd at the University of Virginia on Sep. 10, 2002, speaking on a panel of foreign policy experts assessing the impact of 9/11 and the future of the war on the al-Qaeda terrorist organisation. <br>"And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don't care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American government doesn't want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell," said Zelikow. <br><br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>The statements are the first to surface from a source closely linked to the Bush administration acknowledging that the war, which has so far cost the lives of nearly 1200 U.S. troops and thousands of Iraqis, was motivated by Washington's desire to defend the Jewish state.</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Then he screeches OMG! How dare you accuse me of basely mis-interpreting PZ's comments to suit a malevolent, obfuscationist agenda?!! After all, suddenly he's all simple and dumb, and his big defense was "it wasn't me saying it, it was someone else". Implying that I should believe you were <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>opposed</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> to what the tag line at the end of the article you quoted in response to info about Zelikow in the midst of the revelations of the CIA's Nazi-Islamic-Left alliance growing? <br><br>He earnestly claims to not know of LaRouche's rep, then immediately claims he was joking as soon as it's evident that DE wasn't to be bullshitted. He claims to never have heard of the work of Jared Israel and TENC, despite the fact that anyone with even the most basic working knowledge of 9/11 would know about his original work on the stand-down at least. Inconceivable selective ignorance contrasted with his sophistication-level. Then he posts a "personal story" hit on Jesse Jackson on the same day that Judicial Watch initiated their lawsuit against Jesse Jackson.<br><br>Of course the flipside of the left cointelpro blowback has been to completely stifle the accusations of who is a deep-cover "bad meme-spreader". This is RI board, a little icon off to the right, next to the T-shirt store. This is not public laundry-cleaning. Within a few days <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>my</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> tag line was "maybe they've set the real professionals on us" .<br><br>Afa what I feel about qutb, his good works, and the whole trajectory of this board and the many genuine characters and events here, it's beyond my ability for me to express right at this moment. Mainly anguish, with great love and a lot of humor and angry thrown in. <br>Oh yeah, and the "we're totally fucked" thing. Which happened to be my initial aprehension about the level RI is effecting people at when I first came upon it. <p></p><i></i>

[FourthBase]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Since everyone else is going to stroke Qutb's hurting pussy<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br><!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :rollin --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/roll.gif ALT=":rollin"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <p></p><i></i>

[Dreams End]

My point is that it simply is not necessary to call someone an agent to make your point...there are way too many people doing that already. Someone quotes Larouche...call him on it. If he posts Donovan, I say Great. I'm just not omniscient enough to know what some anonymous (to me) poster's intention really is. I think the examples I gave above are good examples.<br><br>I think this board has pretty much been taken over anyway. I'm looking for alternatives, proldic, if you have any good suggestions. Left...but open to conspiracy ideas. Oh, and not taken over by birch society types. <br><br>And heath7, you call Qutb for "emotional sniping" but have nothing to say about those who accuse him of being an agent of the murdering, lying CIA just because he doesn't agree with them? Nice priorities. <p></p><i></i>

[banned]

...of being a disinfo/troll.<br><br>However, what I will say is, one of the main ways to disrupt and destroy a discussion board that is actually uncovering some truth is to make it about personalities, and get people lined up on one side or the other. All the energy that had been going into the subjects under discussion suddenly goes into soul searching about the board itself, and ad hominem/feminam comments. <br><br>I don't like dKos, I think it's crawling with disinfo artists, but one thing I do like is the tradition of deriding the "Farewell Cruel World" posts. NOT that I am against bringing up problems on a board. But as soon as a poster presents it as "Well! You people have just pissed me off one to many times, I'm grabbing my hat and Good night Mrs. Calabash wherever you are!" it's a different ballgame. Then it's all about 'stroking the pussy' <!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :lol --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/laugh.gif ALT=":lol"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> of the person leaving in a huff.<br><br>Sometimes people need a break, that's cool. Of they've just had it with one or a group of posters and really need to vent. Also cool. But the flouncing out is really manipulative. Sure, I asked Qutb to stay--I don't even know the backstory, I've stayed out of the 'deliberate implosion' thread on purpose because I went through a similar one back on dKos and had enough. I believe in the First Amendment and in dialogue.<br><br>But I hate to see so much energy that belongs in the subject matter expended on any one person.<br><br>So Qutb, stay and keep advancing your viewpoints...<br><br>Or take a time out and come back when you're ready...<br><br>Or take off, eh?<br><br>This isn't daycare or group therapy. <br><br>One last thing: I am really tired of the 'there is no tone of voice on chat boards' line of argument. The hell there isn't. Compare these two statements:<br><br>"You are mistaken on that."<br><br>"You are a fucking asshole."<br><br>There IS tone, and there is history/context. If I post to someone I know well and have had a bantering relationship "You are a fucking asshole" it is different than if I post it to a stranger or an adversary.<br><br>We also have those wonderful emoticons.<br><br>You're full of it <!--EZCODE EMOTICON START >: --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/mad.gif ALT=">:"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <br>You're full of it <!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :rolleyes --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/eyes.gif ALT=":rolleyes"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <br>You're full of it <!--EZCODE EMOTICON START ;) --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/wink.gif ALT=";)"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <br><br>I might even say that use of emoticons affords superior nuancing to face to face contact and certainly to talking on the phone.<br><br>Putting arguments in writing also makes it possible for other people to go back and review them. A spoken dust-up disappears into the ether and all you have is Joe saying Bob said X and Bob saying no I said Y. On a board like this, Jane can go check and say "Hey Bob, yeah, check out October 8 at 5:12 in the 'My Dog Has Fleas' thread, you DID say that. You called Joe an asshole with no smiley face after it."<br><br>My time is limited so I'm not going to go to that 9/11 thread and try to figure out if Qutb's right to be miffed. The point is, if someone is miffed, go or stay, but don't tie the board up talking about YOU.<br><br>The result of that, even if not deliberate disinfo agent disruption, is the same.<br><br>That said, I'm miffed at all of you and am leaving now. Farewell, Cruel Board.<br><br><!--EZCODE EMOTICON START ;) --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/wink.gif ALT=";)"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <br><br><!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :p --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/tongue.gif ALT=":p"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <br><br><!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :rollin --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/roll.gif ALT=":rollin"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <p></p><i></i>

[Dreams End]

what are the emoticons that distinguish between:<br><br>disinfo from an agent<br><br>vs.<br><br>mistaken beliefs.<br><br>I can't seem to find them. <br><br>But I see you are suggesting that I should let loose as I feel like it and not coddle those I disagree with. Okey Dokey. This should be fun. <p></p><i></i>

[banned]

...that it would be any easier to tell disinfo agent from "ordinary dude who happens not to agree with you", or a truthteller from a liar, if we were all actually sitting at a big cafe table sipping lattes and having these discussions?<br><br>Again, maybe it's just me, but I like being able to go back and review everything someone's written for months in evaluating whether they're a hired gun for the NWO.<br><br>I've known people for years--friends, family and boyfriends--and seen and talked to them day in and day out, then found out they had fooled me: my best friend in college cheated on her boyfriend with mine, the cousin's 'adopted' kid was her own illegitimate one, my live in boyfriend let slip after TWO YEARS that he was on Haldol and had been diagnosed 'mildly' schizophrenic. I sure wish I'd had written records of every convo we'd ever had to go back and see if these people were skilled actors or I was a credulous dolt.<br><br> <p></p><i></i>

[heath7]

DE, I figured enough people have already reasoned well enough that running around calling everyone an agent is wrong that it'd be redundant. I would not welcome Qutb's continued perspective if I believed they were an agent<!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :) --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/smile.gif ALT=":)"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <p></p><i></i>

[AnnaLivia]

Qutb, yr gonna miss the "Fun with Paddy" circus, you goomb. if you don't show back up, i'm eating your popcorn.<br><br>('you goomb' is a term of endearment around our house, just so's there's no mistake)<br><br>do we get to stay and play if we just outright admit that we don't have the first clue who is or isn't the screw-up who got demoted to babysitting RI for some alphabet agency?<br><br>and will somebody tell the babe in the woods what a tween is?<br><br>i thought it meant a kid between 10 and 13. <p></p><i></i>

[nashvillebrook]

sometime. <br><br>it's a reality of human interaction that you're gonna agree with some and disagree with others. am i missing something? does "this" matter? holy shit! am i being judged by being here...with my REAL NAME for everyone to see??!! people might think i believe in ALIENS! ack! help! somebody stop this crazy thing!<br><br>crank call crank call... <p></p><i></i>

[firstimer]

dreamsend,<br><br>I'm sorry that everybody cooled off and you are still hot and bothered. All i said was that disinfo or not, we can learn from the participation. That isn't exactly what you were getting at. I must have really pissed you off. If you need to, read my threads again, I think that you'll have a hard time weaving the tapestry that frames me as a disinfo agent. Good luck on your journey, too bad those brain cells will be wasted chasing ghosts instead of investigating the gov., your choice.<br><br>I have made my peace even though I never directly accused anyone, I take responsibility for the flirting that took place. That was over the line. Its not hard to self-reflect, try it, it feels good.<br><br>firstimer <p></p><i></i>

[Dreams End]

Don't be stupid, firstimer. I wasn't calling you an agent, except to use the logic you used on Qutb to "prove" you were an agent. In addition, calling someone an agent is certainly a tactic of COINTELPRO style operations...and that is what you were doing. <br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr> still here QTUB?<br><br>Definately on a payroll, or very, very lonely. <hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>So anyway, whether YOU are on a payroll or not, it's mission accomplished, eh? Got rid of someone who dared to disagree with you. And by the way, Qutb is consistently one of the best posters when it comes to well reasoned arguments and sourcing with links. Your characterization of him in that thread was simply a lie. <br><br>And your "I think he is an agent but I shouldn't have said it out loud" so-called apology was simply sophomoric. With apologies like that, who needs insults?<br><br>Keep it up though. Maybe you can chase a few more people off. With apologies afterwards, of course.<br> <p></p><i></i>