Anderson Cooper "Exposing" Newtown Conspiracy Theory 1/11/13

[compared2what?]

But I was worried beyond fucking measure on your behalf anyway, frankly. That was libel per se, at a minimum. And you can't always count on circumstance being your friend. And if you think I'm threatening you by saying that or trying to stifle discussion, you're wrong. You actually don't have a free-speech right to publicly implicate someone in a mass homicide on a whim. And that's not, like, my rule or my opinion or whatever. You just don't. It's not allowable under law.

In case it's somehow obscure to you why that would be worrisome to me that you didn't know that and were resistant to learning it, I'll spell it out:

Because if you don't have enough sense to avoid trouble, people who wish to land you in some for reasons of their own will always be able to do so effortlessly. Therefore, it is in your self-interest to know what is and isn't trouble.

Hope that helps.

[wintler2]

Its a worry when those most keen on their right to point their opinion at anyone they like and publish/pull the trigger are also those most keen on owning guns.

[lupercal]

C2w You'd have to show how said trouble is remotely possible before I can accept that as a mitigating circumstance, but let's just say you really think it is. Thanks, that's very thoughtful. Meanwhile allow me to repeat, as it applies to your last post:

There's only been one time so far that I've seen anyone actually indisputably exposing the board and/or self to legal risk in connection with this case. And that was when you posted the Rodia thing.

Yes, I consider that a threat, which it clearly is: the "legal risk" is obviously ridiculous, or barracuda wouldn't have posted the rattle he just did above, but the threat of getting me kicked off the board is 100% real, and I do and did resent it. And I'd appreciate it if you'd knock that kind of thing off, thanks.

I'd expand that to me and anyone else questioning the latest load of rubbish foisted upon us by no one I elected, and yes willard, that includes the late great peak oil.

[barracuda]

Yes, I consider that a threat, which it clearly is: the "legal risk" is obviously ridiculous, or barracuda wouldn't have posted the rattle he just did above, but the threat of getting me kicked off the board is 100% real, and I do and did resent it. And I'd appreciate it if you'd knock that kind of thing off, thanks.

I posted it as an example of how stupid it was, just like I posted about how stupid the Rodia business was. I'm not implicating private citizens in the mass murders of children. Only known government officials, iirc.

[compared2what?]

There's only been one time so far that I've seen anyone actually indisputably exposing the board and/or self to legal risk in connection with this case. And that was when you posted the Rodia thing.

Yes, I consider that a threat, which it clearly is: the "legal risk" is obviously ridiculous, or barracuda wouldn't have posted the rattle he just did above,

Oops. We cross-posted. How is it a threat? I'm not empowered to do anything to you in connection with it.

I said, explicitly, myself that I thought there was virtually no real risk, but that it was libel per se and that you couldn't always count on the risk being that low. It's LITERALLY so OBVIOUSLY very much in both your interest and the board's to know that that it's THE FUCKING OPPOSITE of a threat to tell you it.

IOW: I'm trying to protect and fortify not attack and weaken you, you moron.

but the threat of getting me kicked off the board is 100% real, and I do and did resent it.

If there is such a threat, I don't know anything about it. Or have anything to do with it. I don't want that or any other bad thing to happen to you, though. That's why I'm drawing your attention to the fucking risk. Because the thing that creates said risk isn't actually that I know what it is. It's that you don't.

And I'd appreciate it if you'd knock that kind of thing off, thanks.

Ditto.

[compared2what?]

C2w You'd have to show how said trouble is remotely possible before I can accept that as a mitigating circumstance, but let's just say you really think it is. Thanks, that's very thoughtful. Meanwhile allow me to repeat, as it applies to your last post:

Listen, you fool.

I do not make these rules. It simply is the goddamn case that when you're that clearly exposed, real risk is always remotely possible. By definition. That's why it's always dangerous to expose yourself to it.

And the truth is it always might be more than remotely possible, for reasons nobody can actually guess at in advance. (How litigious someone has a reason to be at that particular point in time and so on.)

There's nothing to mitigate. It's not a threat.

There's only been one time so far that I've seen anyone actually indisputably exposing the board and/or self to legal risk in connection with this case. And that was when you posted the Rodia thing.

Once again:

My saying that is not the problem. The problem is that it's true. The risk was tiny, imo. Barely there. But that wasn't because there was any dispute about exposure. It was libel per se. There's no defense against it. It was because there was little-to-no possibility that Rodia would sue -- or, if he did, that he would sue you/RI for reposting -- under those circumstances. And you really can't always count on that. There easily might be circumstances under which it wouldn't help you..

That being the case, you are a risk to yourself if you don't know that.

I'd expand that to me and anyone else questioning the latest load of rubbish foisted upon us by no one I elected, and yes willard, that includes the late great peak oil.

And I'd tell you again that it's complete and utter bullshit to say that I have any problem whatsoever with your questioning anything or have ever objected to your doing so. Libel is not questioning something. Look it up.

[compared2what?]

lupercal?

The part of your receiving attempts to prevent you from making serious and consequential errors as if they were instead threats that makes sense is still completely eluding me.

If you care. I mean, I am trying. I just still don't see the sense.

[compared2what?]

C2w You'd have to show how said trouble is remotely possible before I can accept that as a mitigating circumstance, but let's just say you really think it is. Thanks, that's very thoughtful. Meanwhile allow me to repeat, as it applies to your last post:

There's only been one time so far that I've seen anyone actually indisputably exposing the board and/or self to legal risk in connection with this case. And that was when you posted the Rodia thing.

Yes, I consider that a threat, which it clearly is: the "legal risk" is obviously ridiculous, or barracuda wouldn't have posted the rattle he just did above, but the threat of getting me kicked off the board is 100% real, and I do and did resent it. And I'd appreciate it if you'd knock that kind of thing off, thanks.

I'd expand that to me and anyone else questioning the latest load of rubbish foisted upon us by no one I elected, and yes willard, that includes the late great peak oil.

I'm beginning to think I could spend the rest of my life examining the above for signs of sense.

As I understand it, this is what happened:

(1) You made a stupid and potentially very consequential mistake, although the odds of it being the latter were very low.

(2) I pointed it out in exactly those terms, specifying that my reason for doing so was that it was in your interest to know it.

(3) I'm threatening you with expulsion from the board and trying to stop you and others from questioning rubbish.

(4) And that's because the risk was, as I said, low.

(5) You did nothing wrong

(6) I'm the cause of all your problems.

Sense?

[barracuda]

I don't see any, but I was saying that about lupercal before it was cool.

[wintler2]

I don't see any, but I was saying that about lupercal before it was cool.

Dunno, its been old for a while.. but there is also alot less abuse, which is lovely. Whereever the civilising effect came from, gracias!

[conniption]

Published on Jan 19, 2013

Paul Joseph Watson talks to Florida Professor James Tracy about how he has been attacked for questioning the narrative behind the Sandy Hook massacre, as well as some of the inconsistencies that suggest the truth about what took place is not fully known.





*

Professor Tracy's Blog

[Nordic]

Why argue with Lupercal? It's a waste of your life and just turns an interesting thread into page after page of nonsense. He did the same thing in the Norwar/Brevik thread, which is when I put him on ignore. He's not worth your time or aggravation.

[compared2what?]

I can't help it. I value and esteem him.

[lupercal]

Nordic what the hell happened to you? You used to be an annoying-but-loveable righttard that I liked having around. Then about a year ago you stopped being funny and turned into a full on teabaggin' troll. Sad.

p.s. thanks c2w, I appreciate that.

[Iamwhomiam]

Lupe, c2w? was warning you of the potential that your posting the false information about Rodia was in violation of the cyberstalking laws, and as she said, that is quite the opposite of a threat.

Wiki's cyberstalking lays out most plainly the potential offenses. Why not see how many you could be prosecuted for? I doubt they'd do that though, considering the several thousands who've done the same. But they could... especially to silence such a danger to the ptb as you pose, revealing all their nefarious workings, as you surmise and broadcast. For one so wary of the god-like powers they wield, I'm glad to see you're not intimidated. But just in case you find yourself being waterboarded at Guantanamo next week, you might want to let someone know that they should report your disappearance to us here at RI.

Let's face it. you fucked up big time posting that rodia bs. And it's too bad that you do not yet recognize or admit that you have.

And just to be crystal clear, that was indeed a warning. Check with Sounder... he may have that free energy device working and you could stealthily escape to the hole in the north pole, where you could live happily ever-after with those tall Nordics I hear live there.

I just waded through this entire thread.

LilyPat, I appreciate and thank you for your comments. What you say is true; everyone grieves differently. One should remember that the changes one goes through when stricken by such tragedy are the 5 stages of grief. In my limited experience I witnessed similar behavior as the father exhibited in the video. Some feel they have to do whatever they can to say to the world "this was my child. remember her." Nervous laughter at the podium is normal for one without any media experience. This is possibly the only chance they'd get to air their feelings publicly and they may want to get their words just right and not screw up something so important to them. As well, they may feel, wow! my chance to be on tv! We're all very different people and we all act somewhat differently when grief overcomes us.

And yes, I too can't help it. I value and esteem him. As weird as some of the stuff he has to say.

And Lupercal, honestly, you should look into the capitol hill massacre if you want to see an MK operation.* Living with the thought, absurd as it is, that maybe it happened because of me. I do and have fucked with the powers for nearly 40 years. Yeah, I know. I got a late start.

*Honestly, that is not an attempt to close a gate upon your looking into Sandy Hook. Please continue. It's just that I really don't see this tragedy to be anything more than an outrageous acting-out of a spoiled, ostracized special needs child. Do as you will.

But if you do head up north, please send us a post card.