rigorousintuition.ca

okay i'm done too. I'm happy for lockage if that's what the majority are cool with too

I'd like to see it get past 30 because I seem to think we have 40+ active contributors these days -- thank you SLAD for starting this poll and thank you for breaking radio silence.

Wombaticus Rex » Tue Jul 09, 2013 6:13 pm wrote:I'd like to see it get past 30 because I seem to think we have 40+ active contributors these days -- thank you SLAD for starting this poll and thank you for breaking radio silence.

almost killed me ...can't rewind we gone to far


in my mind and in my car

barracuda » Tue Jul 09, 2013 5:28 pm wrote:Put on your lizard shoes and dance the blues.

better wear some boxing gloves

seemslikeadream » Tue Jul 09, 2013 5:54 pm wrote:It could just be moved to it's own forum and the people there that are arguing could continue so we don't have to look at it every time GD is opened up...Is David Icke that important to this forum that we have to have it staring us in the face all the time?

You know, if an entire sub-forum could be created for people obsessed with Valerie Plame (I sometimes wonder if that was created specifically for me ) why not an Icke sub-forum? Notice all my posts on Plame (well, almost all) have been respectfully kept in that sub-forum to avoid making me look like I've got a one track mind in GD.

Sub-forums are hugely, hugely unappreciated and I wonder if we could do better. I would like to see a 70+ page on how to break off into teams for collaborative research projects.

I mean, I already do that with a few of you but we'd be doing that with or without RI.

Anyways, I do note that we're approaching 30 votes with a 2:1 ratio emerging for "lockdown." That makes me appreciate what an impact letting that thread run was having, and I apologize to everyone who was irritated by the ongoing clusterfuck.

The number of posts / the number of views of that thread...the views are less than half what other threads are getting ...lots of posts ....views...not so much

YAY!

slad's back

I'm not against seeing that thread locked. But since there is precedent for the op of a thread having a certain level of proprietorship of a thread then I don't think in the absence of a good reason to lock it that it should be locked without getting ad's opinion.

brainpanhandler » Tue Jul 09, 2013 7:53 pm wrote:I'm not against seeing that thread locked. But since there is precedent for the op of a thread having a certain level of proprietorship of a thread then I don't think in the absence of a good reason to lock it that it should be locked without getting ad's opinion.

An important point, thank you. Although I can see this thread going to 30+ pages if we do that: you're still right.

Then again, it's also time to talk new precedents: a cool 66% of the active community here wants that hot garbage the whole fuck out of their faces - I want that to count for something, too.

Wombaticus Rex wrote:

Anyways, I do note that we're approaching 30 votes with a 2:1 ratio emerging for "lockdown." That makes me appreciate what an impact letting that thread run was having, and I apologize to everyone who was irritated by the ongoing clusterfuck.

Looks like we are proving the majority is reality now.

Allow me to state why I think the thread should not be locked down.

1. The thread is not applicable to the topics we cover here on R.I.?
It seems it is problematic because it runs the range of topics we cover here on R.I.

2. Discussion of Icke is beneath us.
Why? Because some people have already dismissed Icke? Surprise, surprise there seems to be many posters (and probably lurkers) who are sympathetic to Icke.

3. It creates discord and debate.
Do people just come here for like minded fraternizing? Isn't a lively examination of a core conspiracists work better, no matter how ugly, than conflict free group think or avoidance of tough subjects?

4. There are many threads I find redundant/waste of time/irritating but I basically stay out of them or state why I think the thread is off track inside it and try to influence it in some way. Do we vote now about whether threads should continue based on popularity and congeniality?

5. Because some people like or share the beliefs of a theorist and other criticize that theorist (and by association criticize other members beliefs) do we drop discussion of the theorist?

6. If old guard members don't like a topic or line of questioning that newbie members broach, do we just shut down the thread?

7. If some posters find a thread topic troubling for them (and the subject matter doesn't break any board rules) why is this a whole board concern?

8. Too much drama in the thread? This really I'd say is less about subject matter than more personality and identification. And that ain't going away.

9. Is it possible that handling a controversial thread like this now - will cause bigger problems later when an even bigger room divider of an issue comes down the pike? I mean Icke is small potatoes. If we can't bear one thread about him - (which btw history wise started from two other phantom threads because no one wanted to go there originally) how are we going to handle a really big controversial thread relating to something of a much greater magnitude?

Just some questions folks.

I'd like to see his vote weighted more heavily then or he should at least get the last word if he wishes. That won't be the last icke thread.

yes I'm sure AD will bring it up again he obsessed with him

and the rest of us are fuckin tired of it

let him have his own forum

brainpanhandler » Tue Jul 09, 2013 7:53 pm wrote:I'm not against seeing that thread locked. But since there is precedent for the op of a thread having a certain level of proprietorship of a thread then I don't think in the absence of a good reason to lock it that it should be locked without getting ad's opinion.

The easiest thing would be that those who don't like a certain thread just don't post there.

That said, I can't say at all that I'm for locking the thread.

Whatever we might like to do on this forum, I think it's most important that we develop principles that can be applied consistently and universally.

In other words can any ad hoc group get any thread locked at any time? What's a quorum? Who is or isn't in the deciding group? How many blocks prevent it? What about the op? And those who didn't read the thread- how should we notify them?

Otherwise we get caught on the slippery slope of opportunism, if not vigilante type frontier justice.

What's good for the goose should be good for the gander...

oh just shut the fuck up I have had it up to my eye balls with your bullshit ego talk to the hand

yea lock my nuclear meltdown thread go ahead

I guess you took me off ignore huh?


What 71 pages of crap ain't enough for your ego?

yea that last page is one for the books...lot's of high brow shit going down