BIG BROTHER ALERT !!!

studiorat

Communist estate agent?

Mahatma coat

couple of points

1) Studiorat, Care to explain the menaing of that WikiLink, if I didnt know better I'd think you were making a cheap attack at RTDH

second point

There have been no attempts to ban guns in Ireland

ye seem to have missed this one,

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/1119/1227026414265.html

Not only are they plannin on bannin handguns, they are talkin about going round to the people who's licences will not be renewed and seizing their weapons.

Run_to_da_hills

studiorat wrote: »

Communist estate agent?

I would expect that insinuating tabloid slur against another poster is against the charter of this forum.

Mahatma coat

RTDH, I'm gonna give him a chance to explain first

WhaLofShi

Mahatma coat wrote: »

RTDH, I'm gonna give him a chance to explain first

This might explain why the forum is a magnet for trolls.

Run_to_da_hills

WhaLofShi wrote: »

This might explain why the forum is a magnet for trolls.

Most trollers have dignity and self control particularly if concerns an issue that they are trying to defend. This thread is about exposing civil liberties issues with the relevant press links attached.

studiorat

'Twas explained yesterday afternoon.

The fact that it ended up on RTDH's threat is just ironic conicidence...

Gareth37

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Most trollers have dignity and self control particularly if concerns an issue that they are trying to defend. This thread is about exposing civil liberties issues with the relevant press links attached.

But you are 40 years too late at least and all you are doing is exposing your cover

Other people should be well able to read the Bible too to attain wisdom so its there for them if they want to.

Nick_oliveri

Seriously, what the **** has that got to do with the bible Gareth?

Run_to_da_hills

BIG BROTHER ALERT !!!

4th December 2008.

Threat of Global NWO Internet censorship if Italian Prome minister Silvio Berlusconi has his way at the next G8.

Italian prime minister who once stated that "Musilini was not that bad" vowed to use his country's imminent presidency of the G8 group to push for an international agreement to "regulate the internet".

Speaking to Italian postal workers, Reuters reports Berlusconi said: "The G8 has as its task the regulation of financial markets... I think the next G8 can bring to the table a proposal for a regulation of the internet."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2003/sep/12/italy.pressandpublishing

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/03/berlusconi_g8_internet/
http://www.nwotruth.com/berlusconi-plans-to-use-g8-presidency-to-regulate-the-internet/

humanji

The first link is to Berlusconi saying something stupid, but we're not given anything in context. The second link says that he wants to suggest plans to regulate the internet, not censor. He didn't explain what this meant. The third link is from a site called NWO Truth, so there's little reason to bother with it.

Run_to_da_hills

humanji wrote: »

The first link is to Berlusconi saying something stupid, but we're not given anything in context. The second link says that he wants to suggest plans to regulate the internet, not censor. He didn't explain what this meant. The third link is from a site called NWO Truth, so there's little reason to bother with it.

The first link is just letting you know just how much of a clown Berlusconi is.

Dictionary Definition of Regulate: To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.: to regulate household expenses.

Regulate / censor, you say tomato, I say tomahto".

King Mob

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

The first link is just letting you know just how much of a clown Berlusconi is.

Dictionary Definition of Regulate: To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.: to regulate household expenses.

Regulate / censor, you say tomato, I say tomahto".

Well thats not the definition of censorship.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/censorship
The use of state or group power to control freedom of expression, such as passing laws to prevent media from being published or propagated.

More like I say tomato you say carrot.

Run_to_da_hills

King Mob wrote: »

Well thats not the definition of censorship.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/censorship
The use of state or group power to control freedom of expression, such as passing laws to prevent media from being published or propagated.

More like I say tomato you say carrot.

:rolleyes:

King Mob

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

:rolleyes:

A well reasoned and thought provoking rebuttal as always.

Run_to_da_hills

King Mob wrote: »

A well reasoned and thought provoking rebuttal as always.

Ok ill explain quite simply,

One of the first measures imposed when one regulates the internet, whether its a proxy server at work an educational facility is to install a censorship filter This can block and log any word or website associated with a prohibited topic, whether it is chllld povn, euthanasia, anorexia, or even any discussion on anything that is prohibited by the authorities of the institute. Ask anyone working in a government office or educational facility in Ireland will tell you all about censorship filters.

Likewise whole countries can install censorship filters such as Australia and China. In time other topics can be added to the filter such as "unauthorized blog sites" or any site that could be discussing anything that could be against the interest of the national security. (I can foresee this coming to the UK very soon.)

What other way do you expect them to regulate the internet?

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24568137-2862,00.html

King Mob

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Ask anyone working in a government office or educational facility in Ireland will tell you all about censorship filters.

Yes because Children aren't allowed on certain sites, ie. anything that asks whether you are 18 or over.
Most government facilities have filters because the computers are for government business.
What's your point?

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Likewise whole countries can install censorship filters such as Australia and China. In time other topics can be added to the filter such as "unauthorized blog sites" or any site that could be discussing anything that could be against the interest of the national security. (I can foresee this coming to the UK very soon.)

What other way do you expect them to regulate the internet?

So what plans are in the works to introduce this in England? Or should I even bother asking you to back up anything.

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24568137-2862,00.html

Hang on.
From the article:

"The revelations emerge as US tech giants Google, Microsoft and Yahoo, and a coalition of human rights and other groups unveiled a code of conduct aimed at safeguarding online freedom of speech and privacy."

Isn't Microsoft part of the NWO?
Didn't you accuse them of making the RFID chips?
Why would they oppose such an NWO plot?

Run_to_da_hills

King Mob wrote: »

Yes because Children aren't allowed on certain sites, ie. anything that asks whether you are 18 or over.
Most government facilities have filters because the computers are for government business.
What's your point?

:rolleyes: Dawh, just giving you an example of censorship filtering and again you don't bother to read my post.

King Mob wrote: »

So what plans are in the works to introduce this in England?

EXAMPLE http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/technology/2008/12/wikipedia_is_censored.html

Blog censorship has already been proposed by the EU Parlament.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/3059617/Euro-MPs-to-vote-on-anonymous-blog-ban.html

King Mob wrote: »

Or should I even bother asking you to back up anything.

I of all people back up most of my statements with links. :rolleyes:

King Mob wrote: »

Didn't you accuse them of making the RFID chips?

:rolleyes: Dawh,
Again you don't even bother to read the post and wahts it about. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/04/ms_verimed/

Mahatma coat

woah, RTDH you have been outdone with 'most randomly of topic post in a thread'

granted it was just a spambot, but Randomor wha

King Mob

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

:rolleyes: Dawh, just giving you an example of censorship filtering and again you don't bother to read my post.

EXAMPLEhttp://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/12/wikipedia-block.html
Blog censorship has already been proposed by the EU Parlament.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/3059617/Euro-MPs-to-vote-on-anonymous-blog-ban.html

First post is about some ISPs blacklisting one site on very shaky reasoning, not any governments.
Second one is from September. Have you the result of the vote?

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

I of all people back up my statements with links. :rolleyes:

Irrelevant, out dated and woefully misinterpreted links. That is excluding the less than impartial ones you post.

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

:rolleyes: Dawh,
Again you don't even bother to read the post and wahts it about. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/04/ms_verimed/

So Mircosoft is involved with the NWO plot to chip us all. But is actively opposing the NWO plot to censor the internet?
That doesn't make a whole bunch of sense.



Also it's spelled "duh".
"Dawh" is more the sound you make when insulting retards.

Run_to_da_hills

King Mob wrote: »

So Mircosoft is involved with the NWO plot to chip us all. But is actively opposing the NWO plot to censor the internet?
That doesn't make a whole bunch of sense.

it is all just a "decoy" to make us think that they actually care about us.

King Mob wrote: »

Also it's spelled "duh".
"Dawh" is more the sound you make when insulting retards.

Spelling error, Ill just use :rolleyes: in future.

King Mob

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

it is all just a "decoy" to make us think that they actually care about us.

Right....
That makes tons of sense. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
Do you read your own posts?

But tell us, cause your probably gonna use it again, what was the result of that vote in the EU you mentioned?

If you ignore the question (and I'm gonna guess you) we can assume the outcome result doesn't support your theory.

Run_to_da_hills

King Mob wrote: »

Right....
That makes tons of sense. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
Do you read your own posts?

But tell us, cause your probably gonna use it again, what was the result of that vote in the EU you mentioned?

If you ignore the question (and I'm gonna guess you) we can assume the outcome result doesn't support your theory.

Is there any where in that POST where I even suggested that Microsoft was a part of the NWO? :rolleyes:

CARE TO READ THE POST AGAIN :rolleyes:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055427231&page=2

King Mob

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

:rolleyes:
Is there any where in that thread where I even suggested that Microsoft was a part of the NWO?

This one.

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Dawh,
Again you don't even bother to read the post and wahts it about. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/04/ms_verimed/

But I smell a cop out coming.

So then I'm assuming then you don't have to be part of the NWO to make the RFID tags now.

So not going to answer my previous question then?
I mean if the NWO/EU thing wanted to censor the net wouldn't they have voted than thing in? Wouldn't you have heard about it if it was? Was it even brought up?

Run_to_da_hills

King Mob wrote: »

But I smell a cop out coming.

I smell a troll. :rolleyes:

King Mob

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

I smell a troll. :rolleyes:

Ok so rather than answer any basic questions on your theory, you're just going to dismiss me as a troll?
Way to fight censorship and misinformation!

Run_to_da_hills

King Mob wrote: »

Ok so rather than answer any basic questions on your theory, you're just going to dismiss me as a troll?
Way to fight censorship and misinformation!

Precisely and for starters you don't bother reading my posts or links correctly

WhaLofShi

King Mob wrote: »

So then I'm assuming then you don't have to be part of the NWO to make the RFID tags now.

You probably don't have to be part of it to begin with, but if you want to join the club, you can find a way pretty easily.

from Verichip Corporation's web site


When was VeriChip formed and what is its origin?

The roots of VeriChip trace back to the events of September 11, 2001 when New York firemen were writing their badge ID numbers on their chests in case they were found injured or unconscious. It was evident there was a desperate need for personal identification and information in emergency situations and that an implantable microchip could make a difference. In December 2001, VeriChip Corporation was created.


Here's a question. Does anyone in Verichip really think that there'll be a line of people outside their door looking to get one of these things?

thecommander

WhaLofShi wrote: »

You probably don't have to be part of it to begin with, but if you want to join the club, you can find a way pretty easily.

from Verichip Inc.'s web site


When was VeriChip formed and what is its origin?

The roots of VeriChip trace back to the events of September 11, 2001 when New York firemen were writing their badge ID numbers on their chests in case they were found injured or unconscious. It was evident there was a desperate need for personal identification and information in emergency situations and that an implantable microchip could make a difference. In December 2001, VeriChip Corporation was created.


Here's a question. Does anyone in Verichip really think that there'll be a line of people outside their door looking to get one of these things?

Thats basic business theory. You see a problem, you create or find a solution and market it. What you just wrote doesn't implicate that Verichip are associated with NWO.

thecommander

WhaLofShi wrote: »

You probably don't have to be part of it to begin with, but if you want to join the club, you can find a way pretty easily.

from Verichip Inc.'s web site


When was VeriChip formed and what is its origin?

The roots of VeriChip trace back to the events of September 11, 2001 when New York firemen were writing their badge ID numbers on their chests in case they were found injured or unconscious. It was evident there was a desperate need for personal identification and information in emergency situations and that an implantable microchip could make a difference. In December 2001, VeriChip Corporation was created.


Here's a question. Does anyone in Verichip really think that there'll be a line of people outside their door looking to get one of these things?

From the same page, a few lines down

What does VeriChip NOT do?

When working with a delicate subject like implantable technology, it is important to clarify what VeriChip does not focus on, to help ease public concern. Here is just a sample of a few key technologies and products VeriChip has nothing to do with:

-Tracking individuals (e.g. children, government officials) through an implanted RFID microchip. VeriChip's implantable microchip does not have the capabilities to offer such service since it does not have built-in Global Positioning System (GPS) support or long-range wireless communications.

-Creating payment-based solutions around the human-implantable RFID microchip. VeriChip's solutions based on the implantable microchip are geared around patient identification in emergency situations (i.e. VeriMed), access control (i.e. VeriGuard), and the management of remains and evidentiary items (i.e. VeriTrace).