Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

No change to CT forum charter since 1922 horror!

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Run_to_da_hills
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,009 ✭✭✭✭Run_to_da_hills


    meglome wrote: »
    I don't really watch the TV, what am I missing?
    You see this is where the fantasy comes in. The dogs in the street are not barking about it, other than on the internet I have NEVER heard anyone mention it. And why would it be a bad thing that world leaders would talk? When we didn't talk we tended to war with each other.
    The Internet may not be the same as we know it, there is already talk of NWO censorship,
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/03/berlusconi_g8_internet/

    Take a Look at your passport, check if it has the NWO mark on it telling you that it is has an RFID Implant. This mark will soon appear on every passport in the world as a Global security measure. This is just one step from an Verichip implant which could be implemented overnight in another 9/11 scenario.
    http://www.hasbrouck.org/blog/archives/001003.html
    meglome wrote: »
    I
    Maybe one day you''ll actually find some verifiable proof for that.
    I have provided enough proofs with press links on the Big Brother thread.
    meglome wrote: »
    So where's your proof? And no some interpretation of scripture says that. Isn't that the great thing about obscure writings. Eventually something will happen sometime.
    Certain things are obvious, "Woman on a Beast" mentioned several times, the "Mark of the Beast" 666 (Found incorporated into the European Article Number code EAN, EU symbolism is a dead giveaway, the symbolic revived tower of Babel. "Many tongues one voice" This is enough for a tip off.
    meglome wrote: »
    It's complete scaremongering. You see if it comes down to it most people wouldn't let someone put a chip into them, unless medically necessary.
    Read Revelation again. "And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads" . I can see it sneak in as a medical and Criminal tagging Trojan.

    The global elite could easily Cause it IE HIV sufferers not being able to receive medication without it, Prisoners released on early parole with it, Eventually it will creep in as a "security measure" just like RFID smartcards & passports. Without it you will be denied assess to all privilages including travel and commercial activity.
    meglome wrote: »
    Personally over my dead body would I let someone do it.
    There are millions out there like you.
    meglome wrote: »
    And as has been pointed out they don't need to do it. I think you're nothing but a paranoid fantasist, or at worst you represent the NWO by spreading fear and division.
    Man be so but I am in the correct forum for speaking out about the NWO and I will continue to so as the relevant news topics keep on come in.

    In the not so distant future one may not be able to speak out about the NWO as the media and internet will inevitably be policed and censored


  • Options
    #33
    WhaLofShi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 114 ✭✭WhaLofShi


    RtdH, I'm impressed. Not a single :eek: or picture in that post. ;)


  • Options
    #34
    Run_to_da_hills
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,009 ✭✭✭✭Run_to_da_hills


    WhaLofShi wrote: »
    RtdH, I'm impressed. Not a single :eek: or picture in that post. ;)
    Theres a :eek: in my signiture. :)
    Mahatma coat wrote: »
    Yeah, yer right, I'm not sure how we deal with this tho as the NWO is a kind of all encompasing topic which relates to most CT's.

    its a toughie alright, I'm gonna chat with Bonkey and Miju during the week and se if we can come up with some tweaks for the charter, but I dont know, limithin out capacity to discus the NWO would be playing right into the hands of the Lizzzzards :eek:
    I would again suggest a separate NWO sub forum, the topic is so vast. The OP can then concentrate on the more "interesting discussions" in the CT forum and thus avoid it. :)


  • Options
    #35
    rocky25
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,521 ✭✭✭rocky25


    Mahatma coat wrote: »
    Yeah, yer right, I'm not sure how we deal with this tho as the NWO is a kind of all encompasing topic which relates to most CT's.

    its a toughie alright, I'm gonna chat with Bonkey and Miju during the week and se if we can come up with some tweaks for the charter, but I dont know, limithin out capacity to discus the NWO would be playing right into the hands of the Lizzzzards :eek:

    You're right there Mahatma ;)


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwZCzjet-PM


  • Options
    #36
    Ciaran500
    Registered Users Posts: 8,225 ✭✭✭Ciaran500


    Can a mod take some control here. This isn't a thread for arguing with RTDH, its meant to be a discussion about a change of rules.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Run_to_da_hills
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,009 ✭✭✭✭Run_to_da_hills


    Ciaran500 wrote: »
    Can a mod take some control here. This isn't a thread for arguing with RTDH, its meant to be a discussion about a change of rules.

    But the change of rules seems to imply the suppression of certain important conspiracy topics.


  • Options
    #38
    Flamed Diving
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    Run_to_da_hills wrote: »
    But the change of rules seems to imply the suppression of certain important conspiracy topics.

    We're through the looking-glass here people.


  • Options
    #39
    Ciaran500
    Registered Users Posts: 8,225 ✭✭✭Ciaran500


    Run_to_da_hills wrote: »
    But the change of rules seems to imply the suppression of certain important conspiracy topics.
    Then discuss these rules, not why the NWO is real or what they're up to.


  • Options
    #40
    bonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    Run_to_da_hills wrote: »
    But the change of rules seems to imply the suppression of certain important conspiracy topics.

    Really? I'm curious as to how you reach that implication. From what I can see, people are complaining more about how topics are "discussed", rather than what those topics are.

    For example, its been made clear that people don't appreciate you hijacking every second thread to wax lyrical about the NWO Cashless Society. Your response was to post to this thread, hijacking it to wax lyrical about the NWO Cashless Society.

    Thank you for proving their point.


  • Options
    #41
    WhaLofShi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 114 ✭✭WhaLofShi


    YouTube. Yes, those nuggets of information / disinformation / nonsense in video form are linked to a lot on this forum.

    Should we ban the use of YouTube links because one of the favourite lines I see here goes along the lines of "I won't accept evidence from a YouTube video"?

    So, my suggestion is to ban the use of ... hehehe ... no, not YouTube videos, but the argument that because it's on YouTube it's not worth watching or it doesn't carry any weight. I think ayone who uses this line should get an automatic infraction.

    The video is posted on YouTube because it's the easiest place to put it. If The Times or The New York Post had a section where videos could be posted would it make the video any more or less "usable as evidence"?

    The videos aren't YouTube videos, they are hosted on YouTube for all to see. You wouldn't blame the postman for bringing you a bill, so don't blame YouTube for hosting stuff you don't agree with.

    It's a medium. It carries, it doesn't produce.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Flamed Diving
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    WhaLofShi wrote: »
    YouTube. Yes, those nuggets of information / disinformation / nonsense in video form are linked to a lot on this forum.

    Should we ban the use of YouTube links because one of the favourite lines I see here goes along the lines of "I won't accept evidence from a YouTube video"?

    So, my suggestion is to ban the use of ... hehehe ... no, not YouTube videos, but the argument that because it's on YouTube it's not worth watching or it doesn't carry any weight. I think ayone who uses this line should get an automatic infraction.

    The video is posted on YouTube because it's the easiest place to put it. If The Times or The New York Post had a section where videos could be posted would it make the video any more or less "usable as evidence"?

    The videos aren't YouTube videos, they are hosted on YouTube for all to see. You wouldn't blame the postman for bringing you a bill, so don't blame YouTube for hosting stuff you don't agree with.

    It's a medium. It carries, it doesn't produce.

    I think most of the opponents of using YT as evidence dislike it because it shows complete and utter laziness, on the part of the poster. The CT'er posts a simple YT link, and then expects the opposition of write a thesis in response. If you want to have a useful argument, you have to give as good as you receive.


  • Options
    #43
    thecommander
    Registered Users Posts: 2,537 ✭✭✭thecommander


    Flamed Diving wrote: »
    I think most of the opponents of using YT as evidence dislike it because it shows complete and utter laziness, on the part of the poster. The CT'er posts a simple YT link, and then expects the opposition of write a thesis in response. If you want to have a useful argument, you have to give as good as you receive.

    Its also the videos that are pointed to are home made videos, with no credable evidence in them other than hearsay and some windows movie maker titles.


  • Options
    #44
    Ciaran500
    Registered Users Posts: 8,225 ✭✭✭Ciaran500


    Its also harder to look for evidence for claims made via youtube. You have to try copy info from the video then go searching for the evidence.


  • Options
    #45
    Kernel
    Registered Users Posts: 4,388 ✭✭✭Kernel


    WhaLofShi wrote: »
    It's a medium. It carries, it doesn't produce.

    Yeah I totally agree. As for banning pictures, that's ridiculous. Akin to banning pointed objects because they could cause injury.


  • Options
    #46
    Ciaran500
    Registered Users Posts: 8,225 ✭✭✭Ciaran500


    Kernel wrote: »
    As for banning pictures, that's ridiculous. Akin to banning pointed objects because they could cause injury.
    Great argument, how about giving some reasons?:rolleyes:


  • Options
    #47
    Flamed Diving
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    Ciaran500 wrote: »
    Great argument, how about giving some reasons?:rolleyes:

    Typical CT'er laziness.

    Exactly my point.


  • Options
    #48
    Kernel
    Registered Users Posts: 4,388 ✭✭✭Kernel


    Ciaran500 wrote: »
    Great argument, how about giving some reasons?:rolleyes:

    I thought the analogy would be self evident.



    You want pictures banned because you don't like the fact that RTDH uses them a lot in his posts. You disagree with their overuse by RTDH. I don't like knives because they are used by criminals to injure/rob/kill people. I still don't call for the banning of knives, as they are in fact a useful tool when used responsibly. Get it?


Advertisement