Colonel Panic wrote:Hey man, nobody's infringing on your free speech here.

I never said that you can't say whatever the hell you want, I just pointed out that as I see it, that CIA mind control angle is definitely not the most likely scenario.

I didn't say it was the most likely scenario. I also don't think it's the most unlikely scenario. I pointed out two things: Mind control can be done. Mind control has been done. And then I pointed out that I saw hints in the speech pattern and demeanor of Cho that made me think that post-hypnotic suggestion could not be ruled out. Everything after that is just me laughing at the discussion nazis.

colonel panic wrote:I don't really know enough about the kid to say what the cause was, but given what I saw in that video and what I read in those plays of his, paranoia and mania almost certainlyplayed a central role.

Good. You're using language that shows that you don't have all the answers. Just warning you, though- if, in the course of admitting that you don't have all the answers, you start to actually suggest answers that the majority is unwilling to confront, you will be swiftly accused of 'thinking you have all the answers'. In the fucked-up brains of the discussion nazis, suggesting that there may be unseen answers is the same as suggesting that you have all the answers. They can't tell the difference. It's funny.

Wood Goblin wrote: And I won't even get into the fact that, on this private forum, you don't have any expectation of free speech whatsoever.

As I frequently point out, "until the mods shut me down". I've pointed that out again and again. So save your stupid explanations of how the forum works, because I've been bending minds on forums for 12 years and I've had this discussion a million times. I constantly characterize myself as a guest of the forum who people should try and ban if they can stand to confront their free speech-hating inner selves. You must be well aware that I've made that point many times, or you wouldn't have pointed out that you think I'm looking for martyr status. Try making your arguments hold up on a logical and evidentiary level, they'll improve.

I complain about the efforts to restrict free speech with personal harrassment of the messenger . You can call that 'not displaying opposition to free speech' if you want, but I call it 'not knowing how to change the channel if you don't like what's on' first of all, and second, I call it a panic reaction by left wing gatekeepers who are unable to tolerate the presence of unfiltered opinions on 'their' board. To point out how idiotic the arguments of the discussion nazis are, I've been told a good half-dozen times that my posts 'don't belong' on this board because not enough of them are about music or recording ( nobody has any ruling they can show me that states how many posts have to be about music, but they sail right past that, and they don't let that name 'General Discussion' mean much to them either ).The front page of general discussion has never been over 50% music-centric, not that I've seen- and it's not just my threads driving down that ratio.

Uncle Ovipositor wrote: then you claim that you're sympathetic to the victims. No. Clearly, you're not. You see them as grist for your mill, if you see them at all.

Yeah, I'm the one jumping to unsubstantiated conclusions. Go fuck yourself, asswipe.

WMR wrote:April 25, 2007 -- ABC News quickly amended its report concerning the ability of law enforcement to track prescription drug users in the United States.

In a report on Virginia Tech killer Cho Seung-hui's possible use of anti-depressant drugs, "senior federal officials" told ABC News they could find no record of him [Cho Seung-hui] in the governments files on controlled substances. ABC News later posted an explanation of its first report that the US government tracks prescription drugs and their users:

"Some readers may have inferred from an earlier edition of this story that the federal government keeps a comprehensive record of all prescriptions. The Drug Enforcement Agency says it does track prescriptions of so-called controlled substances — including some mood-altering medications — but not all prescriptions made in the United States."

The issue is to what extent does the DEA track prescription drug users and what prompted the government to check on records pertaining to Cho Seung-hui, who was reported to have been treated for mental problems in the past?

The Psychotropic Substances Act of 1978 added mind-altering drugs to the list of official Controlled Substances. Prescriptions for these controlled substances have a "DEA Number" used for tracking controlled substances. The Cho incident and the comments and quick retractions by "senior federal officials" indicate that there is a secret federal government capability to track controlled drug users.

Of course there is. Is it a conspiracy theory to suggest that all your prescriptions and health records are logged? I thought that was obvious. When you buy a jar of peanut butter, it's logged. Your cellphone tracks you. Your iPass tracks you. The OnStar tracks you. The cameras on the street poles track you. Your passport has an RFID chip. And we're supposed to believe that the government takes a hands-off no-look attitude towards pharmaceuticals?? Or that they filter the data harvesting to only track certain drugs??

clocker bob wrote:

Uncle Ovipositor wrote: then you claim that you're sympathetic to the victims. No. Clearly, you're not. You see them as grist for your mill, if you see them at all.

Yeah, I'm the one jumping to unsubstantiated conclusions. Go fuck yourself, asswipe.

I'm confused, Bob - is that an example of your great writing or your great thinking?

Uncle Ovipositor wrote:I'm confused, Bob - is that an example of your great writing or your great thinking?

Your reply is an example of you not grasping that either one would be wasted on you.

Earwicker wrote:

Uncle Ovipositor wrote:Pointing out the stupidity and insensitivity of what you're writing is not the same as shutting you down.

I fail to see why Bob's suggestion is insensitive to anyone (especially given the one point many seem to be over looking - that is, he doesn't believe it was a mind control experiment.)

Let's say your wife is raped. If I were to say "That's too bad. Guess she learned not to dress like that anymore," we'd all agree that that's insensitive.

Similarly, to take a tragedy and then speculate about what the "real" causes were disregards the outcomes, especially when it is, by Bob's own admission, something he doesn't believe what he's speculating. What purpose does that sort of speculation serve? In this case, it serves to allow Bob to re-enforce his belief that The Man controls everything and is behind every evil. I find it not just disrespectful to view other people's tragedies as proof of one's own unsubstantiated conspiracy theories, but also entirely disconnected from reality. It's embarrassing that someone feels the need to use their memory to make a point like this. And his "don't say I'm insensitive because I'm very sensitive" disclaimer doesn't resolve that.

You seem to be suggesting that people are not allowed to discuss any tragic event for fear of being insensitive to those affected by it.

I haven't suggested anything of the sort. He is free to speculate as wildly as he wants, and clearly he takes that license. He is free to call me an asswipe. He is free to call himself a great thinker and a great writer and to believe that anyone who's critical of him is just jealous.

I am free to do the same. I just choose not to.

clocker bob wrote: I've been bending minds on forums for 12 years and I've had this discussion a million times. I constantly characterize myself as a guest of the forum who people should try and ban if they can stand to confront their free speech-hating inner selves. You must be well aware that I've made that point many times, or you wouldn't have pointed out that you think I'm looking for martyr status.

Why would anyone want to ban you? Why is disagreeing with you and pointing out the idiocy of your logic so threatening to you?

Try making your arguments hold up on a logical and evidentiary level, they'll improve.

Thanks for the new signature, Bob. I almost went with the "I've been bending minds" bit (an example of your great writing), but decided to go with this one because it's an example of your great thinking. I could go back, though. Hard to decide.

I complain about the efforts to restrict free speech with personal harrassment of the messenger .

First off, I don't think anything here rises to the level of harassment. That you can't seem to deal with disagreement is your problem.

More to the point, you can't have it both ways, Bob. If you can complain about The Man then we can complain about you. Your free speech doesn't trump other people's, no matter how much of a truth-bearing martyr you regard yourself as.

You can call that 'not displaying opposition to free speech' if you want, but I call it 'not knowing how to change the channel if you don't like what's on' first of all, and second, I call it a panic reaction by left wing gatekeepers who are unable to tolerate the presence of unfiltered opinions on 'their' board.

Disagreeing with you is free speech. Pointing out when you say something idiotic is free speech. You do not own "the channel", and are as free as anyone else to change it.

I've yet to be afraid of anything you say. You seem to be displaying the fear, here, Bob.

Uncle Ovipositor wrote:

Earwicker wrote:

Uncle Ovipositor wrote:Pointing out the stupidity and insensitivity of what you're writing is not the same as shutting you down.

I fail to see why Bob's suggestion is insensitive to anyone (especially given the one point many seem to be over looking - that is, he doesn't believe it was a mind control experiment.)

Let's say your wife is raped. If I were to say "That's too bad. Guess she learned not to dress like that anymore," we'd all agree that that's insensitive.

You are an idiot. The woman in your analogy is the victim. What does my speculation about what was going on in Cho's head have to do with the victims of his rampage?

Your wildly off-target analogy is symptomatic of your own mind control.

ovipositor wrote:Similarly, to take a tragedy and then speculate about what the "real" causes were disregards the outcomes,

It 'disregards' the outcomes?? If there weren't 'outcomes' caused by Cho's mental state, I wouldn't be speculating about Cho's state of mind. I would have never heard of Cho seung or his state of mind until there were 'outcomes', you meathead. There are people all over the media discussing the possible causes of Cho's rampage- who put you in charge of determining which are 'real' causes and 'unreal' causes, you windbag? If you choose to believe that ineffective gun laws or something else was the 'real' cause, then that is your opinion. If I choose to believe Cho's rampage was the result of a confluence of many factors, including the possibility of post-hypnotic suggestion, then that is my opinion about the 'real' causes.

ovipositor wrote: especially when it is, by Bob's own admission, something he doesn't believe what he's speculating.

I didn't say I believed it or disbelieved it, not 100%. I said it is not impossible, so therefore, I find no reluctance to contemplate the possibility.

Keep on marching around in your brownshirt, censor.

So... everyone who disagrees with you is a brownshirt, Bob? Sounds like you have a bit of a persecution complex.