Uncle Ovipositor wrote: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.

Well, as you can tell, I don't come to threads that you start ( if they exist ) and tell you that your choice of subject matter sucks. If you have a 'channel', I don't want to shut it down. If I don't like it, I'll turn it off.

You come into threads that I start, complain that my choice of subject matter sucks, and then tell me that I should not have made the posts that I did. You can't prove that mind control experiments don't occur, because you know they do, and you can't prove that Cho wasn't a target. You don't know. You have called it so unlikely that it should not be used as subject matter, which is censorship, you moron. When you cross the line between saying, "I don't think mind control was a factor" to saying "I don't think mind control was a factor and therefore, based on my opinion, I don't think that a discussion of mind control belongs in a thread about Virginia Tech and I will attack clocker bob on a personal level to see if I can get him to stop using it as subject matter and also make baseless allegations against him about his sensitivity towards the victims of the massacre", then you are now a censor.

You can't handle the fact that your idiotic tunnel vision opinion of what is and isn't worth discussing didn't stop the conversation dead in its tracks, and now, because you have nothing else, you hang out in a thread about the factors behind the attack, trying to wave other people away from deciding for themselves what they want to talk about.

See you around the thread, traffic cop.

ovipositor wrote:I've yet to be afraid of anything you say.

My posts today are a glimpse into the future that you're afraid of, when the hindsight of 2017 exposes what a closed-minded gullible sucker you are today. I'm giving you a taste today of the shame you will feel in the future, when you realize you fell for so many myths and frauds about the power structure of this country. The 9/11 myth is crumbling around your ears, and the spotlight is peeking through the cracks in the walls of propaganda, preparing to expose everyone who threw away their common sense to stand beside the murderers-in-chief and their inside job to permit mass extermination.

clocker bob wrote:You come into threads that I start, complain that my choice of subject matter sucks, and then tell me that I should not have made the posts that I did.

So only people who agree with you are allowed to post on threads you start? And I'm a censor?

Please continue to make your posts, Bob. I will continue to point out when they are idiotic.

You can't prove that mind control experiments don't occur, because you know they do, and you can't prove that Cho wasn't a target.

The burden of proof's on you, Bob. Not me. I've yet to see any proof of successful mind control, or any basis for it being considered a factor here.

You don't know. You have called it so unlikely that it should not be used as subject matter, which is censorship, you moron.

How so? this is a curious new definition of the word with which I'm not familiar. Pointing out idiocy is censorship? And makes me a moron? Seems a bit thin there, Bob.

When you cross the line between saying, "I don't think mind control was a factor" to saying "I don't think mind control was a factor and therefore, based on my opinion, I don't think that a discussion of mind control belongs in a thread about Virginia Tech and I will attack clocker bob on a personal level to see if I can get him to stop using it as subject matter and also make baseless allegations against him about his sensitivity towards the victims of the massacre", then you are now a censor.

To censor you, I'd have to be able to (and have desire to) remove your posts. I can't and don't want to.

Suggesting that mind control was a factor in this has about as much evidentiary basis as suggesting that Cho was from the future and was righting some future wrong by his actions, in that I've seen movies based on both. That it both are theoretically possible is meaningless.

ovipositor wrote:I've yet to be afraid of anything you say.

My posts today are a glimpse into the future that you're afraid of, when the hindsight of 2017 exposes what a closed-minded gullible sucker you are today. I'm giving you a taste today of the shame you will feel in the future, when you realize you fell for so many myths and frauds about the power structure of this country. The 9/11 myth is crumbling around your ears, and the spotlight is peeking through the cracks in the walls of propaganda, preparing to expose everyone who threw away their common sense to stand beside the murderers-in-chief and their inside job to permit mass extermination.

Then if I try to shut you down in 10 years I'll be acting out of fear. Check with me then. At the moment, I'm not tasting any shame off your word-spoon.

Uncle Ovipositor wrote:

clocker bob wrote:You come into threads that I start, complain that my choice of subject matter sucks, and then tell me that I should not have made the posts that I did.

So only people who agree with you are allowed to post on threads you start? And I'm a censor?

Of course- when you go beyond saying "I don't think mind control was a factor" to "I don't think mind control was a factor and I don't think it's appropriate subject matter", then you're a censor. When that doesn't get the response you want and you move on to your asshole claims that I'm disrespecting the victims by suggesting it, then you're a censor, an idiot and full of shit. I notice you choked on my dismantling of your ridiculous 'rape' analogy, genius. Good move by you dropping that nonsense.

CB wrote:You can't prove that mind control experiments don't occur, because you know they do, and you can't prove that Cho wasn't a target.

OVI wrote:The burden of proof's on you, Bob. Not me. I've yet to see any proof of successful mind control, or any basis for it being considered a factor here.

Who cares what you know? I read better books than you, so I laugh at your ignorance about the prevalence of mind control experiments. You're so brainwashed that you still can't comprehend the very simple concept that proof is not required to offer an opinion, you dope.

El Protoolio wrote: You give the clowns who've run our government for the last 60 years way too much credit.

Perfect, my feelings exactly.

jlamour wrote:

El Protoolio wrote: You give the clowns who've run our government for the last 60 years way too much credit.

Perfect, my feelings exactly.

Yeah, that makes perfect sense, because if you were the only party to hold power in America for the past 130 years ( the military-banking-industrial party ), you would make your rotating figureheads out to be bumbling clowns, too, to fool dopes like JLamour. Otherwise, questions might be asked.

clocker bob wrote:

jlamour wrote:

El Protoolio wrote: You give the clowns who've run our government for the last 60 years way too much credit.

Perfect, my feelings exactly.

Yeah, that makes perfect sense, because if you were the only party to hold power in America for the past 130 years ( the military-banking-industrial party ), you would make your rotating figureheads out to be bumbling clowns, too, to fool dopes like JLamour. Otherwise, questions might be asked.

These clowns are a product of our culture.

jlamour wrote:These clowns are a product of our culture.

You mean the culture that destroys people's minds to the point that they think that one party control over the richest empire in earth's history represents the random success of clownish incompetents? If so, then I agree. Such complete cognitive dissonance certainly is a hallmark of our culture.

clocker bob wrote:

Uncle Ovipositor wrote:

clocker bob wrote:You come into threads that I start, complain that my choice of subject matter sucks, and then tell me that I should not have made the posts that I did.

So only people who agree with you are allowed to post on threads you start? And I'm a censor?

Of course- when you go beyond saying "I don't think mind control was a factor" to "I don't think mind control was a factor and I don't think it's appropriate subject matter", then you're a censor. When that doesn't get the response you want and you move on to your asshole claims that I'm disrespecting the victims by suggesting it, then you're a censor, an idiot and full of shit.

This is again a curious definition of censorship, considering that I have no control over what you post and no ability to censor it. As is too often the case, your argument doesn't do too well when turned around: by your definition, you're censoring me by disagreeing with me and then resorting to name calling.

What's more, I have never said it was inappropriate. I said it was idiotic and baseless - very, very different.

I notice you choked on my dismantling of your ridiculous 'rape' analogy, genius. Good move by you dropping that nonsense.

I was actually just giving you a pass. The metaphor was about a response to a horrible situation and how we define insensitivity and inappropriateness, not about mind control. Give it another read, you'll get it.

CB wrote:Who cares what you know? I read better books than you, so I laugh at your ignorance about the prevalence of mind control experiments. You're so brainwashed that you still can't comprehend the very simple concept that proof is not required to offer an opinion, you dope.

Well, Bub, I'd say you should try making your arguments hold up on a logical and evidentiary level. They'll improve.

This is a curiously addictive sport, but I'm no longer on hold, so I'm going to move along for now. It's been a pleasure watching you juggle, Clocka.

clocker bob wrote:I notice you choked on my dismantling of your ridiculous 'rape' analogy, genius. Good move by you dropping that nonsense.

Uncle Ovipositor wrote: was actually just giving you a pass. The metaphor was about a response to a horrible situation and how we define insensitivity and inappropriateness, not about mind control. Give it another read, you'll get it.

You can't even keep your story straight-thought you were claiming that you never called my subject matter 'inappropriate', you knucklehead.

ovipositor wrote:What's more, I have never said it was inappropriate. I said it was idiotic and baseless - very, very different.

Your dopey analogy is still dopey.

Uncle Ovipositor wrote:

Earwicker wrote: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?

So dopey. You compared my comment about Cho's state of mind to an insensitive remark about the victim of a crime. Wow, you are so dumb.

And here you are, calling my subject matter inappropriate, another lie exposed:

OV wrote: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?

'Speculating about Cho's state of mind disregards the outcomes'?? You better call all the cable news networks and explain your problem with their coverage, shitbrain.

Due to fallout from the VT massacre, police have now charged some suburban high school student, from the far NW suburbs of Chicago, with disorderly conduct because of the disturbing content in an essay he penned for a creative writing class. There were no direct threats in this essay towards any specific people or places, the basis of the charge is that the teacher was disturbed by the content in the essay. This is on the front page of today's Tribune. If anyone could link it up for me, it would be appreciated, I'm not quite as computer literate as some of you on this board.

I could see, in the light of VT, discussing the essay with the student and a school counselor, to make sure there isn't some other kind of problem, but actually charging him with a crime is frightening.