Question for Turbonium, is Dylan Avery scum?

[lenbrazil]

turbonium said:

One last note in regard to the thread topic. Imo, anyone who makes death threats, or advocates harming others, simply because of what they say and believe about 9/11 (or any issue), is truly scum.

lenbrazil said:

So do you agree Avery is scum, by your definition you should.

Not only did Avery tolerate Jack’s threat without any admonition from him or any other moderator*, he encouraged Jack by telling him where to find Mark Robert’s, the person he’d threatened to kill.

* The moderator, who closed the thread who presumably was chosen by Avery said Jack was with in his rights and had done nothing wrong.

[turbonium]

lenbrazil said:

So do you agree Avery is scum, by your definition you should.

Not only did Avery tolerate Jack’s threat without any admonition from him or any other moderator*, he encouraged Jack by telling him where to find Mark Robert’s, the person he’d threatened to kill.

* The moderator, who closed the thread who presumably was chosen by Avery said Jack was with in his rights and had done nothing wrong.
[/quote]

As I said, anyone who makes death threats, or advocates harming others, simply because of what they say and believe about 9/11 (or any issue), is truly scum.

Do I consider Avery a scum? Iif Avery behaved in the manner you've described, it would warrant that label, imo.

But without being able to confirm what transpired on the forum, it would be irresponsible of me to assume what you say is true, and to make any accusations solely on that basis.

Do you condone the comments made by Bonaduce and O'Reilly?

[Retrograde]

turbonium said:

But without being able to confirm what transpired on the forum, it would be irresponsible of me to assume what you say is true, and to make any accusations solely on that basis.

To the members of the ApolloHoax forum:

I came to the conclusion a long time ago that the author of the above statement is one of the lowest forms of scum in the universe. Perhaps my level of disgust with this alleged human comes when the lies are personal; he has lied about me (not by name, but through inclusion in a group), and also lied about more than one person I know (by name). The lies to which I refer are about things of which I have direct, personal, first-hand knowledge. If he were to know the slightest thing about me, I strongly suspect he would quickly assign me a spot in a particular take-over-the-world conspiracy that he has advocated here and elsewhere. But that's his problem, not mine.

I decided I would pay him no more mind than I pay to a dried-up lump of goose crap on my lawn, since, noxious and disgusting though he may be, he appears to have no power, and can only make annoying yapping noises on the internet. But I wished to enshrine the above statement in a quotation, in case its author decide to edit it. Here it may serve as perpetual evidence of the sancimonious hypocrisy of the individual who routinely accuses others, including me, of quite heinous crimes, without the slightest shred of evidence.

I now revert to my previous silent contempt.

[PhantomWolf]

Do I consider Avery a scum? Iif Avery behaved in the manner you've described, it would warrant that label, imo.

But without being able to confirm what transpired on the forum, it would be irresponsible of me to assume what you say is true, and to make any accusations solely on that basis.


Well since the thread is gone (why is that the truth movement feels they have to censor their board so much?) here's a screenshot for you to decide on.

forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=6256&d=1175623998

[turbonium]

phantomwolf said:

Well since the thread is gone (why is that the truth movement feels they have to censor their board so much?) here's a screenshot for you to decide on.

forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=6256&d=1175623998

Your link just sends me to a login page.

[ineluki]

turbonium said:

Your link just sends me to a login page.

The original Thread at JREF is
forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=78545

If you are really interested in the truth, you could ask someone there to send you the screenshots.

[lenbrazil]

turbonium said:

lenbrazil said:

So do you agree Avery is scum, by your definition you should.

Not only did Avery tolerate Jack’s threat without any admonition from him or any other moderator*, he encouraged Jack by telling him where to find Mark Robert’s, the person he’d threatened to kill.

* The moderator, who closed the thread who presumably was chosen by Avery said Jack was with in his rights and had done nothing wrong.

As I said, anyone who makes death threats, or advocates harming others, simply because of what they say and believe about 9/11 (or any issue), is truly scum.

Do I consider Avery a scum? Iif Avery behaved in the manner you've described, it would warrant that label, imo.

But without being able to confirm what transpired on the forum, it would be irresponsible of me to assume what you say is true, and to make any accusations solely on that basis.

The last links I posted to the Google cache of the LCF thread don't seem to be working try this one for the 1st page

72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php%3Fshowtopic%3D6799&hl=en&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2004-49,GGLD:en&strip=1

If that doesn't work
-go to the original LCF link
z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=6799
- when it opens right click anywhere on the page (except on link) choose the "Page Info" option and then "Cached Snapshot of Page".

You probably need Google Toolbar for this to work.

Do you condone the comments made by Bonaduce and O'Reilly?

I neither endorse nor condem them, for reasons spelled out on the other thread they are not comparable to Jack's or even Avery's comments. Neither of them threatened anyone and only by streaching logic beyond the breaking point do they qualify as serious calls for violence to be done to O'Donnell or Barrett.

[turbonium]

lenbrazil said:

I neither endorse nor condem them, for reasons spelled out on the other thread they are not comparable to Jack's or even Avery's comments. Neither of them threatened anyone and only by streaching logic beyond the breaking point do they qualify as serious calls for violence to be done to O'Donnell or Barrett.

You don't condemn such comments?

If someone called your father (or your wife,or a sibling, etc.) a traitor who should be strung up, you wouldn't condemn it?

[gillianren]

turbonium said:

If someone called your father (or your wife,or a sibling, etc.) a traitor who should be strung up, you wouldn't condemn it?

It would depend on what they'd done. Had they actually advocated/worked toward violent overthrow of the government? In that case, they would in fact be traitors. I might plead for clemency, but I would understand that not everyone saw them as I. (Then again, if it were my younger sister, I'd probably be heading the prosecution.)

[turbonium]

gillianren said:

turbonium said:

If someone called your father (or your wife,or a sibling, etc.) a traitor who should be strung up, you wouldn't condemn it?

It would depend on what they'd done. Had they actually advocated/worked toward violent overthrow of the government? In that case, they would in fact be traitors. I might plead for clemency, but I would understand that not everyone saw them as I. (Then again, if it were my younger sister, I'd probably be heading the prosecution.)

A traitor is someone who betrays their country.

If the government commits treason, they are traitors, and to advocate deposing them (whether by force or not) is not an act of treason.

There is a strong argument that our current government has violated their sworn oath to uphold the Constitution, and has committed treason. Calling someone a traitor who should be strung up because they question the current government is contemptible, imo.

Another example - beyond dispute - would be that of German citizens advocating the overthrow of Hitler in the 1930's.

They are not traitors in such a case, they are patriots.

What we have to determine is whether or not the leaders of our nations are acting in accordance with their sworn oath. And not to defend any government if it has violated that oath.

[gillianren]

turbonium said:

If the government commits treason, they are traitors, and to advocate deposing them (whether by force or not) is not an act of treason.

A government cannot commit treason, simply by definition. Now, individuals within a government can commit treason, and have. However, even in the most extreme example I can think of (Oliver Cromwell), it still wasn't "the government" that committed treason. It was, well, Cromwell and his supporters.

This is a point you don't ever seem to understand. Saying "the government" does thus-and-so doesn't really mean anything. It's simply too big. You can say that "X department" or, even better, "the heads of X department" or "people with in X department" did whatever it is you're accusing them of today. However, "the government" includes an awful lot of people who will, simply by the way the system's set up, have nothing to do with your alleged conspiracies.

My mother, for example. She works for the County of Los Angeles; arguably, that makes my mother part of the government. Are you accusing my mother of committing treason simply because she's a social worker and therefore part of the government? Or do you perhaps need to narrow your scope a little?

[PhantomWolf]

Your link just sends me to a login page.

Copied it over to my site

[turbonium]

gillianren said:

A government cannot commit treason, simply by definition. Now, individuals within a government can commit treason, and have. However, even in the most extreme example I can think of (Oliver Cromwell), it still wasn't "the government" that committed treason. It was, well, Cromwell and his supporters.

This is a point you don't ever seem to understand. Saying "the government" does thus-and-so doesn't really mean anything. It's simply too big. You can say that "X department" or, even better, "the heads of X department" or "people with in X department" did whatever it is you're accusing them of today. However, "the government" includes an awful lot of people who will, simply by the way the system's set up, have nothing to do with your alleged conspiracies.

My mother, for example. She works for the County of Los Angeles; arguably, that makes my mother part of the government. Are you accusing my mother of committing treason simply because she's a social worker and therefore part of the government? Or do you perhaps need to narrow your scope a little?

I thought it went without the need to always point out I mean elements within the government when I say "government" involvement in 9/11, etc.

Obviously, I don't mean it as everybody who is a government employee!

[ineluki]

turbonium said:

I thought it went without the need to always point out I mean elements within the government when I say "government" involvement in 9/11, etc.

Then back to the original question...

[gillianren]

turbonium said:

I thought it went without the need to always point out I mean elements within the government when I say "government" involvement in 9/11, etc.

Then who is? If you cannot say who is, how do you know they're government employees at all? Couldn't it be someone else with a super-secret ninja demolition squad that manages to only leave traces that look to qualified engineers like progressive collapse due to BFP+BFF but are clearly signs of controlled demolition to unqualified, uneducated amateurs on bulletin boards?

Obviously, I don't mean it as everybody who is a government employee!

No, I don't think it's obvious at all. You have a clear and fundamental distrust of the government that seems to contain everyone who works for them. I assure you that some of the people who were in the Pentagon on 9/11, probably even people working in that very section, had as little to do with upper-level decisions as my mother.