Quality of the air down here in the dungeon...

[Bonobo]

I don't know how many of you care about it, but a few days ago, SDuderstadt started a "truce" attempt. I joined in and have tried to do my best to clear out some of the rancor and anger here myself. Some of you have really seemed to appreciate it and have tried as well, others are already great it seems to me, such as William Seger and many others.

It is a crowded dungeon we live in here, with posts about UFOs, thimerysole (sic), magic bullets and vapor trails. I think it behooves us to try to keep it clean and snark free whenever possible. Snarkiness, sarcasm and just plain mean-spiritedness is an impediment to communication. To be so nasty and short with each other is unneccesary and counter-productive, I have really come to see over the past few days that none of us need to feel like we are enemies with each other. There is NO ONE here that does not feel pain from 9/11 and we all deal in our own way. But I daresay we are all here BECAUSE of that shared pain. So let's remember that paramount and not victimize each other further.

I hope no one finds this post patronizing. Or, if you do, please just chill out and consider that we all have something to learn and I definitely do not exclude myself from that.

[Why Syzygy]

1. Your efforts are admirable.

But have you considered that *snark* is all some of them have?

[wildbilln864]

2. ding, ding, ding! we have a winner! nt

[SDuderstadt]

4. You're one of the worst offenders, Bill....n/t

[procopia]

90. Now, THAT's funny...

A poster who regularly labels posts as "bullshit" and as recently as yesterday. You made a civility truce? :eyes:

[SDuderstadt]

91. Ummm, calling a bullshit post...

bullshit post is not the same thing as calling a member a name.

[procopia]

92. Calling a post you disagree with "bullshit"--

Is that civil discourse in your way of thinking? Saying "bullshit" is "oozing" out of someone? Civil?

[SDuderstadt]

93. "Saying 'bullshit' is 'oozing' out of someone?"

It's certainly no less civil than your strawman argument. I'd love for to point out precisely where I have ever said "bullshit is oozing out" of someone.

If you're just going to ressurrect old threads trying to pick a fight with me, you can save your breath. It's not my fault the "truth movement" is dying a slow death.

[procopia]

95. Precisely here:

100. I call bullshit when I see it...
dude, and it's just oozing out of you.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x274140#274389

Your idea of civility?

[SDuderstadt]

96. I don't recall saying that (but I obviously did)...

Point taken. You might, however, want to include the posts that preceded it for context.

[procopia]

97. Sorry, but the context doesn't help your case any nt

[SDuderstadt]

98. Then you shouldn't mind posting it....n/t

[procopia]

99. Anyone who is interested can easily follow the thread

from the link I posted, and find three posters harrassing another poster with accusations of lying. On one occasion in the past, one of my posts was deleted for saying "That's a lie." Your "oozing bullshit" remark was far worse than that, IMO.

[SDuderstadt]

100. Yeah, except labeling something a lie or calling a member...

a liar actually breaks DU rules. Why don't you simply post the exchange?

To be blunt, I really don't care what you think about this, so you might want to save yourself some time. You could put it to better use developing actual evidence for the "truth movement".

[procopia]

101. What is the difference

between calling someone a "liar," and saying they are "oozing bullshit"? If the former breaks the rules, so does the latter. The meaning is the same.

I really don't care that you don't care what I think. I was just pointing out your blatant hypocrisy.

[SDuderstadt]

102. Wrong as usual....

if you don't know the difference, I can't help you. Since you seem intent on picking a fight, I'm done.

[procopia]

103. Right, you're the victim

:nopity:

[SDuderstadt]

104. Another one of your strawmen....

I said I'm done. Go fight by yourself somewhere.

[procopia]

105. You have to have the last word?

You said you were done, so stop posting already.

[SDuderstadt]

94. "Saying 'bullshit' is 'oozing' out of someone?"

It's certainly no less civil than your strawman argument. I'd love for to point out precisely where I have ever said "bullshit is oozing out" of someone.

If you're just going to ressurrect old threads trying to pick a fight with me, you can save your breath. It's not my fault the "truth movement" is dying a slow death.

[Name removed]

107. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

108. Read post # 96....duh. n/t

[defendandprotect]

21. ....and the purpose is to BLOCK any real discussion --

as long as they can do that, they succeed --

and makes dungeon look like an idiot's paradise!

[SDuderstadt]

3. Why don't you guys drop the snark and see what happens? n/t

[Why Syzygy]

6. Why don't you post

some of "our" snark? It looks to me like general discussion is interupted by "you's guys" snark.
Some of us are clearly here to DISCUSS THE 911 ISSUE. Others of YOU are clearly here to interupt with SNARK! DUH!

[SDuderstadt]

7. A perfect example would be you smearing me as a "Bush apologist"...

need more?

[Why Syzygy]

8. That's an observation.

Is not SNARK. SNARK is pointless. Observations have a point.

[SDuderstadt]

9. It's a smear, dude...

it's not mere snark. You can't rationalize a smear by claiming it's merely an "observation".

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

14. Dude...do you make the rules here?

Could you please point to an example of making excuses for "Bush's malfunctions"? What you're doing is smearing someone who disagrees with you on the facts. It's despicable. Of course, that's just an "observation".

[Why Syzygy]

16. Can I make this clear to you?

I am not here to provide you with examples.

Look into the thread I started for plenty. More than that, I will not do FOR you. I'm not your nanny.

[SDuderstadt]

17. Then quit making claims you can't back up.....n/t

[Why Syzygy]

10. How would you classify "threats"? (PM)

Let me make this clear to you....
From: SDuderstadt
Date: Aug-28-09 10:25 PM
accusing, implying or insinuating that another member is a "bush apologist" or otherwise a RWer is a violation of DU rules that I take very seriously since I have been a progressive/liberal my entire adult life. Beyond unfairly smearing me, you absolutely poison reasonable debate with your despicable smears.

I've asked you politely now. I won't ask again.

[SDuderstadt]

12. That isn't a "threat", dude....n/t

[Why Syzygy]

13. Are you one of those

out of generation hippie wannabes who refer to chicks as "dude"?

[SDuderstadt]

15. Sorry, dudette...

I sometimes get my smearers mixed up.

[Bonobo]

5. From what I've seen...

They have done a better job than most of you gentlemen at giving up stupid snarky crap.

Why not just masturbate if you're that bored?

[defendandprotect]

20. Right . . .!! Easier to use the "ignore" button --

you're only wasting your time with them . . . and unfortunately they create

an atmosphere here which BLOCKS any sincere efforts to deal with these important

issues --

[defendandprotect]

18. Good try . .. and hope it works . . . but ridicule of conspiracy is the main weaon here . . .

which really says that minds are closed to anything but the official stories --

though most of the posters know that those running our government haven't been

trust worthy -- far from it!

So -- it makes no sense ...

[SDuderstadt]

19. No, D&P...it says our minds are "closed" to...

absurd conspiracy theories without a lick of proof.

[Bonobo]

22. I still don't see any valid reason for not doing another investigation.

After all, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, is it?

[SDuderstadt]

23. I'd prefer to spend money based upon "reasonable cause"....

I don't see that here.

[Bonobo]

27. Come on... Are you really THAT cheap?

Remind me not to guy out for a drink with you. LOL.

Seriously though, you yourself have said that lacking metallurgical tests we can't say if it was molten steel. And yet you wouldn't shell out the dough for those (and other) tests?

Where there is smoke, there is fire and there was enough suspicious stuff that day to warrant a closer look.

Did Cheney order stand down?
Was there molten steel?
Why was all that steel gotten rid of?
Did Giuliani start using bulldozers on bodies after he found the bank gold?

Lots of stuff. Lotsa questions. Lotsa suspicions. Lotsa people clamoring for real non-whitewashy investigations.

I can't see the angle to NOT do it. Money? Come on, can't you come up with something better? I don't even think YOU believe that's a good excuse.

[SDuderstadt]

29. With all due respect....

some of the stuff you're spouting here is simply warmed-over CT fare.

Let's take, for example, "why was all that steel gotten rid of"?


A. Because various investigative teams had combed through all the steel, taken inventory, documented with pictures and kept the samples they wanted. It's an absolute myth that all the steel was disposed of.

The one about "Giuliani...using bulldozers on bodies after he found the bank gold" is a real doozy, Do you have any proof of this at all? Which makes my point. Yes, I do NOT want to spend money investigating such silly claims. (for the record, I'm not dissing you, but I find your lack of discernment about these claims a little troubling).

I know this sounds snarky, but that is not my intent. For the record, I find the most persistent calls for a "new investigation" to come from people who have CLEARLY not availed themselves of the current state of information and, thus, are consequently demanding the most far-fetched claims be investigated. I would much rather spend money on indicting, prosecuting and convicting Bush/Cheney for things they actually DID do.

[Bonobo]

30. I am a busy man. I don't have time to look into everything.

That is why I want to be satisfied that my tax dollars have been spent doing a thorough investigation FOR me.

To me, the NIST report smelled like a political coverup from the beginning. Just the speed and manner with which they did it, not to mention that EVERYTHING Bush and his cronies did was a lie and a fraud. The man reaks of lies and corruption and I don't believe a commission set up by him and his peeps, ok? Is that clear enough. We got OUR president now and I want it investigated now that there is no threat of being dragged off to be tortured somewhere.

I am a busy man. I have looked into many things and I have limits. I choose not to take offense at what you said to me because I think you are trying very hard to be respectful. But I don't know WHAT Bush and Cheney really did and it is a little hard to "look into these things" on the internets and get a clear picture with all the muddied waters.

"For the record, I find the most persistent calls for a "new investigation" to come from people who have CLEARLY not availed themselves of the current state of information and, thus, are consequently demanding the most far-fetched claims be investigated."

CLearly not availed? Come on now. I have been trying, between work, to do just that. I am HERE DOING THAT. So please don't say that.

[SDuderstadt]

31. "The speed and the manner with which they did it"?

Bonobo...do you even know how long, from start to finish, it took NIST to finish their investigations and issue their reports?

[Bonobo]

32. No, how long?

[SDuderstadt]

33. See? This is what I mean...

from start to finish, about 6 years. Does that sound like a "speedy" investigation to you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Institute_of_Standards_and_Technology#Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center

I say this with no snarkiness whatsoever. The questions you ask and many of the theories you seem to espouse make me wonder if you've read much beyond 9/11 CT websites for much of what you "know" about 9/11. I hope I'm wrong.

[Bonobo]

34. I am sorry if I don't live up to your high hopes for me, man.

I am who I am, but you don;t know me. I'm seeking for the truth even though it's not the path you walked on. What is wrong with that?

Tell me where/how one debunks all the different things one hears so easily?

Did NIST address the Guiliuni bank thing? No, so what is the source that YOU use that tells you exactly what is true and what is not?

Firefighters who were there see molten steel and swear to it. Do you have proof it wasn't molten steel? Do I have proof it was molten steel? The answer to both is no. So it requires more than reading NIST, more than reading 9/11 websites. It requires converasation and thinking and I am TRYING TO DO BOTH HERE, so please continue to cut me some friggin' slack, ok?

FFS!

[greyl]

36. Stop apologizing and present some evidence.

It looks like you're more interested in your social standing in this forum than you are about learning & sharing what you learn about 9/11.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Why Syzygy]

42. Two in one night.

He's on a roll :bounce:

[greyl]

47. Ain't the air fresh, baby!

(that's a reference to the famous "Ain't the beer cold, baby!" quote from the broadcast of an Orioles game - not calling Bonobo a baby at all)

[SDuderstadt]

41. Bonobo...

Now you're asking me to prove a negative again. That is totally illogical. I don't have to prove it wasn't "molten steel". Whoever claims it was has to prove it.

Do you honestly think people can distinguish molten steel from other materials? Do you think firefighters receive some sort of special training to identify molten steel by sight? Do you think that would even be possible? Do you honestly think with ample amounts of other materials present (aluminum from the airliners, lead from UPS systems, etc.), it would be likely that any "molten pool" contained only one material?

Wildbill challenged me in another thread to produce a picture of something that looked like molten steel but actually wasn't. I obliged him and challenged him or anyone else to identify what it was merely by looking at it. Of course, no one ventured a guess. I am willing to venture that even an experienced metallurgist could do so merely by looking at it onsite, let alone a picture of it.

It's really late and I'm trying to get to bed, but I'm also trying to answer posts that people have replied with and it's a losing battle. I assure you that none of this was meant with snark, but I'll admit I am getting frustrated. I haven't forgotten the truce at all.

[Bonobo]

44. SDuderstadt...

I didn't ask you to prove a negative. I said that neither of us could answer what type of molten metal it was.

That's the purpose of an investigation.

When things are in doubt, when things are suspicious, you investigate.

You admit you don't know what the metal was. If it was steel, there is a problem. So let's find out if it was steel. No steel? No problem. Steel? Problem. Thus the need for investigation (one small issue to make a larger point.)

[SDuderstadt]

46. "Do you have proof it wasn't molten steel? "

That's asking me to prove a negative, Bonobo. Again, the burden of proof is on those who claim it was molten steel, not upon me to disprove it.

More importantly, how in the world can anyone prove what it was this much later? Can you explain to me how you'd go about doing that? Why did no one test whatever it was at the time? My guess would be that no one thought it all that suspicious at the time and the only people who appear to be pushing the myth that it wss "molten steel" are those that believe that the collapse of the Towers was a "controlled demolition".

For the life of me, I don't know how you think we could test the "molten material" some eight years later. More importantly, wouldn't "commonsense" tell you that, since the melting temperature of all the other metal materials in the building was considerably lower than steel, the likelihood that it was "molten steel" as opposed to some sort of admixture of various materials would be close to zero, if THAT high. Again, that's why my frustration is rising.

[lovepg]

71. So prove how many core columns the planes took out.....

Come on SD. You got the government report with all the "facts so prove it".
Computer simulations are just that simulations. Garbage in garbage out.
Why won't NIST show us their data used to achieve this "proof" with simulation.
Your whole official story rests on being able to PROVE THIS. The whole damn thing.
Where is your physical evidence the kind you ALWAYS demand to see. Come on DUDE step up .
Waiting..

[SDuderstadt]

73. Done, dude...

eventually it will sink in.

[lovepg]

76. What will sink in ? that you cannot prove your claim of the accuracy of the official story? nt

[greyl]

35. How long before you "get back to us" on all those other posts?

So transparent.

[Bonobo]

37. WTF is WRONG with you people!

You have pissed me off so I am going to bed.

[greyl]

51. I'll read your post thoughtfully, and get back to you later with an answer, Bonobo.

Your statement: "Cause I am about to put my transparent fist in your transparent face" is especially intriguing.
You've given me a lot to chew on!

[SDuderstadt]

52. Where did he say that?

Did I miss something?

[greyl]

53. Post 37, pre-edit.

The post had nothing to do with 9/11, but only attacked someone who cares about elevating the Truth.
Go figure.

[Why Syzygy]

43. Most of us

don't make a living dealing with 911. We are simply CITIZENS.

[SDuderstadt]

49. No shit...

yet you go around making all kinds of false claims and bristling when challenged for proof, instead accusing anyone who disagrees with you on the facts of being a "Bush supporter". Fucking unbelievable.

[greyl]

54. David Griffin does, and he has many loyal followers.

I'd watch out for them.

[lovepg]

77. Yes those roving gangs of Griffin thugs are not to be messed with. nt

[eomer]

65. That is a grossly inaccurate description.

Here is your description that is grossly inaccurate and, frankly, a fabrication:

Let's take, for example, "why was all that steel gotten rid of"?


A. Because various investigative teams had combed through all the steel, taken inventory, documented with pictures and kept the samples they wanted. It's an absolute myth that all the steel was disposed of.

You make it sound as if a thorough and methodical investigation occurred first and when it was all finished, then and only then was the steel disposed of. That is grossly inaccurate.

Here is a description of how it actually happened:

In the month that lapsed between the terrorist attacks and the deployment of the BPAT team, a significant amount of steel debris—including most of the steel from the upper floors—was removed from the rubble pile, cut into smaller sections, and either melted at the recycling plant or shipped out of the U.S. Some of the critical pieces of steel—including the suspension trusses from the top of the towers and the internal support columns—were gone before the first BPAT team member ever reached the site. Fortunately, an NSF-funded independent researcher, recognizing that valuable evidence was being destroyed, attempted to intervene with the City of New York to save the valuable artifacts, but the city was unwilling to suspend the recycling contract. Ultimately, the researcher appealed directly to the recycling plant, which agreed to provide the researcher, and ultimately the ASCE team and the SEAoNY volunteers, access to the remaining steel and a storage area where they could temporarily store important artifacts for additional analysis. Despite this agreement, however, many pieces of steel still managed to escape inspection.

There is more detail in the transcript from which the above excerpt is taken. It is a hearing on the subject held by the House Science Committee:

http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/science/hsy77747.000/hsy77747_0.htm

Also, here is a subthread on DU that covers the issue thoroughly:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=243521&mesg_id=244882

We've been through all this before. You've seen all these facts before (you made numerous posts in the DU thread I just linked to).

[Why Syzygy]

67. good gawd

I can't read the original post (thankfully), so thanks for posting the clip. These people are defending the official story with fabrications of their own? Incredulous.

[SDuderstadt]

69. Point taken...

I should have been more accurate in my descrition. What I should have said was that there was an organized effort after the initial confusion and chaos. I maintain, however, that there was never a deliberate effort to dispose of the steel other than to make the rescue and recovery attempts easier. I, for one, am not at all surprised that a large-scale, catastrophic event found local officials unprepared.

[lovepg]

70. Yeah combed through looking for personal items of victims not evidence...

Left that little detail out. I wonder why? You could have a gazillion groups comb thru the steel but if they are looking only for evidence that proves their foregone conclusion you are not really investigating are you?
And most of the steel was disposed of tell me where the 90% of the non disposed of steel resides right now?
I would like to go there and take some pictures of it to prove you right.

[SDuderstadt]

72. Done with your nonsense, dude....

DONE

[lovepg]

74. For the hundredth time LOL!!

Well it saves your ass from having to answer uncomfortable questions LOL!

[Ohio Joe]

24. I'll give it to you straight

There is only one person here on the "truth" side that makes any effort to offer any evidence and that is Spooked911. I do not agree with any of it. I think his theory of what happened on 9/11 is so completely impossible that it defies reason but... he does dig and does try to prove what he believes.

Everything else is re-hashes of debunked non-sense. There is zero evidence of CD, zero evidence anything other then a plane hit the pentagon, zero evidence of inside job and zero evidence of any of the other non-sense (no planes, lasers from space, micro-nukes, the list goes on and on).

The fact is, the truth movement is now an urban legend with the only people that believe being either those that have not looked into the facts or those that are willfully ignorant. The same stupid shit pops up time and time again, refusing to die like a freakin zombie. Go look at page 20, I bet there is nothing new in the least today from then.

Well... there does seem to be two new things and I'm going to go off here but it is not directed at you but rather at the truth movement in general.

First, truthers no longer seem to feel the need to back up what they say... it is all over the internet you know... or on youtube... go look for yourself. Bullshit. If you are going to make a claim, back it up.

Second, the out and out accusation that you are a repug if you do not buy their tinfoil... everything about the oct comes from bush... your hiding his crimes... he lied about so many other things. Bullshit again. Not everything comes from bush, it is patently stupid to even make such a claim. Hiding his crimes... you want to know who hides his crimes? The truth movement, thats who. Instead of focusing on documented, provable crimes, the truth movement obscures them with fantastic non-sense and presents zero real evidence, just bullshit that is disproven over and over again.

[SDuderstadt]

25. The truly amazing thing about the "truth movement" is their...

total hypocrisy about "proof". They demand "proof" from the "government" re: 9/11 yet, when they're asked for proof of their absurd claims, their usual retort is that we're trying to "suppress the truth". If it weren't so sad, it would actually be funny.

[lovepg]

60. Ahh the government is SUPPOSED to deliver the proof after all they have the investigative..

power and directive. To demand that level of truth from J Q citizen who has good questions but no investigative powers is dumb.
Thats what cracks me up about official story people, you think you have all the answers and you hide behind the governments obfuscation reports.
But you cannot answer lots of this stuff in an adequate fashion. You say show to us the evidence knowing full well the steel evidence that would prove your case has been destroyed,
Knowing full well the government is withholding videos photos and interviews that should be able to clear up the foggy areas of 911 easily. Why you fail to demand from the government the same level of proof you demand from some poor suckers on the internet is galling to say the least. It is also suspicious as well. It makes one wonder if the real focus of your combative minds is not finding the truth but defending a flawed
government investigation. If some people think you are defenders of the Bush administration I would suspect this to be the reason.

[Why Syzygy]

62. +1

[lovepg]

75. We get to ask the questions. You have the proof and the answers....

If that is too much for you get a life.

[greyl]

26. Quality evidence and arguments would be even better.

If you had them, I think you'd be talking about them, damn being polite about it.
I know I would.

[defendandprotect]

28. Try common sense . . .

do you really believe that aluminum planes sliced thru steel buildings like butter?

And not only that -- but that they zipped thru the building to the central corps of steel

girders grouped together and knocked them all out -- !!!

I mean . . really???

[greyl]

38. No, that's unreliable and woefully inconsistent. Evidence please. nt

[defendandprotect]

58. Well, obviously you have some "evidence" for aluminum planes cutting thru steel?

[lovepg]

61. The south tower plane hit the side of the tower. Half the plane was destroyed outside the building..

Yet the Nist report computer simulations have that plane taking out more core columns than the north tower plane that hit the tower straight on.
The Nist simulations had to do this to explain how the south tower fell in less time than the north tower.
Remember your vaunted evidence is nothing more than computer simulations subject to the parameters put in by the people performing them. They admit they do not know for sure how many columns were taken out in each tower by the two planes.
Your real evidence the actual steel that could prove the Nist reports conclusions for all to see was destroyed.
The rest is pure conjecture put forth by people bent on showing THE one conclusion they had already come up with.

[Why Syzygy]

45. skeptics

do not employ "common sense".

[greyl]

48. Skeptic is a relative term.

For example, you are a skeptic of the scientific consensus of what happened on 9/11.
Therefore, applying your statement, you do not employ common sense.

[Why Syzygy]

55. Buh bye

Join my Ignore list.

[SDuderstadt]

57. Pretty soon she'll have everyone on "ignore"

she must be D&P's heiress apparent.

[SDuderstadt]

50. Bullshit....

however, skeptics also know that people who believe that "commonsense" trumps science are most often wrong.

[Why Syzygy]

56. Don't know about you ..

but the air is much clearer for me now. :hi:

[MrMickeysMom]

59. Been watching this little experiment here...

I wondered how long it would take and credit those who thought they could possibly promote normal discussion with some of the "professionals" here. Good try, but you can't fix willful and professional mouth breathers. Makes for bad air exchange, I say...

I'm a respiratory therapist, and goodness knows, I appreciate a breath of fresh air. However, after the last week in this place which ended up pissing one of them off to the point of abuse and stalking behavior, it was back to the "ignore" button, again.

Much easier work of breathing.

:hi: ... peace and knowledge on "ignore"!
MMM

[Why Syzygy]

68. hey

:hi: Yeah. I don't spend time at DU to take abuse. It took four and a half years for me to put the first person on Ignore. It gets a LOT easier. And I FEEL so much better! No one insults me more than once. Interesting, though, some of those who KNOW they are on my ignore list still can't restrain themselves from posting to me. It's a compulsion.

[whatchamacallit]

63. Bwahahahahahahahahahaha!

What a thread!:rofl:

[Make7]

64. Do as I say, not as I do.

 

Bonobo says:

I joined in and have tried to do my best to clear out some of the rancor and anger here myself.

Bonobo writes:

I am here to learn. I am trying to avoid assholes while I do it.

You are one of them. I will now ignore your stupid ass.

Bonobo says:

I think it behooves us to try to keep it clean and snark free whenever possible.

Bonobo writes:

Why not just masturbate if you're that bored?

Bonobo says:

Snarkiness, sarcasm and just plain mean-spiritedness is an impediment to communication.

Bonobo writes:

I am listening asshole so shut the fuck up.

Bonobo says:

To be so nasty and short with each other is unneccesary and counter-productive...

Bonobo writes:

You don't fucking know me so shut the fuck up.

"Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars... Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that." - Martin Luther King Jr.

"Be the change you want to see in the world." - Mahatma Gandhi
 

[LARED]

66. +1 nt

[MrMickeysMom]

78. So, I guess only CERTAIN posts should follow...

...the philosophy of Martin Luther King and Gandhi, correct?

Yours, of course, gets a pass.

[Make7]

79. Those quotes were food for thought...

... for someone who started a thread calling for the reduction of anger, snark, and hostility in the dungeon; yet that someone seems unwilling, or unable, to live up to his own words as stated in the opening post on the very same day that he wrote it.

- Make7
 

[Realityhack]

86. I must have missed...

the thread Make7 started on civility and his posts over the following days that were blatantly uncivil.

[greyl]

80. kick

Bonobo also wrote:

I am about to put my transparent fist in your transparent face.

[Make7]

81. You'd never see that one coming. ( n/t )

[SDuderstadt]

82. That reminds me...

I almost had a psychic girlfriend once, but she dumped me before we met.

[greyl]

83. That's funny. nt

[Bonobo]

84. So your purpose to kick this thread is?

You seem about 99% interested in razzing people and being a jerk and about 1% interested in discussing the topic of this forum seriously.

[greyl]

85. ? Because that was funny.

It was also kind of an inside joke with Make7, letting him know I remembered the time when he replied "That's funny" to someone here and got a rash of shit about it in return. I wonder who that was...

[Bonobo]

87. Actually, on re-reading it WAS funny so I apologize. nt

[greyl]

88. So your purpose to kick this thread was? nt

[Make7]

89. "To be so nasty and short with each other is unneccesary and counter-productive..." ( n/t )

[flow_urgirl]

106. Well don't be afraid

Don't be in terror. Don't be afraid to state your minds about this or anything else. I agree and the humanity that lack are also scared. They just don't admit it and are slow, if ever to realise the pain from the terror attacks. And the pain is needing to be reflected upon even if it takes 20 years to realise.

[Make7]

109. kick