| Welcome! You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! |
| thank you "jref"; Woke Me Up | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Jan 20 2008, 06:57 AM (1,962 Views) | |
| Agent | Jan 20 2008, 06:57 AM Post #1 |
|
the jref are the ones who woke me up i was neutral untill i saw the skeptics best defense name calling LOL really sad when you think about they can't even under stand simple physics well can't really blame them or their parents they went to american schools 
|
 |
 
|
| JFK | Jan 20 2008, 10:23 AM Post #2 |
|
Actually, I don't know the exact statistics, but many are not from the USA. Just goes to show that ignorance is a global problem.... not that that is neccessarily a bad thing as ignorance CAN be cured, it is stupidity which is forever. 
|
|
|
| Kaiya | Jan 20 2008, 03:04 PM Post #3 |
|
Some other forums just resort to banning people who ask questions. AFAIK this has not happened at JREF. Kaiya |
|
|
|
| William Rea | Jan 20 2008, 06:58 PM Post #4 |
|
Which other forums and who has been banned on them for "just asking questions". |
|
|
|
| nicepants | Jan 20 2008, 10:52 PM Post #5 |
|
Prisonplanet.com does. |
|
|
|
| jughead | Jan 20 2008, 11:21 PM Post #6 |
|
I have to admit that JREF is a poor role model for a skeptics site. It's like the emotional development for the majority of them stopped at 14. |
|
|
|
| jughead | Jan 20 2008, 11:24 PM Post #7 |
|
ALL truth forums do! |
|
|
|
| Roboscoop | Jan 21 2008, 02:28 AM Post #8 |
|
Yeah, on the "old" loose change forum it bugged me that members would absolutley pounce on anyone who wanted to talk about the theory-that-can-no-longer-be-named. It was really predictable! I highly doubt that all the people who brought it up were trying to cause trouble. Yes they are dumb ideas but not everyone can see that right away. Being attacked sure doesnt help set a person straight. JREF does suck from what i've seen! |
|
|
|
| Stundie | Jan 21 2008, 11:10 AM Post #9 |
|
The JREF Conspiracy Forum is nothing more than Groupthink. |
|
|
|
| nicepants | Jan 21 2008, 12:13 PM Post #10 |
|
You used to participate there, did you not? |
|
|
|
| Stundie | Jan 21 2008, 12:28 PM Post #11 |
|
I did until I was banned....... Lets have a FAQ about my banning. What was Stundie banned for again? For allegedly being a sock puppet of Pdoherty. Is Stundie actually a sock of Pdoherty? No. What proof did the moderators have that made them think Stundie was a sock of Pdoherty before they banned my account? None! Now that the Mods know that Stundie is not Pdoherty, have they ever lifted the ban? No. Why have they not lifted the ban? Because that would be in direct confliction with their own rules and they would have to stop the Stundie Awards. As I am a banned member, they can have the Stundie Awards. I suppose I didn't follow the groupthink mentality, if I did, then maybe I would have never been accused and then banned without proof hey?? Edited by Stundie, Jan 21 2008, 12:39 PM.
|
|
|
|
| nicepants | Jan 21 2008, 01:11 PM Post #12 |
|
Have you appealed your ban? |
|
|
|
| Kaiya | Jan 21 2008, 01:25 PM Post #13 |
|
Here is one example. On LCF 2.0 Ranb asked if video editing was like quote mining. Within 30 minutes Ranb was banned. Ranb's profile was also modified by an administator to say that he is a "monkey's ball sack" Since Ranb was not breaking any forum rules, the ban was unjust. Changing Ranb's profile was just another example of child-like behavior by the admin. While version 2.0 of the LCF is an improvement over the original, it's supporters still served as a fine example of people who I hope never run anything more complicated than a slinky. Kaiya Edited by Kaiya, Jan 21 2008, 02:17 PM.
|
|
|
|
| defaultdotxbe | Jan 21 2008, 04:36 PM Post #14 |
|
whos name calling now? Edited by defaultdotxbe, Jan 21 2008, 04:37 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Miragememories | Jan 22 2008, 02:22 PM Post #15 |
|
I think Stundie nailed it with his statement "The JREF Conspiracy Forum is nothing more than Groupthink." Of course you can expect a certain amount of common ideology in this forum and the JREF forum. Where the problem comes in is when people place greater importance on group acceptance than on personal integrity. By way of example, take the collapse of WTC7. Most people familiar with controlled demolition videos of buildings, will look at the videos of the WTC7 collapse and readily agree that it looks like a controlled demolition. This doesn't concede a critical point about whether or not they think it was, just that it looks similar to one. No big deal right? When this simple, straightforward question was raised in a thread in JREF by Christopher7 (Chris Sarns), page after page of responders did nothing but avoid acknowledging the obvious. Totovader "There is nothing to the collapse of Building 7 that is similar to a CD- with the exception that "it fell down". pomeroo (Ron Wieck) "WTC 7 cannot possibly be "an easily recognizable bottom up implosion," however, because demolition professionals don't recognize it as such." Pardalis "Sure a building that falls down looks like a building that falls down." CptColumbo "What it "looks" like is unimportant, what actually happened is the issue at hand." Myriad "What makes it not look like a CD is the glass. No CD is performed with window glass still in place." beachnut "just a fantasy of a few people who are 9/11 truth believers with no facts or evidence." ref "Why make it such a demolition looking demolition?! (Eventhough it doesn't look like a demolition)" Corsair 115 "What does visual simularity prove?" twinstead "It looked like CD" is a joke." pomeroo"Someone linked to a photo of a hyrax and asked if it looked like a rodent. A hyrax does look like a rodent, but its closest relative is the elephant" uk_dave "It looked like a building collapse due to internal structural failure." eeyore1954 "I suspect videos from the other side would have told a different story." Why the resistance? They value peer group acceptance more than they do the honesty of their own points of view. MM |
|
|
|
| Colonel | Jan 22 2008, 08:14 PM Post #16 |
|
I think you will find that on any forum, a schoolyard mind in an adult body. I was verbally abused and name-called on the old LC forum by two prolific posters who are now on this one. They haven't done it recently. I don't know if they have matured or the change is a result from having been administratively admonished. Or maybe they just choose to ignore me.  |
|
|
|
| Stundie | Jan 23 2008, 08:30 AM Post #17 |
|
Yes I actually appealed it at the time of the banning, a few times that day and over the next couple of days. I received no response, so I gave up trying and joined the SLC forum instead. Orphia Nay joined the SLC forum to tell me why I was banned. She knew why I was banned, even though I didn't have a clue. I have contacted the mods and they know I am not a sock, there reason for banning me was because (According to the mods!) I had a similar IP address than Pdoherty. (What a lame excuse and considering I'm not even in the same area as Pdoherty, this makes it even more bizarre!) Pdoherty has also contact the mods admitting that he was using socks they accused him of, but that he was not me, yet my ban is still in place to this day....because...and I'll repeat it again for you since you no doubt missed why the FAQS as to why I'm still banned. Why have they not lifted the ban? Because that would be in direct confliction with their own rules and they would have to stop the Stundie Awards. As I am a banned member, they can have the Stundie Awards. Do you geddit? I'm banned, so the Stundie Awards can go ahead, if I'm not banned, then there would be no more Stundie Awards because I would be a member and the awards would be in direct conflict of the JREF membership agreements. I thought I had explained this to you and HeyLeroy over at the SLC forum time and time again. So to round it up, they thought I was someone I was not based on absolutely no evidence, yet even after they are aware I am not this person, I am still banned. As I said time and time before, it was nothing more than a face saving excerise as Gravy was receiving a serious kicking and he, his worshippers and the mods knew it. They couldn't handle me pissing all over Gravys chips, so they banned me to stop his humiliation. The funny thing is, when he came over to the SLC forum to challenge me about the above claims, I challenged him to carry on were we left off before I was banned, he ran off with his tail between his legs from because he is an intellectual coward and a pseudoskeptic of the highest order. If you speak with him and if he ever decides he wants to carry on from where we left off, let him know. Although we all know that won't happen as I'll humilate him again.  I'll expect a post from you defending Gravy and JREF Forums actions soon. Edited by Stundie, Jan 23 2008, 08:41 AM.
|
|
|
|
| nicepants | Jan 23 2008, 08:44 AM Post #18 |
|
Who did you contact and how did you contact them? |
|
|
|
| Stundie | Jan 23 2008, 09:17 AM Post #19 |
|
Thinking for yourself is a dangerous game over at the JREF CT Forum, I believe they call it "The Mark Of Woo!" or something. It is nothing more than groupthink mentality and it's all backed up by Pseudoskepticism.You'll see every single Pseudoskeptical tactic used by the groupthinkers at the JREF CT forum. Why the resistance by JREFers/Debunkers is a great question? I've heard certain debunkers say something along the lines of "CTers are to scared to think that 19 hijackers could have done this and it conforts them to think the government would do it" Well I think it's the total opposite. Which is the more frightening and greater of the 2 threats? The possibility of 19 Foriegn Hijackers doing 9/11 or the possibility that parts of your own government doing 9/11? Myself and hopefully most rational people, would suggest the possibility of government complicity would be more worrying than the threat of 19 foriegn hijackers doing 9/11. Knowing that those who have sworn to protect you but have actually caused you harm is much more frightening than an outside threat. Because the threat that 9/11 was a possible inside job is the most frightening to think about, it must be rejected at any costs, even if it means lying to others and themselves. Hence the reason we see such so much resistance to anything that doesn't fit with their conclusions. Pyschologists refer to this as the Stockholm Syndrome where victims of abuse become emotionally/physchologically attached to their abusers. They will remain loyal, sympathise and even defend their abusers from any wrong doing, even when they have clearly done something wrong. Most CTers believed in the 19 hijackers theory before they formed their own beliefs and opinions about 9/11. So for any debunkers to suggest that CTers are too scared to think 19 hijackers could do 9/11 when it is less scarier/worrying than the prospect of the government being complicit for 9/11 is quite astounding. |
|
|
|
| nolan ganwich | Jan 23 2008, 09:25 AM Post #20 |
|
Stundie said
They don't need proof, they are told what to think and anyone who posts a different view from the status quo is rounded upon and hounded out the joint. Most of those who post there are social outcasts and have a desire to belong, they will prostitute their integrity to feel part of a group. Something they don't have in the real world. |
|
|
|
| Stundie | Jan 23 2008, 09:37 AM Post #21 |
|
See how you dance around my post Nicepants....... Why does it matter how I contacted them? Does it really matter? All communications were done via email and considering this is internet, I thought you would use your initiative and worked this one out for yourself. They are aware that I am not Pdoherty. Why does it matter who I contacted? The moderators, I do not know the name of them personally but they are fully aware that I am not Pdoherty or any of his socks. You keep forgetting that I was banned without any proof, so should we really be having this conversation about me being banned? In reality i shouldn't be banned, but keep forgetting about it because your doublethink skills have reach new levels since we last spoke. If the JREF Forum want to start banning people based on nothing more than another members suspicion (Maybe it was Gravy, who knows? who cares?) without a single shred of proof, then I'm not going to waste my time defending myself or proving to them yet again that I am not who they thought I was. Besides, you keep forgetting/ignoring that if they did actually lift my ban, the Stundie Awards will have to stop and the psuedo-skeptics can't have that can they. So the ban HAS to stay!! |
|
|
|
| nicepants | Jan 23 2008, 10:00 AM Post #22 |
|
Were you warned or suspended prior to your ban? By whom? |
|
|
|
| William Rea | Jan 23 2008, 02:43 PM Post #23 |
|
I can verify this with my own experiment that I carried out early on in my membership at JREF. I asked a very simple question that I knew would challenge their ability to think beyond dogma. I asked if it would be rational to design a building such as the WTC with charges that could be used to bring under control any inevitable unpredictable collapse and so avoid even greater casualties in surrounding buildings. Needless to say the replies did not contain a philosophical analysis! |
|
|
|
| Stundie | Jan 23 2008, 03:23 PM Post #24 |
|
No warnings, no suspensions, nothing...I didn't know why I was banned until Orphia Nay contacted me at SLC Forum to tell me they had banned me for being a sock of pdoherty. I didn't even know who pdoherty was. He later joined the SLC Forum and apologised, but he's not to blame as he isn't the one who banned me. And for the last time, I do not know who banned me over at the JREF forum and neither do I care. As I've said, it was just an excuse to stop me from making your favourite debunker Gravy look silly, not that he needs any help. I've seen exactly how the debunkers and even the mods operate over there with their groupthink and as for JREF forum being (I'm going to refrain from laugh so hard here!") "a place to skepticism, critical thinking and debate etc etc in a friendly way". Nothing could be further from the truth. Its without a doubt the total opposite with members using the most blatant pseudo skeptisims, excuses, unsubstantiated claims and even lies to find out about 9/11. |
|
|
|
| noeffects | Jan 23 2008, 03:51 PM Post #25 |
|
Pomeroo(Ron "Weaks") says "Someone linked to a photo of a hyrax and asked if it looked like a rodent. A hyrax does look like a rodent, but its closest relative is the elephant" Oh boy! That is the most far away anaolgy for WTC 7 ever. He should definitly not get into analogy laden rap/hip-hop scene . Sorry, can't help myself, what an aweful thought...Imagine MC Weaks straight outta the JRef studios. The new king of hip hop with the secret govt. giving him da playa power to spread da troof of Hyrax the elephant.......geezuz Ron Pom. Peace Out |
|
|
|
| 2 users reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Skeptics · Next Topic » |
12:13 PM Nov 23