Question For Nicepants, Or any other internet "persona" who makes excuses for the govt Options

[rob balsamo]

nicepants,

1. Do you feel that the forum/site you frequent employs a double standard? (ie, banning those who attack the person/organization instead of the argument if they are a "twoofer", yet never warning anyone for the same infraction if they support the govt story)

2. Do you feel that the "Conspiracy" section of the site you frequent is "fair and balanced" and objective? To clarify: Do you feel the "Conspiracy" section adheres to the statement... "where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way"..?

3. Do you feel that the "signal to noise ratio" at the site you frequent is appropriate in its current state?

4. If you feel the "noise" overwhelms the "signal" regarding question #3, do you feel it helps or hurts your position/message and those of your cohorts?

5. Have you ever been required to submit your full name and zip code in order to register for any forum sans the forum described in the above questions? If so, where? Further, do you feel this is a reasonable request when the staff approving your registration are anonymous themselves?

6. Have you ever had to submit further proof of your identification to an anonymous admin/mod staff if said admin/mod(s) doubted your identity for any reason they choose? If so, where? Do you feel that satisfying such a request in order to participate in an anonymous forum with an anonymous staff is excessive?

These are just a few questions i would like to know from a member of the "opposition" who has gained a bit of my respect for the simple reason you took the time to register here unlike your cohorts who apparently are intimidated. I will add more questions similar to the above in this thread as time permits. Others who understand why i started this thread, feel free to add your own questions and/or source examples of such a double standard within the "operation" of our "opposition".

[nicepants]

nicepants,

1. Do you feel that the forum/site you frequent employs a double standard? (ie, banning those who attack the person/organization instead of the argument if they are a "twoofer", yet never warning anyone for the same infraction if they support the govt story)

I don't believe that there is a double-standard. I've seen people on both sides of the argument get warned, suspended, or banned. (myself included)
The moderators there try to be as fair as possible, and there are clear rules and documented procedures that the admins must follow.

2. Do you feel that the "Conspiracy" section of the site you frequent is "fair and balanced" and objective? To clarify: Do you feel the "Conspiracy" section adheres to the statement... "where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way"..?

It's friendly, for the most part, but I won't deny that there are definite exceptions to the rule.

3. Do you feel that the "signal to noise ratio" at the site you frequent is appropriate in its current state?

Could you be more specific?

4. If you feel the "noise" overwhelms the "signal" regarding question #3, do you feel it helps or hurts your position/message and those of your cohorts?

See response to #3

5. Have you ever been required to submit your full name and zip code in order to register for any forum sans the forum described in the above questions? If so, where? Further, do you feel this is a reasonable request when the staff approving your registration are anonymous themselves?

I haven't had to submit such information to any forum that I can recall. I don't see any logical reason to require same unless for security or abuse-prevention purposes, but the rules of any particular forum are up to it's management.

6. Have you ever had to submit further proof of your identification to an anonymous admin/mod staff if said admin/mod(s) doubted your identity for any reason they choose? If so, where? Do you feel that satisfying such a request in order to participate in an anonymous forum with an anonymous staff is excessive?

I have not been asked to submit such identification. Excessive? It probably depends on the nature of the request and the reason for it. I can see how it may be useful in the implementation of some forms security or abuse-prevention.

These are just a few questions i would like to know from a member of the "opposition" who has gained a bit of my respect for the simple reason you took the time to register here unlike your cohorts who apparently are intimidated. I will add more questions similar to the above in this thread as time permits. Others who understand why i started this thread, feel free to add your own questions and/or source examples of such a double standard within the "operation".

Rob, same questions to you, when you get a chance, thanks.

[lunk]

Nicepants, hi,
I was wondering, what is your "take" on what happened, 11/9/2001?
Is it the same as the governments' theory?
Or, do you have your own interpretation of the events of that day?

[tnemelckram]

First they ignore you.

Then they laugh at you.

Then they attack you.

Then you win.

Ghandi

The advent of Nicepants suggests that we are in the middle of stage three. Next we win.

[Craig Ranke CIT]

Nicepants, hi,
I was wondering, what is your "take" on what happened, 11/9/2001?
Is it the same as the governments' theory?
Or, do you have your own interpretation of the events of that day?

Good question.

Watch him dodge and weave it.

He is ashamed to admit he believes the official story!

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/laughing1.gif)

[lunk]

Good question.

Watch him dodge and weave it.

He is ashamed to admit he believes the official story!

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/laughing1.gif)

We must remember that there are still a lot of people who have been too kept busy to even think about 9/11 outside what they have been told by their trusted media.

This could make them angry, and want to respond here;
they may also be curious about inconsistencies in the official story, and want to respond here; or, they could be here cause somebody hired them to specifically respond here.

We should never jump to conclusions, too quickly, about anyones' motivation.

imo, lunk

[rob balsamo]

I don't believe that there is a double-standard.

Of course you dont. However, isnt one of the rules of the site you frequent state "attack the argument, not the person"? (or something to that effect). How does that fit in with every other post/topic using the word "Twoofer", "Nuts", "Stupid", "Kook", "Woo", "Loon".. you get the point...

My favorite are the "Stundies". Although i never have read such a thread, it makes me smile every time i see a new one. Can you guess why?

I've seen people on both sides of the argument get warned, suspended, or banned. (myself included)
The moderators there try to be as fair as possible, and there are clear rules and documented procedures that the admins must follow.

Really. Hmmm... lets take an example.. shall we?

Beachnut: Almost every one of his posts contain ad homs and attacking the person/organization instead of the argument. I would search for source links, but...

1. I really dont want to waste my time as im sure Beachnut himself will not deny... and
2. I dont want to expose my sock puppet just yet (yes, i know more about your "operation" than you think) (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Has "Beachnut" ever been warned, suspended or banned? If not, do you feel "Beachnut" has never warranted such action? or.... is "Beachnut" an exception since he is a "forum donor". Again, this is just one example as "Beachnut" is perhaps the the most blatant violator of the govt loyalist site rules therefore anyone can readily search his posts to confirm such claims. Pomeroo is a close second, although much more vile, he doesnt "live" on the govt loyalist site as does "Beachnut". The rest of the "regulars" such as yourself perhaps arent as consistent at violating the govt loyalist site rules as those described.

It's friendly, for the most part,

"For the most part"...? Really? Uhhh.. ok.

but I won't deny that there are definite exceptions to the rule.

Weak save...

Could you be more specific?

Read the first series of replies to our "Topography" article which had to be removed if you want an example which is "more specific". Im sure you know where its located being that the the govt loyalist site mods had no choice but to remove it from public view due to the embarrassment the govt loyalist site members display when confronted with such information.

See response to #3

Ignorance is bliss i suppose. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

I haven't had to submit such information to any forum that I can recall. I don't see any logical reason to require same unless for security or abuse-prevention purposes, but the rules of any particular forum are up to it's management.

Really? The forum we are referencing didnt require you to submit your full name and zip code when you registered? I registered a sock there before your Jan 2007 registration and they required such information from me. Certainly anyone can fake their name and zip as i did for my sock, but the point still stands.. I see you virtually agree asking for such information in order to participate on an anonymous forum is ridiculous (see, i can use strawmans too, just like you (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) )

I have not been asked to submit such identification.

Of course you havent. You support and make excuses for the govt story. Ask Craig about his experience with the govt loyalist site just to try to defend himself.

Excessive? It probably depends on the nature of the request and the reason for it. I can see how it may be useful in the implementation of some forms security or abuse-prevention.

Read and Learn.

Do you now think that is "Excessive"? Or do you prefer to make excuses to justify such actions when an individual (such as Craig) elects to defend himself using his real name against those who hide behind their screen. You really dont see a problem with that? Really?

Keep in mind, we have never required any form of ID to sign up for this forum in order to "implement some form of security". Matter of fact, we dont even ban what we feel may be "sock puppets". Further, i have never been asked to submit any form of identification nor was i asked to submit my real name to any forum i have registered, except for the govt loyalist site. And i have registered at many forums. Why do you think the govt loyalist site has to implement such unprecedented measures?

Rob, same questions to you, when you get a chance, thanks.

Feel free to start your own thread. This thread is about you and your opinions/concerns from an "opposition" point of view.

Here is another question for you.

- Do you feel that making an effort to behave civilly on one forum (because you know you will get banned otherwise) justifies personal attacks when you return to your cohorts? Have you observed such behavior in Junior High School? And if so, are you in Junior High School? If not.. .why do you (and many of your cohorts) exhibit such behavior?


Regards

[nicepants]

Of course you dont. However, isnt one of the rules of the site you frequent state "attack the argument, not the person"? (or something to that effect). How does that fit in with every other post/topic using the word "Twoofer", "Nuts", "Stupid", "Kook", "Woo", "Loon".. you get the point...

How is "twoofer" any different than "government apologist"?
The rules deal with attacks on other members.

My favorite are the "Stundies". Although i never have read such a thread, it makes me smile every time i see a new one. Can you guess why?

They are quite funny, you should read them. If I'm not mistaken, you've been nominated once or twice, though I don't recall what it was for.

Really. Hmmm... lets take an example.. shall we?

Beachnut: Almost every one of his posts contain ad homs and attacking the person/organization instead of the argument. I would search for source links, but...

1. I really dont want to waste my time as im sure Beachnut himself will not deny... and
2. I dont want to expose my sock puppet just yet (yes, i know more about your "operation" than you think) (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

If you have a sock puppet (not surprised) then you're breaking the rules of the J.R.E.F. forum, and now you're chastising Beachnut for breaking the rules of the forum? Pot? Kettle?

If Beachnut is breaking the rules, then report him. The mods will deal with it appropriately.

[nicepants]

Sorry for multiple posts, I was limited in the number of quotes I could post

Has "Beachnut" ever been warned, suspended or banned?

You would have to ask him. Bans & suspensions are made public, warnings are not.

If not, do you feel "Beachnut" has never warranted such action? or.... is "Beachnut" an exception since he is a "forum donor".

He is not exempt from the rules. I have not read all of his posts, so I cannot say whether or not he has warranted such an action. If you have a specific post you would like me to read, please direct me to it and I'll give you my opinion.

Again, this is just one example as "Beachnut" is perhaps the the most blatant violator of the govt loyalist site rules therefore anyone can readily search his posts to confirm such claims. Pomeroo is a close second, although much more vile, he doesnt "live" on the govt loyalist site as does "Beachnut".

Pomeroo does get carried away from time-to-time, and I know for a fact that he's been suspended before.

The rest of the "regulars" such as yourself perhaps arent as consistent at violating the govt loyalist site rules as those described.

I try my best to follow the rules there and at the other forums I participate in.

Read the first series of replies to our "Topography" article which had to be removed if you want an example which is "more specific". Im sure you know where its located being that the the govt loyalist site mods had no choice but to remove it from public view due to the embarrassment the govt loyalist site members display when confronted with such information.

Firstly, it was removed because the thread turned into nothing but bickering and personal attacks. No one at J.R.E.F. was "embarrassed" by the topography article. You may recall that it was members at J.R.E.F. who corrected your calculations.

Ignorance is bliss i suppose. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Really? The forum we are referencing didnt require you to submit your full name and zip code when you registered?

Name & zip code? Perhaps...I registered a long time ago, I really don't remember the extent of the information I was required to enter.

I registered a sock there before your Jan 2007 registration and they required such information from me. Certainly anyone can fake their name and zip as i did for my sock, but the point still stands.. I see you virtually agree asking for such information in order to participate on an anonymous forum is ridiculous (see, i can use strawmans too, just like you (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) )

I never suggested that asking for a name & zipcode is ridiculous. It's up to the creators of that forum. If they asked me for my name & zipcode I would have provided it, as long as it's not publicly displayed without my permission.

Of course you havent. You support and make excuses for the govt story.

I support the conclusions reached by the evidence, and I did so before the government ever came out with its story.

Ask Craig about his experience with the govt loyalist site just to try to defend himself.

Lyte was placed on indefinite suspension (you can read the notice for yourself in the Public Notices forum) for breaches of his membership agreement. Additionally, the board moderators believed that more than one person was using his account. If he believes he was un-justly suspended, he should take up his case with the moderators.

Read and Learn.

Do you now think that is "Excessive"? Or do you prefer to make excuses to justify such actions when an individual (such as Craig) elects to defend himself using his real name against those who hide behind their screen. You really dont see a problem with that? Really?

J.R.E.F. doesn't require IDs when signing up for an account. Did this situation take place after his suspension? (9-9-2007)

[nicepants]

Keep in mind, we have never required any form of ID to sign up for this forum in order to "implement some form of security". Matter of fact, we dont even ban what we feel may be "sock puppets". Further, i have never been asked to submit any form of identification nor was i asked to submit my real name to any forum i have registered, except for the govt loyalist site. And i have registered at many forums. Why do you think the govt loyalist site has to implement such unprecedented measures?

They didn't ask you for your ID, did they?

Feel free to start your own thread. This thread is about you and your opinions/concerns from an "opposition" point of view.

Here is another question for you.

- Do you feel that making an effort to behave civilly on one forum (because you know you will get banned otherwise) justifies personal attacks when you return to your cohorts? Have you observed such behavior in Junior High School? And if so, are you in Junior High School? If not.. .why do you (and many of your cohorts) exhibit such behavior?


Regards

I follow the rules of the forums in which I participate. I don't recall posting any recent personal attacks at J.R.E.F.

[grizz]

Now answer lunk's question, nicepants. What is your personal take on the events of 9/11? We're curious.

[lunk]

Nicepants, hi,
I was wondering, what is your "take" on what happened, 11/9/2001?
Is it the same as the governments' theory?
Or, do you have your own interpretation of the events of that day?

Reposted for convenience sake, and clarification of the question.
I'm curious, too.

[painter]

We're curious.

Not I.

[albertchampion]

i think nicepants is carlos727.

just another troll.

the state energizes 'em, you know.

to do everything that can be done to torpedo intelligent, informed questioning of the "official" story.

they attacked my blog with such ferocious disinformation that i just abandoned it. i still find it astonishing at the enormity of the 'prevarications" concerning the events of that day. from individuals who can only be considered agents of the bushit state.

who wields the shepherd's crook? take nicepants[carlos727] off the stage. he didn't, doesn't, deserve his 5 minutes of infamy.

[grizz]

Well, he sure won't answer any questions. We know that much.

He seems to be very poorly informed too. For instance, he claims that the passengers on AA77 were identified, but he doesn't know where they were found. I guess to the uninquisitive mind that doesn't matter. But if he ever finds out, I have more questions for him.

He won't answer them of course.

Now, most everybody who comes to this forum is here to learn and share. Why in the world would anyone who denies all the information that is gathered here bother to waste their time here? Does nicepants actually think he is going to convince the well-informed members of this board of the government lies? I doubt it. He is just a troll, sent here by his masters, to try to divert our attention and tie us up in circles.

This doesn't work, of course. We are no less focused as we toy with his two-toned mind. I somewhat enjoy helping government shills look as foolish as they are.

We will all tire of it in due time.

[albertchampion]

and the trolls are everywhere.

the state must charge them with focusing on any internet site that might question the state.

for example, i encountered some troll tonight on the washington monthly site that accused me of being a tin-foil hatter for my discussion of kapton-insulated wiring. it wasn't a knowledgeable, informed attack:it was just an ad hominem attack.

i continue to be convinced that there is a state-operated bunch of trolls whose mission is to obfuscate, attack all critics.

to throw so much chaff up that it is difficult to get beyond it.

still, my theory is that the chaff artist should always be assiduously confronted.

i think that carlos727[nicepants] were given way too much friendly leeway.

damn, i have been defenestrated from boards on which i was a member for years within seconds after mentioning israel as an enemy of the USA. NO FOREBEARANCE.

the imprimatur: israel is sacrosanct. whatever the israeli state does to the palestinians[christian as well as muslim] is quite all right in the USA. ON MOST PURPORTEDLY LIBERAL BLOGS.

[mrodway]

i think nicepants is carlos727.

They have a different spelling signature, but they could be working together.

[nicepants]

Now answer lunk's question, nicepants. What is your personal take on the events of 9/11? We're curious.

In 10 words or less....are you ready?

Some pissed off terrorists caught us with our pants down.

[lunk]

In 10 words or less....are you ready?

Some pissed off terrorists caught us with our pants down.

That's what I was told at the time,
I didn't think about it much,
So, I just assumed that it was true,
for a long time.
Then I ran across a video of the collapse of building 7...
I had never even heard of it, THREE skyscrapers fell down that day?
It happened hours later and was never hit by a plane, It wasn't even on the same block, and there were buildings standing on every side of it. It fell in about 7 seconds, how is that possible, from a few fires, to collapse at near free fall speed?
What is really weird, is that it had a different name 25 minutes before, "The Solomon Brothers Building", as mentioned on BBC, completely by accident, forecasting it's demise as if it already happened.

Something wasn't right,
my original assumption,
must have been incorrect.

You know what they say about assumptions,
"Never assume anything,
it could make an @ss out of u and me."

imo, lunk

-Edit- spelling

This post has been edited by lunk: Apr 18 2008, 05:28 PM

[mrodway]

What is really weird, is that it had a different name 25 minutes before, "The Salaman Brothers Building", as mentioned on BBC, completely by accident, forecasting it's demise as if it already happened.

I think the BBC was just trying to debunk the "Doctor Who is a hoax" conspiracy theories :-)