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.

[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