2 bombs explode at Boston Marathon-terrorist attack?

acd said:
Why is muir the one infracted from that when stu came right out and called him an asshole?
muirs opinions may not be popular, but I've never seen him attack someone for disagreeing with him.
Click to expand...
Mods are out of control again. Where is [MENTION=3255]This[/MENTION] when we need him most?
 
  • Like
Reactions: acd
acd said:
Why is muir the one infracted from that when stu came right out and called him an asshole?
muirs opinions may not be popular, but I've never seen him attack someone for disagreeing with him.
Click to expand...

So you admit to being an incompetent, manipulatable sheep everytime you do not concur with muir's expose on the cabal? Passive aggressive, manipulative insinuation may as well be worse than direct confrontation. I do not think this an appropriate time for muir to be espousing his ideology.

I'm grateful for the decision.
 
Matt3737 said:
So you admit to being an incompetent, manipulatable sheep everytime you do not concur with muir's expose on the cabal? Passive aggressive, manipulative insinuation may as well be worse than direct confrontation. I do not think this an appropriate time for muir to be espousing his ideology.

I'm grateful for the decision.
Click to expand...
I am not threatened or offended by his opinion.
That is a decision you make to be offended and threatened when people express their beliefs.
 
acd said:
i am not threatened or offended by his opinion.
Click to expand...

I'm not threatened, but I am offended.

I also do not believe you would not be offended by being indirectly accused of being incompentent and/or idiotic and I can directly quote instances of you getting offended at such instances if you would so prefer.
 
Matt3737 said:
I'm not threatened, but I am offended.

I also do not believe you would not be offended by being indirectly accused of being incompentent and/or idiotic and I can directly quote instances of you getting offended at such instances if you would so prefer.
Click to expand...
So what?

My point was that he was infracted for being offensive and... Stu wasn't... For being offensive.

If you are not feeling threatened, then why feel grateful at his being silenced?
Sounds like a personal problem.
 
Last edited:
Matt3737 said:
I'm not threatened, but I am offended.

I also do not believe you would not be offended by being indirectly accused of being incompentent and/or idiotic and I can directly quote instances of you getting offended at such instances if you would so prefer.
Click to expand...

Waaaaaaaa! My feels!
 
Last edited:
the said:
Waaaaaaaa! My feels!
Click to expand...

You try too hard. It comes off as weak. You might try giving me a thumbs down too if you thought I actually cared. Good luck.
 
Matt3737 said:
So you admit to being an incompetent, manipulatable sheep everytime you do not concur with muir's expose on the cabal? Passive aggressive, manipulative insinuation may as well be worse than direct confrontation. I do not think this an appropriate time for muir to be espousing his ideology.

I'm grateful for the decision.
Click to expand...

While I understand how [MENTION=1871]muir[/MENTION]'s beliefs are expressed rather intensely and tend to put people off, [MENTION=1871]muir[/MENTION] was engaging in conversation with [MENTION=731]the[/MENTION], and was then attacked by insult out of nowhere by [MENTION=1939]Stu[/MENTION]. [MENTION=731]the[/MENTION] continued to explore [MENTION=1871]muir[/MENTION]'s opinions, which encouraged [MENTION=1871]muir[/MENTION] to continue 'espousing his ideology'. Should [MENTION=1939]Stu[/MENTION] not be infracted for direct assault (I am not suggesting that he should be :P) or should [MENTION=731]the[/MENTION] for encouraging [MENTION=1871]muir[/MENTION]'s to share his conspiracy theories?

Instead of expecting [MENTION=1871]muir[/MENTION] to show some sensitivity, which I think is what people are probably more pissed off about (though I could be wrong) then perhaps someone could have asked him clearly and politely to refrain from posting his opinions on the matter, instead of expecting him to. (I am assuming that no one did this.)
 
Matt3737 said:
You try too hard. It comes off as weak. You might try giving me a thumbs down too if you thought I actually cared. Good luck.
Click to expand...


I had better report you for calling me weak! Im offended!
 
  • Like
Reactions: acd
Paladin-X said:
then attacked by insult out of nowhere by @Stu . @the continued to explore @muir 's opinions, which encouraged @muir to continue 'espousing his ideology'. Should @Stu not be infracted for direct assault (I am not suggesting that he should be :P)
Click to expand...


I agree, I was out of line, I apologized personally by pm to him and publicly on the thread, but that is not to say that I do not find the whole conspiracy, false flag, gov enacted massacre narrative disgusting and obscene.
 
the said:
I had better report you for calling me weak! Im offended!
Click to expand...

Well then, I sincerely apologize!

Seriously, what is the expectation? On the one hand we can say we expect people to have better control over their emotional reactions and on the other we can say that this is a form of control over our emotional reactions. It's not a permanent ban; it's temporary; it's a time-out to get our emotions in order. We will hear all about muir's beliefs regarding how the government orchestrated the whole ordeal soon enough.

So then, which emotional reaction is more or less irrational than the other? It doesn't matter. Your crying is the same as mine. I'm not pointing yours out to differientiate myself from you; I'm pointing it out because it makes us the same.
 
Matt3737 said:
Seriously, what is the expectation? On the one hand we can say we expect people to have better control over their emotional reactions and on the other we can say that this is a form of control over our emotional reactions. It's not a permanent ban; it's temporary; it's a time-out to get our emotions in order. We will hear all about muir's beliefs regarding how the government orchestrated the whole ordeal soon enough.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I've missed the point; however, I'd just like to point out that in all of this, [MENTION=1871]muir[/MENTION] was the only one who hasn't reacted emotionally....
 
Paladin-X said:
Perhaps I've missed the point; however, I'd just like to point out that in all of this, [MENTION=1871]muir[/MENTION] was the only one who hasn't reacted emotionally....
Click to expand...

That's the problem. It's an emotional incident. People acting without any regard to people's raw emotions is a problem.

Edit: Let me remind everyone that this is just a temporary thing. Everyone just needs a little time to process. Nobody in this thread asked for muir to be banned, but obviously he got some private feedback that they were not ready to deal with his explanation. It's not about labeling anybody as right or wrong.
 
Last edited:
i just arrived here in Florida this morning after 4 days of traveling thru Arkansas, Tennessee, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Alabama
(without a radio, my luck, go figure), and have just became aware of this tragedy today..

i have read the news..
the headlines...
the stories...
i've seen the picture...
i've read about the 8yr old hold his picture of PEACE...
i've read about the 78yr who was knocked to his feet...

i've seen the pictures of the blood splattered American flags laying on the ground...
i've read the carnage caused...
3 lives lost, many more savagely amputated by the blasts...
and the countless others who witnessed such tragedies...
there were so many children there...
they will never forget...

my heart breaks for the suffering caused, my emotions boil over at the outrage i feel...

my heart and my prayers go out to those who suffer irreplaceable loss...
 
Matt3737 said:
That's the problem. It's an emotional incident. People acting without any regard to people's raw emotions is a problem.
Click to expand...

I'm confused. Perhaps you can enlighten me?

Matt3737 said:
On the one hand we can say we expect people to have better control over their emotional reactions and on the other we can say that this is a form of control over our emotional reactions. It's not a permanent ban; it's temporary; it's a time-out to get our emotions in order.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting here that [MENTION=1871]muir[/MENTION] is reacting emotionally and should thus be infracted? Or are you suggesting that because others are not in control of their emotional reactions that [MENTION=1871]muir[/MENTION] should be infracted?

Either way, I reiterate my earlier statement:

Instead of expecting [MENTION=1871]muir[/MENTION] to show some sensitivity, which I think is what people are probably more pissed off about (though I could be wrong) then perhaps someone could have asked him clearly and politely to refrain from posting his opinions on the matter, instead of expecting him to. (I am assuming that no one did this.)
Click to expand...

NOTE: In case my intentions are not clear, I am genuinely asking. I realize that my comments can be taken the wrong way. I am just not certain how to word them in a way that would not be taken in such a way. :S
 
Paladin-X said:
I'm confused. Perhaps you can enlighten me?
Click to expand...

I think it's nothing more than a time-out. It's not about someone being right or wrong. Muir believes so strongly in his beliefs that he cannot see the hurtfulness of his views on those that strongly disagree with him. This is an incident that brings about powerful emotions that would elicit strong reactions so soon after the occurence.

I believe it is not so much about silencing his views as needing time to be able to cope. They are more likely to outburst and it's hard to punish those that are emotional unstable because we sympathize with them. I do think maybe he could have been privately asked to wait for a time, but I also think that given his views he'd rationalize those concerns away. I think the administration got enough feedback from the forum to just give a temporary ban as a means of cooling off and giving members time to process. That is my view.
 
What the????? [MENTION=1871]muir[/MENTION] got banned out of this?
 
[MENTION=4822]Matt3737[/MENTION]. Ok, I see the rational in a time out.
 
I have no personal problem with [MENTION=1871]muir[/MENTION] but there is a time and a place and the day after is neither the time or place. i think a ban is a bit much but thats not my place to say. It's like being against the war in Iraq and showing up to a military personals funeral to share that opinion. Of course your going to get attacked. is it ok? no, but do you think they care about that when they just lost someone they love and then you come in telling them that the loved ones death was pointless. Those people don't give a flying fuck about the politics or any of that stupid pointless shit. Who cares about who controls the money or the world, when you just lost your world?

They just lost someone they care about and they don't care about why, how, to what purpose or what end. All they care about is the fact they just lost someone they love. So just demonstrating a little self-control and tact doesn't hurt. It doesn't help whatever cause he has by taking this moment to try and prove he is right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top