What a bizarre statement. I can think of few more "wretched" and "gloomy" ways to live than deliberate ignorance.

Like every other human being on the planet you were born with a brain. To be perfectly honest, I really don't care whether you or anyone else chooses to use it or not. If you want to believe the newspapers or the BBC as opposed to a "crackpot conspiracy theorist" such as the former Chief of Special Operations in the Pentagon or the leading expert on counter-insurgency warfare in S.E. Asia - fine. The world needs a steady supply of dumbasses to exploit and the addition of one more keeps the machine ticking along nicely.

I mean, if all you want from life is to float along in a permanent state of bliss then maybe you should check yourself in for a trans-orbital lobotomy. Short of that you're really struggling because even pure heroin has a comedown.

By concentrating on my supposed lack of humor you instead provide a window into your own psyche. If I were anything like your perception it would be impossible for me to have a very happy marriage, two great kids, an extensive list of academic achievements and skills, an important and well-paid job, a close circle of friends plus a wide range of rewarding and intellectually stimulating interests. I won't say I've not gone through some tough times - but no more than the average person. I've certainly never trudged the streets with a placard predicting the end of the world.

[iIf your perception of me is so far from reality what does that say about you? And could this possibly have something to do with the fact that one of us uses his brain whilst the other turns it to mush?[/i

Like I said, I really don't care whether you want to change the habit of a lifetime and engage intellectually with what is a fascinating world - or stick with the usual crowd of morons who are rapidly regressing to a Neanderthal stage.

But please don't make the mistake of thinking I'm not laughing because watching idiots do their little idiot dance is a unending stream of laffs for me...

[url=https://youtu.be/B-hFxp23_KAFamily Lawyer. Things just don't add up[/url

I don't know a great deal about the shooting (I quit TV and radio years ago) but I have to say that nothing would surprise me from the California police department. Ever since Ronald Reagan was elected governor they've operated like a modern day Gestapo.

I guess the first question I'd want answering is precisely what intelligence did they have on the couple prior to the shooting? A straight answer will tell you a good deal about what really took place.

You should always be suspicious when potentially valuable intelligence sources are ruthlessly executed without any attempt to capture them alive. As the saying goes - dead men tell no tales...

Wow! And the award for the person with the highest opinion of themself ever goes to.......... The mug.

Although I don't know why im surprised at it, it has all your classic traits.

Arrogance.
Telling others they are wrong and you are right without any facts
Childish insults
Stupid little emoticons to support your posts.

I've no doubt you will delete this post, as you hate those who question you, but hopefully newbies may see it before you do, and see what they are dealing with.

Family lawyer in diverting the blame away from family members shocker! Who would have guessed that! This is a low in the support for conspiracy theories even for you mug Stanley.

I would not be laughing at others after a post like this.

You come across as a very insecure individual who needs to trot out his achievements/status without comparing them to those who you are chastising/belittling - they may actually have achieved a great deal more than you?

Just because some don't buy in to the stuff that has you hook line and sinker doesn't mean their opinion is any less valid. If you honestly think an ex-Pentagon employee would be allowed to publish sensitive material you are more gullible than I thought.

You may research lots of conspiracy material and it may make you feel stronger in the argument but in reality can you effect any more change than someone who has a different way of using the opportunity cost of spare time? You may have read a lot about middle east politics will that make you any safer if you happen to be an attack at say the GF than someone who isn't as well researched as you?

You may believe all these high level correspondents but you don't actually know anymore than the people you are berating. You just regurgitate a different set of inputs into your grey matter.

Be careful - this board now might as well be closed - its died a death as a forum for lively debate because of the antics you see on this thread. A small group of protected posters allowed to throw insults to all and sundry. Especially those who don't bow down to their "arrogant perception of greater knowledge".

In twenty-odd thousand posts spread over more than a decade I think I've mentioned my background maybe three or four times. If this makes me "very insecure" I'm not going to lose sleep about it. Moreover, since I'm one of only two people who has been a member of this board since it was first activated I think I'm in a pretty good position to draw conclusions about it. This site is the most successful rugby league resource on the planet bar none. Over the years sin bin traffic has repeatedly waxed and waned and whilst it is currently experiencing a trough this is nothing new. The last exodus occurred whilst I was away for a couple of years so you have a tough task blaming it on me.

For your information there are no "protected" posters beyond the owners of the site (who pay its CONSIDERABLE bills and moderators whose services we cannot do without). As for my supposed "intolerance" - if you can find an owner or moderator who over the last ten years has banned fewer people than me I'll buy you a Grand Final ticket. I was the only person who consistently fought to retain the sin bin when just about everyone wished to cut it. There is ONE thread on a site containing MILLIONS which was created precisely because people who wished to discuss alternative explanations for events such as Paris were being targeted for abuse and it became impossible to engage in discussion. The fact that you choose to completely ignore this fact really doesn't do your argument any favours.

If you don't like this forum or the site in general don't come. I'm not forcing anyone to be here and I'll gladly hold the door for your exit.

As for whether a senior ex-Pentagon staffer is allowed to publish documentation - why don't you check this fact before denying the possibility entirely (based on what evidence?). You could start with the video link in which said impossibility is plastered across the screen. You could then check the Mary Ferrell website which is the single best repository of published government material...

.

In my eyes Mugwump hasn't stepped out of line here. He simply replied back in the same manner he was goaded with in the first place. He doesn't sound insecure to me if you read the post properly. He was merely stating how secure his life is through having the mind-set he chooses to believe in. Doesn't sound insecure, if anything it proves to me his life seems indeed very stable. Whats so belittling about that FFS grow up. With regards to chastising and belittling, the OP got what he deserved with his continual stick poking.

There's nothing wrong with this thread, it's alive and kicking why shut it down ?. You want it shut down because the alternative media is diluting the bull spoon fed to the head in the sand brigade who can't stomach the cognitive dissonance of another viewpoint. Nobody has had anything to say against the free thinkers with regards to a debate, you revert to brain insults and complaints like the above. You're pathetic

As stated earlier, I have an open mind on Paris stretching as far back as Charlie Hebdo. I didn't watch any of the TV reports (aside from ten minutes) and I've avoided the newspapers entirely. I mean, I've got plenty of suspicions but without time to investigate they're precisely that.

Whether I agree with its opinions or not it strikes me that one group of people here is actually attempting to understand what took place in Paris whilst the other has brought absolutely nothing to the debate and sought only to attack the other group from the outset.

The fact that the latter group is always the first to scream "intolerance" simply demonstrates the enormous degree of self-deception taking place.

Ahhh there's a surprise, Mugwumps alter ego along to defend him. How predictable mug Stanley. People have offered plenty of debate, but you ignore it every single time and copy and paste more from your crackpot websites.

As for insults, you oh and muggers have thrown out a number of your own. Perhaps the most childish being calling me a stalker when I attempt to DEBATE your points.

Ha ha ha you're not capable of a decent debate on this topic, you've not once in this thread added or supplied any significant piece of evidence to support your views, all you do is repeat and splutter the same toxic sentences trying to derail and ridicule the alternative viewpoint without any substance. Just to prove a point i'll give you what you want, my undivided attention. So come on lets debate ?. I'm saying St Bernardino was a fully blown hoax. Paris was a false flag with a semi hoax. Go for it you've won my undivided attention.

I can't say I've not had a great deal of fun encouraging the idea simply by staying silent - but I have to say there are quite a few people in here who really are [uflattering themselves[/u thinking I care so much about their opinion I'd waste time creating alternate accounts so I can engage in some kind of schizoid debate.

For the record - the last alternate account I used:

Username: Vapid
Created: Sat Jan 12, 2002 12:08 am
Last active: Sun Mar 19, 2006 12:49 am
Posts: 56

Seriously folks. You're not worth the effort.

Ha ha ha. A schitzoid debate. I Can't think of anything more hilarious'. Its worse than playing Chess on your own.

Schitzoid debate hilarious pmsl

On the other hand I do know of at least THREE alternative accounts regularly posting in this forum. Once again, who is kidding who here?

I'm presuming Flat Stanley is 'theearthisflat' from the other lunatic thread. Pointless trying to debate with people who's ideas are so fractured from reality. It's their way or no way.

Do you mean 1 x Person with 3 Alias. and all three Alias post in this forum ?

Here the trouble causer. You care to add any decent dialogue on this topic . Nah didn't think so..bye byespace cadet

I'm afraid I'm not allowed to divulge personal details. Pesky laws and such.

But in the vain hope it'll put an end to this tiresome nonsense I'll happily agree to transfer £100 via PayPal to anyone who can prove I've used an alternative account in this (or any other) forum this decade.

If half the things I'm routinely accused of are true this shouldn't be a difficult question to answer ...

I reckon JML is The Butcher.They're always stalking and rapid to antagonise my beliefs. And when i challenge a debate they both do one.

=#FF0000EDITED:
You cannot post other posters personal details without their permission.
WANDERER

I've long since given up wondering why people do some of the things they do. Suffice to say we live in a weird, weird world.

That is very weird behaviour. With all the brain insults directed at myself over the months i could quite easily throw back but that'd make me worse than him, if anything i feel sorry for their behavioural actions seriously. Not only that he tried hiding his tracks and pinning those Alias's on me. Gee whiz The Butcher i feel sorry for you. Suppose that's the end of JML. Gee Whizz when challenged to a debate they/he ran off with his tail between his legs.

With this behaviour MY belief's are obviously causing his discomfort. Which means his beliefs are Vulnerable. The PROBLEM he is obviously suffering badly with [url=http://www.drkwamebrown.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/cognitive-dissonance.pngCOGNITIVE DISSONANCE[/url TUT TUT TUT.

=#FF0000EDITED:
You cannot post other posters personal details without their permission.
WANDERER

Only you see I have raised plenty of debate, however, you run away from anything that conflicts your views and then resort to silly insults and emoticons (Now who does that sound like!) So I have your undivided attention? Lets see if your a man of your word?

1.) How can anyone take anything you say seriously, when you present a quote as undisputable fact of there being an NWO, and then it takes me about 30 Minutes to discredit this, and provide the real quote?

2.) You use the fact that, there was a session ran to help children in disaster in the same day as Sandy hook happened, to prove that this was a hoax. You say that this cant have been coincidence. Yet there were at least six events in the same state, over the month before, and month of the event. Hardly significant proof is it?

So there you go, off the top of my head your starter for 10. Lets see if you can answer for a change.

The thing I don't get is why you are bothering going to all the effort. I mean, I do what I do because I find these topics fascinating and I post mostly for the many others who think similarly. Sure, it would be cool if a few more people clawed themselves out of their stupor - but the truth is it's largely a waste of time and energy appealing to their sense of reason.

No matter the quantity or quality of your evidence these people will keep on raising the bar as though the only kind of worthwhile truth is one which can be derived scientifically. Never mind the fact that in the courtroom the burden of proof is rarely (if ever) so high.

I've lost count of the number of times people dismiss evidence as purely "circumstantial" without realizing not only that such evidence is admissible in a courtroom - but that many cases have been decided [usolely[/u on circumstantial evidence.

[iCircumstantial evidence has a reputation for generally being weaker and less valid evidence than direct evidence. It is interesting and necessary, however, to emphasize that it is simply incorrect to assume that direct evidence is always stronger or more convincing than circumstantial evidence. Aside from scientific evidence, other examples of circumstantial evidence that may imply guilt include the defendant’s motive or opportunity to commit the crime, whether the defendant had resisted arrest, or if any suspicious behaviors were demonstrated. Unlike the incorrect examples perpetuated by television shows, movies, and novels, a majority of convictions are based solely on circumstantial evidence if for no other reason than this type of evidence is more commonly encountered at crime scenes than direct evidence.[/i

You're better off not engaging with these fools. It's a fundamental mistake to think people behave rationally. Mostly it's just dumb instinct.

I mean, I can't force you to quit banging your head against a brick wall. But I wish you wouldn't. It's not healthy.

He's even formed a conspiracy that seems to involve me. Which is a bit weird. I wouldn't get into a serious debate about the validity of unicorns or why Harry Potter is actually real with someone, so I'm certainly not wasting time with people who think the earth is flat, that everything we see is all made up by secret societies, and that scientists are all hiding truth from all of us. These people are the same as those that would argue for unicorns and Harry Potter. It's not running away from debate, it's that their arguments are so ridiculous that debating them lends them some kind of equal validity with reality. Which they are very far from.

I don't need to create alter-egos to stalk you and discredit you, Stanley. You do a much better job of that without my help.



Besides, I'm not the one on here who's bothered to find out my actual name and post here. Kind of a bit like stalking eh?