PDA

View Full Version : The Axe has fallen



Axiom
16-01-2008, 06:51 PM
Has anyone seen the movie 'Zeitgeist' ?

I cant seem to ask this in the sb for some reason .

Bill , is that you playing your silly childish games again ?
__________________
"Curiosity is one of the permanent and certain characteristics of a vigorous intelligence." Dr. Samuel Johnson

"In order that all men might be taught to speak truth, it is necessary that all likewise should learn to hear it." Dr. Samuel Johnson




16-01-2008, 07:25 PM #410
Bill Gletsos





Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 11,453 You have been continually warned to keep your conspiracy theory subjects etc out of the shoutbox.

You apparently cannot seem to learn and as such your shoutbox access has again been removed.
__________________
The Force can have a strong influence on the weak-minded.


1)WHY MOVE MY FEEDBACK ABOUT MY SB SUSPENSION TO THE AXIOM REPORT THREAD ?

2) I WAS ASKING ABOUT A MOVIE, NOT CONSPIRACY THEORY !

3) IF I SHOUT " THE FEDERAL RESERVE IS A PRIVATELY OWNED BANK" IS THAT CONSPIRATORIAL ?? WOULD IT GET ME BOOTED? (EVEN THOUGH IT IS A FACT)

4) IF I SHOUT " I WALKED DOWN TO THE SHOPS TODAY" WOULD YOU SAY THAT THIS WAS CODE FOR CHURCHILL,ROOSEVELT AND STALIN BEING FREEMASONS ?

5) WHY ARE YOU SUCH A PATHETIC NEUROTIC CHILDISH SOB ?

Bill Gletsos
16-01-2008, 07:01 PM
Has anyone seen the movie 'Zeitgeist' ?

I cant seem to ask this in the sb for some reason .

Bill , is that you playing your silly childish games again ?


You have been continually warned to keep your conspiracy theory subjects etc out of the shoutbox.

You apparently cannot seem to learn and as such your shoutbox access has again been removed.

1)WHY MOVE MY FEEDBACK ABOUT MY SB SUSPENSION TO THE AXIOM REPORT THREAD ?Because that is where it belonged as you were asking about the movie.

2) I WAS ASKING ABOUT A MOVIE, NOT CONSPIRACY THEORY !It is about the subjects you rabbit on about in your Axiom report thread.

3) IF I SHOUT " THE FEDERAL RESERVE IS A PRIVATELY OWNED BANK" IS THAT CONSPIRATORIAL ?? WOULD IT GET ME BOOTED? (EVEN THOUGH IT IS A FACT)In your case yes as you are simply using it to start discussions in the shoutbox on the topics you have been told not to raise there, but to stick to your threads.

e4) IF I SHOUT " I WALKED DOWN TO THE SHOPS TODAY" WOULD YOU SAY THAT THIS WAS CODE FOR CHURCHILL,ROOSEVELT AND STALIN BEING FREEMASONS ?Your strawman, not mine.

5) WHY ARE YOU SUCH A PATHETIC NEUROTIC CHILDISH SOB ?Because you have continually been told to keep your rubbish out of the shoutbox.

BTW if you know whats good for you lose the caps.

Kevin Bonham
16-01-2008, 07:38 PM
Has anyone seen the movie 'Zeitgeist' ?

How is this relevant to ursogr8's suspension from the Coffee Lounge?

Bill Gletsos
16-01-2008, 07:49 PM
How is this relevant to ursogr8's suspension from the Coffee Lounge?It isnt.

In replying to it, I moved my post to this thread but missed moving his post as well.
I have now move it as well.

Axiom
16-01-2008, 11:00 PM
Is There No Help For The Widows Son?

Axiom
22-01-2008, 07:22 PM
Asking if anyone has seen a particular movie results in an indefinate sb ban ??

Bill Gletsos
22-01-2008, 07:26 PM
Asking if anyone has seen a particular movie results in an indefinate sb ban ??At the time the shoutbox ban was applied the popup you received indicated it was for 1 month. You have just under 25 days to go.

Bill Gletsos
22-01-2008, 08:07 PM
Axiom I have just deleted your off topic post in this thread.
Refrain from making off-topic posts in threads or suffer the consequences.

Axiom
22-01-2008, 09:18 PM
so which type of movies am i allowed to mention in the sb ?

Axiom
28-01-2008, 05:49 PM
so which type of movies am i allowed to mention in the sb ?
stop deleting my feedback bill !

Axiom
28-01-2008, 05:57 PM
bill, to recieve a one month sb ban for asking if anyone had seen the movie "zeitgeist" , seems extremely excessive.
you are clearly unfit as a moderator of this site.

Bill Gletsos
28-01-2008, 06:01 PM
stop deleting my feedback bill !It isnt feedback it is off topic postings.

Bill Gletsos
28-01-2008, 06:03 PM
bill, to recieve a one month sb ban for asking if anyone had seen the movie "zeitgeist" , seems extremely excessive.You had been continually warned about making conspiracy theory and related material shouts in the shoutbox.

As you are a repeat offender you were give a month, which was twice as long as your previous shoutbox ban.

eclectic
28-01-2008, 06:06 PM
don't push it axiom or bill might turn you into a permanent poltergeist :whistle:

Axiom
28-01-2008, 06:29 PM
don't push it axiom or bill might turn you into a permanent poltergeist :whistle:
what do you mean "turn into" ?

Axiom
28-01-2008, 06:30 PM
You had been continually warned about making conspiracy theory and related material shouts in the shoutbox.


how is asking if anyone had seen the movie "zeitgeist" consistent with that ?

Bill Gletsos
28-01-2008, 06:44 PM
how is asking if anyone had seen the movie "zeitgeist" consistent with that ?Dont play stupid with me Axiom.

Basil
28-01-2008, 06:48 PM
stop deleting my feedback bill !
Bill, please continue deleting Axiom's feedback, where he
- asks questions that have been asked and answered
- asks for a ruling on anything remotely related to his conspiracy agenda

Bill Gletsos
28-01-2008, 06:53 PM
Zeitgeist, the Movie is a 2007 web film produced by Peter Joseph that presents a number of conspiracy theories related to Christianity, the attacks of 9/11, and the Federal Reserve Bank.Waste anymore of my time on this Axiom and you will be having more than just a holiday from the shoutbox.

Axiom
28-01-2008, 07:16 PM
Waste anymore of my time on this Axiom and you will be having more than just a holiday from the shoutbox.
this is where you err
it was a movie i was asking about, plain and simple.
what damn right have you to ban me for a month for asking about a movie ?!
since when do you become an arbiter of what is and what isnt conspiracy related ?

what about a film on watergate ?
a film on jfk ?
a film on the reichstag fire ?
a film (ie. one on the cable history channel !!) on the 2001 anthrax attacks inside job ?
a film on betting corruption in cricket and tennis ?
a film on the topic of conspiracy ?
a film on people facing court on conspiracy charges ?


you see the problem here ?

you know very well, my initial sb ban was for monologues.which i now desist(however others seem to practice this unabated)

i then was not allowed to mention alex jones, again i acquiesced.

then it was anything remotely to do with anything associated with the mere concept of more than one person enacting a covert plan (ie. a conspiracy).

what is your rationale for such archaic rulings?
why cannot i have the freedoms that others enjoy, when i have met the original mod directives ?
dont you think you have well crossed the boundary of sound fair modding ?
are you letting any personal gripes interfere with your role as a moderator?
if i'm being unreasonable here, please enlighten me.

Axiom
28-01-2008, 07:18 PM
Bill, please continue deleting Axiom's feedback, where he
- asks questions that have been asked and answered
- asks for a ruling on anything remotely related to his conspiracy agenda
what is it about the notion of conspiracies that so irk you ?

Bill Gletsos
28-01-2008, 07:41 PM
this is where you err
it was a movie i was asking about, plain and simple.
what damn right have you to ban for a month for asking about a movie ?!
since when do you become an arbitar of what is and what isnt conspiracy related ?

what about a film on watergate ?
a film on jfk ?
a film on the reichstag fire ?
a film (ie. one on the cable history channel !!) on the 2001 anthrax attacks inside job ?
a film on betting corruption in cricket and tennis ?
a film on the topic of conspiracy ?
a film on people facing court on conspiracy charges ?


you see the problem here ?

you know very well, my initial sb ban was for monologues.which i now desist(however others seem to practice this unabated)

i then was not allowed to mention alex jones, again i acquiesced.

then it was anything remotely to do with anything associated with the mere concept of more than one person enacting a covert plan (ie. a conspiracy).No you were told to refrain from all such behaviour in the shoutbox.

You know all this perfectly well, yet you continually try to circumvent it and play stupid.

So let me make this perfectly clear.

Give this a rest here and now.

One more word on this subject from you and you may well find yourself having a holiday from the entire board.

Axiom
28-01-2008, 08:01 PM
No you were told to refrain from all such behaviour in the shoutbox.

You know all this perfectly well, yet you continually try to circumvent it and play stupid.

So let me make this perfectly clear.

Give this a rest here and now.

One more word on this subject from you and you may well find yourself having a holiday from the entire board.
why dont you want to discuss this rule ?
im simply registering my complaint that
a) your ruling well exceeds that which is reasonable, and
b) that you have reacted overly harshly (as you are now) when applying this unreasonable* rule



* as per my above post

Aaron Guthrie
28-01-2008, 08:03 PM
I suggest a new thread be made called "Axiom's feedback".

Bill Gletsos
28-01-2008, 08:06 PM
why dont you want to discuss this rule ?
im simply registering my complaint that
a) your ruling well exceeds that which is reasonable, and
b) that you have reacted overly harshly (as you are now) when applying this unreasonable* rule

* as per my above postYour complaint is noted and dismissed.
You were continually warned and you chose to ignore those warnings.

End of discussion.

Axiom
28-01-2008, 08:14 PM
I suggest a new thread be made called "Axiom's feedback".
yes ,would even be nice to get some reasoned feedback for my feedback !

Axiom
28-01-2008, 08:16 PM
Your complaint is noted and dismissed.
You were continually warned and you chose to ignore those warnings.

End of discussion.
not so fast my friend , dont you owe me a reason for such a rule in the first place?

you have in no way addressed this point.

I ask again why continue with such a rule , what are the grounds, the rationale ?
What are the grounds for dismissing my reasoned complaint ?

Bill Gletsos
28-01-2008, 08:29 PM
not so fast my friend , dont you owe me a reason for such a rule in the first place?They have been explained to you previously.

Now I said above "one more word on this subject from you and you may well find yourself having a holiday from the entire board."

Note that the "may well" can very quickly change to "will".

I suggest you quit whilst you are ahead.

Basil
28-01-2008, 08:42 PM
Dribble dressed up as argumant.

it was a movie i was asking about, plain and simple.
If you had a track record of asking about movies of all flavours and genres, you might have a point. However, you don't have such a track record. Zeitgeist was just a back-end run on the same old.


what damn right have you to ban me for a month for asking about a movie ?!
Ummm .. an absolute right. Next!

since when do you become an arbiter of what is and what isnt conspiracy related ?
Since he became a mod. Get a clue.


you see the problem here ?
Yes. We all do.


you know very well, my initial sb ban was for monologues.
So? You were also warned about the CT crap.


which i now desist (however others seem to practice this unabated)
Oh puhleeese. You drew that issue out as far as possible and pushed every possible envelope you could. Don't make out that you simply aqcuiesed. That's as fanciful as your CT dribblings.


i then was not allowed to mention alex jones, again i acquiesced.
Ditto - except you turned that into a complete farce. Multiple threads and appeals. And when banned, you flagrantly pushed more envelopes and were given very wide berth.


if i'm being unreasonable here, please enlighten me.
I'm trying. But none so blind as those who can't see. How about you toddle of to your mates in the toolbox and cry them a river. You'll find them very sympathetic.

Axiom
28-01-2008, 08:56 PM
They have been explained to you previously.

Now I said above "one more word on this subject from you and you may well find yourself having a holiday from the entire board."

Note that the "may well" can very quickly change to "will".

I suggest you quit whilst you are ahead.
bill, with due respect, i am saying its time we abandoned this ridiculous rule .
how about it , a fresh start?
im simply asking to be given the same rights as everyone else here

Basil
28-01-2008, 08:57 PM
im simply asking to be given the same rights as everyone else here
Earn them. Don't flush them.

Axiom
28-01-2008, 08:58 PM
Dribble dressed up as argumant.

If you had a track record of asking about movies of all flavours and genres, you might have a point. However, you don't have such a track record. Zeitgeist was just a back-end run on the same old.


Ummm .. an absolute right. Next!

Since he became a mod. Get a clue.


Yes. We all do.


So? You were also warned about the CT crap.


Oh puhleeese. You drew that issue out as far as possible and pushed every possible envelope you could. Don't make out that you simply aqcuiesed. That's as fanciful as your CT dribblings.


Ditto - except you turned that into a complete farce. Multiple threads and appeals. And when banned, you flagrantly pushed more envelopes and were given very wide berth.


I'm trying. But none so blind as those who can't see. How about you toddle of to your mates in the toolbox and cry them a river. You'll find them very sympathetic.
and for not the first time , you seemed to have entirely missed the point
refer above

Bill Gletsos
28-01-2008, 09:00 PM
bill, with due respect, i am saying its time we abandoned this ridiculous rule .The rule with regards your restrictions in the shoutbox stands. :hand:

Axiom
28-01-2008, 09:03 PM
Earn them. Don't flush them.
i agree no more monologues fine (others can ,ok!)
but i cannot countenance such a patently absurd position where i cannot mention anything remotely associated with some imaginary criteria in bill's head , ok ?
get it ?

Axiom
28-01-2008, 09:07 PM
again i ask for the rationale behind the rule that says i cannot mention anything associated with a criteria in bill's head( ie. what bill considers somehow censorable material)
why ?
what is the rationale for this rule ?

note i was given no warning at the time of the movie comment .

Basil
28-01-2008, 09:11 PM
i agree no more monologues fine (others can ,ok!)
There is nothing absolute in life or here. Mitigation is almost everything in an environment like this. I have seen monologues from people who aren't called Axiom, but they are invariably
- not on high rotation
- not on the same subject


but i cannot countenance such a patently absurd position where i cannot mention anything remotely associated with some imaginary criteria in bill's head , ok ?
OK. I'm sorry you can't countenance that. My care factor is zero. Reason?

You. Envelope push. Mod games. Dribble. Non chess. Get it?

FWIW (which I assume is little) the criteria aren't imaginary. I really think a trip to the Toolbox would do you no end of good - an apt little receptacle for people with your powers of deduction, comprehension and justice.

Bill Gletsos
28-01-2008, 09:12 PM
again i ask for the rationale behind the rule that says i cannot mention anything associated with a criteria in bill's head( ie. what bill considers somehow censorable material)
why ?
what is the rationale for this rule ?

note i was given no warning at the time of the movie comment .Nor did you deserve one as you had previously been warned on numerous occasions about making conspiracy theory etc related shouts.

Axiom
28-01-2008, 09:14 PM
eg. what if i happen to see on tv where it says 2001 anthrax scare was an inside job (history channel) , why shouldnt i be free to say "wow! look at this folks" in the sb ?
if i did , is that a 2mth ban.
surely you can see how ridiculous this gets.
do i really need to spell out the gradiations here (would be happy to ,if still unclear on this point)

Axiom
28-01-2008, 09:15 PM
Nor did you deserve one as you had previously been warned on numerous occasions about making conspiracy theory etc related shouts.
now youre the one playing stupid !

im not talking about the consequential behaviour of the rule, im talking about the rationale for the rule itself !
could you please address this

Bill Gletsos
28-01-2008, 09:18 PM
now youre the one playing stupid !

im not talking about the consequential behaviour of the rule, im talking about the rationale for the rule itself !
could you please address thisIt was all explained to you at the time.

Give it a rest and move on.


Now I said above "one more word on this subject from you and you may well find yourself having a holiday from the entire board."

Note that the "may well" can very quickly change to "will".

I suggest you quit whilst you are ahead.

You wont get anymore warnings.

Basil
28-01-2008, 09:20 PM
im not talking about the consequential behaviour of the rule, im talking about the rationale for the rule itself !
Start a thread. I'd be happy to tell you. You're just clogging up (again) a general feedback thread with your own petty, self-serving short-sightedness.

The rationale for the rule has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with your lack of compliance with it. It is THAT lack of compliance for which you are restricted.

Axiom
28-01-2008, 09:20 PM
There is nothing absolute in life or here. Mitigation is almost everything in an environment like this. I have seen monologues from people who aren't called Axiom, but they are invariably
- not on high rotation
- not on the same subject and as i said i desisted



OK. I'm sorry you can't countenance that. My care factor is zero. Reason?

You. Envelope push. Mod games. Dribble. Non chess. Get it?

FWIW (which I assume is little) the criteria aren't imaginary. I really think a trip to the Toolbox would do you no end of good - an apt little receptacle for people with your powers of deduction, comprehension and justice.
talk about dribble !
talk about lacking comprehension !
im talking about the rationale for the rule itself ie . nothing associated (ie. highly subjective) with anything to do with what bill considers somehow unallowable in the sb .

Axiom
28-01-2008, 09:22 PM
Start a thread. I'd be happy to tell you. You're just clogging up (again) a general feedback thread with your own petty, self-serving short-sightedness.

The rationale for the rule has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with your lack of compliance with it. It is THAT lack of compliance for which you are restricted.
again , i say , its the rule itself im questioning !

can someone move this to a thread please

Axiom
28-01-2008, 09:25 PM
hi kevin, could you please read above posts, im hoping you can understand what im trying to say !

Axiom
28-01-2008, 09:31 PM
(perhaps a more relevant thread title .........perhaps "Ax speech ruling" or similar

Kevin Bonham
28-01-2008, 09:44 PM
hi kevin, could you please read above posts, im hoping you can understand what im trying to say !

I read some of it, but you're running on at the mouth far too much over it all.

You had been warned not to make conspiracy-theory related shouts. I agree with Bill that a reference to a film that is clearly about a range of conspiracy theories is a conspiracy theory related shout.

Whether particular other shouts would be conspiracy theory related shouts isn't relevant to that issue. Also, if you are in any doubt about whether discussion of a particular subject falls in the range you have been warned about, you can always ask the mods via PM if it is OK.

This may seem harsh but you've brought a strict approach upon yourself by continuing to ignore moderation warnings.

Axiom
28-01-2008, 09:47 PM
I read some of it, but you're running on at the mouth far too much over it all.

You had been warned not to make conspiracy-theory related shouts. I agree with Bill that a reference to a film that is clearly about a range of conspiracy theories is a conspiracy theory related shout.

Whether particular other shouts would be conspiracy theory related shouts isn't relevant to that issue. Also, if you are in any doubt about whether discussion of a particular subject falls in the range you have been warned about, you can always ask the mods via PM if it is OK.

This may seem harsh but you've brought a strict approach upon yourself by continuing to ignore moderation warnings.
kevin, im questioning the rule itself, not the consequential events of the ruling............see above

Basil
28-01-2008, 09:48 PM
This may seem harsh but you've brought a strict approach upon yourself by continuing to ignore moderation warnings.
Mate, print this ^ bit out - a few times.

Put one on the toilet door!
Put one on the computer screen!
Put one beside your bed!
Put one on the breakfast table!

and don't forget the self-psy-op engram :lol:

Bill Gletsos
28-01-2008, 09:51 PM
Axiom refrain from making repetitive posts.

All such subsequent posts or newly created threads on this subject will be deleted without notice.

Kevin Bonham
28-01-2008, 09:51 PM
kevin, im questioning the rule itself, not the consequential events of the ruling............see above

I've answered your questioning of the rule.

Concerning your objection to the rule that it is unclear, I have pointed out that when you actually want to discuss a particular subject, if you are not sure, then the onus is on you to ask via PM.

Otherwise, if unsure, just don't raise it in the shoutbox. You have a thread you can raise it on instead. Simple.

It may be news to you but whether or not you are allowed to discuss conspiracy-theory related issues in the shoutbox is not one of the world's 1000 most pressing human rights issues.

And yes, I agree with Bill's warning above - stop repeating yourself on this issue.

Axiom
28-01-2008, 09:52 PM
Mate, print this ^ bit out - a few times.

Put one on the toilet door!
Put one on the computer screen!
Put one beside your bed!
Put one on the breakfast table!

and don't forget the self-psy-op engram :lol:
im talking about the rule NOT what happened as a consequence of it !!

how many more times ??

Kevin Bonham
28-01-2008, 09:54 PM
im talking about the rule NOT what happened as a consequence of it !!

how many more times ??

Preferably no more times. Stop repeating yourself. :hand:

Basil
28-01-2008, 09:56 PM
Ax, IIRC the monologue ruling (for anyone including me, AC, you and others) was arrived at after it was decided that variously:
- no one else was interested in the subject matter
- the effect was one of drowning the shoutbox

It is neither a difficult (to abide by) nor onerous ruling. Why the angst? Now off to the printer for you! ;)

Bill Gletsos
28-01-2008, 10:05 PM
All such subsequent posts or newly created threads on this subject will be deleted without notice.

The mods reserve the right to take further action including a total ban if continual violation of the above occurs.

Kevin Bonham
28-01-2008, 10:12 PM
Ax, you are warned to cease starting new threads on this topic. I'm rather busy, about to go away for a few days, and if you make any more work for me I will be giving you that time off too.