Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bush-The Mastermind behind 9/11? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: James Calladine who wrote (12218)	12/26/2005 11:01:14 AM
From: Paul Kern	Respond to of 20039

Paret is typical of his breed. Here's my suggestion. Create the same thread name--version 2 as a moderated thread. Step 2 ban Paret and others of his/her/its ilk. They have nothing to offer other than insult, injury, argumentativeness and sheer ignorance. Ignore is a good first step, but a moderated thread is better. This is a good subject, worthy of discussion and intelligent observation. It will not come from the Parets of this world. Namaste! Jim _______________________________________________ Excellent idea!!! Paul

To: James Calladine who wrote (12218)	12/26/2005 12:33:55 PM
From: steve harris	Respond to of 20039

already have... left wing kook thread banning anyone that isn't a kook... Subject 55094

To: James Calladine who wrote (12218)	12/26/2005 1:03:31 PM
From: twmoore	Respond to of 20039

I feel that these people that have many ignores are very disfunctional in life.I would imagine that most of them are unemployed or have marginal jobs and are divorced.If they have children,their hours wasted here would be better spent looking after them. I noticed that all of them were posting Christmas day,so that should say something about their character. Some of them have their own threads, which after a while have very little traffic because they become boring to even these people. When someone with original and intelligent ideas posts on the unmoderated threads,these people feed on them like maggots on a dead animal...

To: James Calladine who wrote (12218)	12/26/2005 3:29:17 PM
From: Don Earl	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20039

RE: "Create the same thread name--version 2 as a moderated thread." There really isn't much involved in starting a new thread. Just click a few buttons, type out a subject post and it's a done deal. You don't need anyone's permission to start a new version, but you certainly have my blessings if you would like to do so. Use anything here you believe may be useful, start from scratch, or modify, edit and expound upon to your heart's content. This is hardly the first time the topic of a moderated 9/11 board has come up, and I sincerely doubt it will be the last. At various times in the past I have explained my reasons for choosing an unmoderated format. Without going into those reasons again, I think it would be fair to say the board has been unmoderated since its inception, is listed as such, and I assume anyone choosing to participate in discussions here is aware there is a certain amount of anarchy attached to unmoderated formats. SI has the best ignore features I've ever seen. Not only can you remove every post from your screen by individuals you prefer to ignore, you can remove all the replies to those posts, which in my experience tend to have as little meaningful content as the original. While the process is slower than outright banishment, the end result tends to be the same in the cases of the worst offenders. When the bad actors find themselves being ignored by everyone on a particular board, they eventually get lonesome and wander off on their own accord. All of the above aside, and in spite of the fact I doubt my ignore list looks much different from yours, there is one meaningful contribution I believe all of those on that list have made to the discussion over the past several years. In over 12,000 posts, not one single person has offered a credible, fact based defense of the official story. In the mean time, if you or anyone else believes there would be a benefit to starting a moderated version of this topic, I would certainly encourage you or them to do so. Feel free to hammer out any ideas you may have in this forum if you like and let us know what you come up with when you publish the results.

To: James Calladine who wrote (12218)	12/28/2005 1:06:14 AM
From: paret	Respond to of 20039

The New York Times vs. America (Michelle Malkin) Town Hall ^ \| 12-28-05 \| Michelle Malkin 2005 was a banner year for the nation's Idiotarian newspaper of record, The New York Times. What's "Idiotarian"? Popular warblogger Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs and Pajamas Media coined the useful term to describe stubborn blame-America ideologues hopelessly stuck in a pre-September 11 mindset. The Times crusaded tirelessly this year for the cut-and-run, troop-undermining, Bush-bashing, reality-denying cause. Let's review: On July 6, Army reserve officer Phillip Carter authored a freelance op-ed for the Times calling on President Bush to promote military recruitment efforts. The next day, the paper was forced to admit that one of its editors had inserted misleading language into the piece against Carter's wishes. The "correction": "The Op-Ed page in some copies yesterday carried an incorrect version of an article about military recruitment. The writer, an Army reserve officer, did not say, 'Imagine my surprise the other day when I received orders to report to Fort Campbell, Ky., next Sunday,' nor did he characterize his recent call-up to active duty as the precursor to a 'surprise tour of Iraq.' That language was added by an editor and was to have been removed before the article was published. Because of a production error, it was not. The Times regrets the error." Carter told Times ombudsman Byron Calame: "Those were not words I would have said. It left the impression that I was conscripted" when, in fact, Carter volunteered for active duty. Funny how the "production errors" of the Times' truth doctors always put the Bush administration and the war in the worst light. Not content to meddle with the words of a living soldier, the Times published a disgraceful distortion of a fallen soldier's last words on Oct. 26. As reported in this column and in the news pages of the New York Post, Times reporter James Dao unapologetically abused the late Corporal Jeffrey B. Starr, whose letter to his girlfriend in case of death in Iraq was selectively edited to convey a bogus sense of "fatalism" for a massive piece marking the anti-war movement's "2,000 dead in Iraq" campaign. The Times added insult to injury by ignoring President Bush's tribute to Starr on Nov. 30 during his Naval Academy speech defending the war in Iraq. After Starr died, Bush said, "a letter was found on his laptop computer. Here's what he wrote. He said, '[I]f you're reading this, then I've died in Iraq. I don't regret going. Everybody dies, but few get to do it for something as important as freedom. It may seem confusing why we're in Iraq; it's not to me. I'm here helping these people so they can live the way we live, not to have to worry about tyrants or vicious dictators. Others have died for my freedom; now this is my mark.'" Stirring words deemed unfit to print by the Times. The Times did find space to print the year's most insipid op-ed piece by paranoid Harvard student Fatina Abdrabboh, who praised Al Gore for overcoming America's allegedly rampant anti-Muslim bias by picking up her car keys, which she dropped while running on a gym treadmill: " . . . Mr. Gore's act represented all that I yearned for -- acceptance and acknowledgment. . . . I left the gym with a renewed sense of spirit, reassured that I belong to America and that America belongs to me." I kid you not. In June, Debra Burlingame, sister of Charles F. "Chic" Burlingame III, pilot of downed American Airlines Flight 77, blew the whistle on plans by civil liberties zealots to turn Ground Zero in New York into a Blame America monument. On July 29, the Times editorial page, stocked with liberals who snort and stamp whenever their patriotism is questioned, slammed Burlingame and her supporters at Take Back the Memorial as "un-American" -- for exercising their free speech rights. Yes, "un-American." This from a newspaper that smeared female interrogators at Guantanamo Bay as "sex workers," sympathetically portrayed military deserters as "un-volunteers," apologized for terror suspects and illegal aliens at every turn, enabled the Bush Derangement Syndrome-driven crusade of the lying Joe Wilson, and recklessly endangered national security by publishing illegally obtained information about classified counterterrorism programs. So, which side is The New York Times on? Let 2005 go down as the year the Gray Lady wrapped herself permanently in a White Flag. townhall.com

To: James Calladine who wrote (12218)	12/28/2005 1:06:58 AM
From: paret	Respond to of 20039

"Did you hug your suicide bomber today?"

To: James Calladine who wrote (12218)	12/28/2005 1:08:51 AM
From: paret	Respond to of 20039

James Calladine is typical of his lefty breed. Here's my suggestion. Create the same thread name--version 2 as a moderated thread. Step 2 ban James Calladine and others of his/her/its lefty ilk. They have nothing to offer other than insult, injury, argumentativeness and sheer ignorance. Ignore is a good first step, but a moderated thread is better. This is a good subject, worthy of discussion and intelligent observation. It will not come from the James Calladines of this world. Namaste!