• Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).

Voting system

Migrated topic.
If a conspiracy could be proven it wouldn't be a theory , it would be conspiracy fact, I think the proof they try to give you is for some reason not accepted by main stream people.

sept 11 is a good example , you've got building 7 that wasn't hit by a plane collapsing, you've got news reports saying the buildings went down before they went down , you've got a 6 foot wide whole in the pentagon with no plane wreckage.. and I'm a nut for not believing it was exactly what the government tells me it is .

as far as I'm concerned thats a conspiracy fact. I'm sure you would disagree with me because the case lacks some kind of proof that you need in order to believe it ... what the proof is I guess I'll never know .


People can agree to disagree on things. I don't think conspiracy theory will stir up any more disagreements than spirituality/religion and we haven't banned that .
 
RayOfLight said:
sept 11 is a good example , you've got building 7 that wasn't hit by a plane collapsing, you've got news reports saying the buildings went down before they went down , you've got a 6 foot wide whole in the pentagon with no plane wreckage.. and I'm a nut for not believing it was exactly what the government tells me it is .
Click to expand...
As the son of a fireman involved in this incident, my blood boils hearing unfounded conjectures like this. If the DMT-Nexus allowed such talk, I'd probably find the door real quick because I can't even respond without getting heated and angry.

I don't think I'm alone. I came here to talk about DMT.
 
easyrider said:
I think the question regarding what constitutes a conspiracy theory is a significant one. I know in the original thread created by The Traveler, he mentioned some topics which cover the realm of conspiracy theory, but he didn't really go into detail on what truly constitutes a conspiracy theory. Let's just say, for example, entheogens are illegal because international governments want to prohibit their citizens from expanding their consciousness and disintegrating the system. Would one consider that a conspiracy theory?
Click to expand...
I would ask you to re-read the second to last post I made in that thread. I would posit there is plenty of evidence to support the claim you have made in the above statement. Whether you cite Nixon's creation of a national, standardized drug policy in 1970, due to his inability to curb free speech and his desire to quell dissent through "alternative" methods or the financial gains that various industries have made through the war on drugs or the racist policies that support such legislation, you are citing hard evidence and making a conclusion that is not really a leap of faith, but a conclusion that can be supported by hard evidence, devoid of speculation.

Again, as I said in that thread, there is conspiracy FACT and conspiracy THEORY...if people would stop folding the latter into the former there really wouldn't be anything reasonable to object to, imo. Additionally, I would claim that the type of mystic/esoteric discussions we host generally don't involve the sort of paranoid agendas or intent-driven lack of evidence that seems to accompany most CTs, including those that were in existence here before Trav's policy.

Ray...9/11 is not a conspiracy fact! For Conspiracy FACT you need to be able to pull out hard evidence, which I can do for numerous examples, such as COINTELPRO, Iran/Contra, IBM/Nazis and plenty more. You cannot do that for 9/11, so I would as you kindly to not pull that type of bullshit as it angers me greatly. If you have HARD evidence, go ahead and cite it, otherwise acknowledge it as conspiracy theory and leave it at that. I would hate to open the door to such heinous absurdities as 9/11 or holocaust denial. While I think there may be suspicious occurrences surrounding 9/11, I have no PROOF and as such would never call it conspiracy FACT.

Do you see the manner in which this discussion is already heading down the dark hole that CT topics in general create?
 
I apologize if I offended you, I'm sorry you became angry that I think differently than you, you can think differently than me and and thats fine by me, one of the great things about humans is that we differ in our thinking. I vote for not having to keep those differences a secret .


~peace
 
RayOfLight said:
If a conspiracy could be proven it wouldn't be a theory , it would be conspiracy fact, I think the proof they try to give you is for some reason not accepted by main stream people.

sept 11 is a good example , you've got building 7 that wasn't hit by a plane collapsing, you've got news reports saying the buildings went down before they went down , you've got a 6 foot wide whole in the pentagon with no plane wreckage.. and I'm a nut for not believing it was exactly what the government tells me it is .

as far as I'm concerned thats a conspiracy fact. I'm sure you would disagree with me because the case lacks some kind of proof that you need in order to believe it ... what the proof is I guess I'll never know .


People can agree to disagree on things. I don't think conspiracy theory will stir up any more disagreements than spirituality/religion and we haven't banned that .
Click to expand...

Spirituality and religion are topics directly related to the main topic of this forum, who did what and when on sept 11th is not. I could easily refute every single point you raise about 9/11 (there are documentaries that do so better than i could), but I will not. That is why 9/11 is a perfect example of what should not be discussed here. "He says/she says" discussions lead nowhere, and what you consider FACT many probably won't. Will you be persuaded otherwise? I suspect not, so the discussion is ultimately dead before it has started. Disputing one's version of facts versus another's is pointless - it is predicated on the idea that neither camp will budge, given that they both believe they are in possession of irrefutable fact.

Now spirituality (your example) is a whole different ballgame. While potentially volatile if one side leans to disrespecting the other, the discussions are based on opinion, and are entered into with this understanding. Ideas and opinions are tossed about, learned from and may actually further a person's development - hashing out a "he says/she says" style, ostensibly FACT based argument cannot, in my opinion. There are countless examples here and elsewhere.

Don't get me wrong, I indulge in conspiracy theory arguments with friends acquaintances and colleagues. I consider it a weakness - i am dragged (or drag myself) into these discussion time and time again, knowing that nothing gets resolved and everyone goes home angry and more entrenched in their ideas, out of pure spite, than before. What use? What point? What a waste.

Something I need to work on, but i am very glad this is one place i can go where 9/11, Big Pharma, 2012, and all the myriad others won't be debated. Refered to, perhaps, but not hotly debated.

Why do we need to throw gauntlets down? Let's use them to shake hands!

JBArk
 
In my post I said ' as far as I'm concerned ' I'm allowed to have an opinion, just like if I saw jesus in a tortia chip and from that point on as far as im concerned jesus being lord is a fact.

would that make your blood boil with anger as well?
 
RayOfLight said:
In my post I said ' as far as I'm concerned ' I'm allowed to have an opinion, just like if I saw jesus in a tortia chip and from that point on as far as im concerned jesus being lord is a fact.

would that make your blood boil with anger as well?
Click to expand...

Reread this thread in its entirety. If you still thing CT discussion is A GOOD idea, i would be very surprised!

JBArk

PS - by the way - if it is an opinion, why do you call it FACT?
 
I think the problem here is not conspiracy theories themselves but rather not being able to discuss things in a civil way.

The guidelines on this site state that noone can carve off a piece of the universe and declare it the only truth' If everyone followed that rule we wouldn't have a problem and we could discuss anything we want without being disrespectful to others.

I think the attitude page is all we need for rules , we just gotta follow them
 
I just re read the attitude page again and this is REALLY all we need. anyone thinking we need to ban certain topics should re read that and tell me honestly if it were adhered to that we still need to ban certain topics.
 
RayOfLight said:
I just re read the attitude page again and this is REALLY all we need. anyone thinking we need to ban certain topics should re read that and tell me honestly if it were adhered to that we still need to ban certain topics.
Click to expand...
Trav has banned topics he feels qualify as CTs...it's his discretion and according to your poll, you're the only person who has a problem with this.


I'd say you got your wish and democracy has spoken...
 
RayOfLight - I've got to say that I think you've been out voted. You started this thread proposing a vote, and it currently stands 2 for and 24 against. What more democratic illustration can you ask for that the community's point of view isn't really in line with your own? There hasn't been any attempt whatsoever to censure your argument. The majority just doesn't appear to see things as you do.
 
Yeah I agree. I'm not arguing with the results of this poll.

I am Surprised by it but thats it .
 
RayOfLight said:
I think the problem here is not conspiracy theories themselves but rather not being able to discuss things in a civil way...
Click to expand...

That's unfair. The discussion in this thread HAS been perfectly civil--from all sides.

But I think what you're not seeing clearly is that you (seem to) have some sort of "personal urgency" on the topic of conspiracy theories, and

1) They have nothing to do with DMT (at least the ones The Traveler mentioned).
2) It's just that URGENCY that makes the topic problematic for ANY forum not specifically devoted to those issues.

Don't you see, given your feelings about these things (and that they're not related to DMT), that other forums are MUCH MORE APPROPRIATE for the issue than is the Nexus?

The question is not about "truth" and "discussions," it's about what "fits" for the Nexus, and what doesn't. The Traveler has already TAKEN A POSITION on the topic, so in one sense it's almost BAD FORM for you to harp on it relentlessly in public. The topics you want to discuss won't be discussed here.
 
Uncle Knucles said:
You started this thread proposing a vote, and it currently stands 2 for and 24 against.
Click to expand...
Actually one of those two votes was the victim of electronic voting fraud. Entro got nailed just like all those poor Jewish grannies down in Florida who voted for Pat Buchanan back in 2000. :lol:
 
One thing regarding your wording of the poll i would be remiss not mentioning:
yes, I belive in democracy and the nexus should cater to its members.
Click to expand...
No, Its the Travelers site what he says goes .
Click to expand...

I think you do the Traveler a disservice by inferring that without the democracy you desire, that traveler is NOT catering to the members of the nexus. IME, that is EXACTLY what he does, day in day out, unpaid, driven by passion and cameraderie. I would go so far as to say that a democracy of 50 + 1 (as endlessness phrased it) would go a long way to NOT catering to its membership. Sometimes the status quo is the right status.

JBArk
 
I mean in the final say. It is the travelers final say right now and thats fine, Its still managed great and my intention wasn't to suggest the traveler was doing anything wrong.

I stated in a previous post that we do have somewhat of a democratic system here I just think it could be better managed.

Please don't try and twist this into me attacking the traveler. I offered a suggestion , nothing more .
 
Back
Top Bottom