Fairyelfdog wrote:
G'day Fairtelfdog.

That one is definitely subjective. Personally, I'd state that it was mostly applicable to such groups as 'The Twelve Tribes' ... Seamus, a former DI f member (circa 2007), was a member of the group when I first interacted with him on the DI f. Our discussions of religion and his diligence in researching things for himself lead to him leaving the group.

As such, the "outside world" for a twelve tribes member would constitute everything outside of their group (especially as they are isolated from much interaction with anything outside of the group).

An "unreasonable fear" would equate with the belief that if they left the group then they would be at the mercy of 'Satan'.

Personally, I am willing to discuss anything and everything. I am open to any and all information to be presented so that I can form an opinion based upon the information presented. To "automatically" judge anything is naive, as even those that lie sometimes tell the truth. In fact, I've specifically read book from individuals presenting false information so that I could find those few nuggets of truth within the pages. For me, information is merely that, information, something to be disseminated and recognised for what it is and whatever message (if any) it is attempting to present.

I wasn't actually specifically referring to any particular groups/researchers. One off the top of the head that definitely had overtones of a cult was Mtsarion. He was originally a member/poster on the 'unofficial David Icke forum', which ended up simply know of as 'The Forum'. He lost it BIG time when he couldn't handle having his 'research' shown to be false and pretty much abused the majority of the forum. He then went off and started his own forum, which had MASSIVE control factors in place (having to have threads passed by Mtsarion prior to them going up on the forum, members disagreeing with him being banned, posts deleted, etc). His 'followers' were pretty rabid as well back in the day.

About Mtsarion: Ooops, I see. Can I PM you? I'd like to discuss some things with you personally. Tomorrow that is, when I have time.

andyh wrote:
G'day Andyh.

I definitely "get the picture" you are presenting ... an appeal to popularity ...

Argumentum ad populum

In logic, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it. In other words, the basic idea of the argument is: "If many believe so, it is so."

This type of argument is known by several names,[1] including appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, argument by consensus, consensus fallacy, authority of the many, and bandwagon fallacy, and in Latin as argumentum ad numerum ("appeal to the number"), and consensus gentium ("agreement of the clans"). It is also the basis of a number of social phenomena, including communal reinforcement and the bandwagon effect. The Chinese proverb "three men make a tiger" concerns the same idea.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

... which has overtones of 'group think' ...

Groupthink

Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within groups of people. It is the mode of thinking that happens when the desire for harmony in a decision-making group overrides a realistic appraisal of alternatives. Group members try to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation of alternative ideas or viewpoints. Antecedent factors such as group cohesiveness, structural faults, and situational context play into the likelihood of whether or not groupthink will impact the decision-making process.

The primary socially negative cost of groupthink is the loss of individual creativity, uniqueness, and independent thinking.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink

... and interestingly, the forum guidelines state ...

9. The plat­form is ours, but the con­ver­sa­tion belongs to every­body. We want this to be a wel­com­ing space for intel­li­gent dis­cus­sion, and sports­man like behav­iour. We expect par­tic­i­pants to help us achieve this by noti­fy­ing us of poten­tial prob­lems and help­ing each other to keep con­ver­sa­tions invit­ing and free of abu­sive or dis­rup­tive behaviour.

... which appears not to preclude any discussion of a particular topic simply because some individuals state it is "getting on our nerves".

Incidentally, there doesn't appear to be any mention of the length of membership on the forum (no hierarchy) giving special privileges to those that joined at an earlier date in the guidelines as well.

Perhaps I missed both somewhere in the forum guidelines and you can point out both instances so that the issue can be clarified.

Fairyelfdog wrote:
G'day Fairyelfdog.

Mate, you are welcome to contact me anytime at all.

I AM ALL I AM wrote:
Again the forum is community moderated and you agreed to that when you signed up.
If you don't like it

---

> There's the door

I'm not interested in any side 'arguments' or 'fringe' interests you might have personally because again its community moderated so if you want to change the rules you could perhaps put it to a vote, no harm in that.

I've already started a vote on if ppl are sick of DIF threads or not and you're welcome to vote no on it along with others who feel the same way as yourself.

I AM ALL I AM wrote:
Hello I AM ALL I AM

in relation to the guidlines here and the DIF hee-haw.

i don't think the dif shit qualifies "intel­li­gent dis­cus­sion" do you? dose anyone else?

Runlikehell wrote:
Its just venting for the sake of venting.
The laugh of it is why would someone who's already had a good vent elsewhere want to then come on here and start all over again?
Except to piss us off, I can't see it bothering Sean.

oioioi wrote:
I have to confess ...your name always makes me think of Morris Day and the Mother Fuckin' Time!

Runlikehell wrote:
G'day Runlikehall.

Great Pink Floyd song mate.

Personally, I think any topic can be discussed intelligently, even "the dif shit". I'd rather an "intelligent discussion" about shit than a non-intelligent discussion about something intelligent ... if you get my meaning.

K-Bone wrote:

My jungle love,[yeah],(Oh-Wee-Oh-Wee-Oh)!
I think I wanna know ya,(Know ya),
Jungle love,(Oh-Wee-Oh-Wee-Oh)! Girl I need 2 show ya,
(show ya),

andyh wrote:
Im in agreement with that Andy, you've hit it bang on!

you can just see it now 4 years down the line the dif shit is still hanging on by a baw-hair!

like you said earlyer theres plenty of place to do it in chatroom, that way it's more like a toilet, you go in privately do your buisness, then come out and back on the forum, and when you close the chatroom, it's lke flushing!
I AM ALL I AM wrote:
Hiya I AM ALL I AM

yeah RHL one of ma favs!

that's my point when do we as people say ahhh fuck it! it aint worth bothering about ow it's ben and gone if folk missed the bus then fuck, personally i think it's better to try help folk move on and set an example and them too!

Like the Floyd said: Then one day you find, ten years have get behind you

there will alway's be someone coming here and telling us all how angry they are and how pissed off, it's like finding a shit in your livingroom and everyone resufeing to clean it up? what we gonna do? leave and ignore it (the ones who aint bothered by the dif shit anymore), and just let a few folk sit and get worked up over it? (the ones who are still pissed off)

short term it helps, but long term it dosent do any of us any good as indeviduals or as a community, and still keeps that steaming little issue going.

com'on folks time to grow a skin drop it n move on.

as a member of this forum i don't want that shit here tbh

ive got enough offline and com on here to have fun chat n laugh with the many frinds here that ive known for many years!

free speech is like an all you can eat buffet, by the time you stuff yourself with shit you ain got space for the pudding

let's move on to sweeter thing folks!

So much toilet analogies there run

andyh wrote:
Sorry i missed a few

Community moderation evolved into censorship when exactly or did I miss that meeting?

If people come here to discuss a topic and they do it politely and within the rules and spirit of the site no topic is off limits! That would include David Icke or anyone else for that matter whether people are pro, anti or indifferent. As for the vote it is in fact point less because it's not in keeping with the rules or the spirit of the place. Unless you can point me to the section which states members shall be gagged on topics other members don't want to discuss.

There is also no rule that I'm aware of that states being a member here means you are required to read and or reply to every thread or did I miss that one?

There are rules about bullying and aggressive posting and harassment of members.

And when you are reading this please bear in mind that I am not speaking as a moderator or an admin but as a member of the site.

Frog wrote:
Thats not the point of the vote as stated in the thread

andyh wrote:
Who was the OP of the Poll thread?

Would it be the person that wrote this in this thread?andyh wrote:
It's starting to looks like someone is on a bit of a mission to me.

Frog wrote:
Read the vote thread, lol!
Its about demonstrating the difference between bullshit assumption and fact.

I think the rules are clear enough.

Seems to me that there isn't really a problem Andy.

If people wish to post threads about a legitimate subject, their choice. Not reading said threads because they don't interest you, your choice. Everyone's a winner.