Race discussion will always be emotive because some people can't see past melanin and others can't see why it is at all relevant.

It isn't relevant of course, (in my view), but it has become so because of the perception of difference and all the fear, suspicion and reaction that produces. Those attitudes have a long history and are ingrained in cultures.

They will take just as long to resolve as they did to develop.

As feather said, the multiple user, one account thing should be sorted out big time. I'd like to know who is responding to anything I might say. I could be having a conversation with one of three people and I'd have no idea at all which one was replying.

I'm pretty confused actually, it's a bit of a mess.

i-baster wrote: I think that if one starts a provocative thread, it is inevitable that ones motives for doing so get questioned. In such cases one should be able to answer such questions without going ballistic. Losing ones temper is one thing but a knee jerk tirade of unwarranted abuse sustained after other people have been reasonable is another. (the last sentence refers to nothing you have ever posted i hasten to add)
i-baster wrote:
I don't think that provocative issues should be avoided or discouraged by any means but likewise questioning the motives for starting such a thread should also be allowed.
i-baster wrote:
Absolutely
i-baster wrote:
Certainly. After all, this is a conspiracy forum (amongst other things).

However, in this particular case, it appears that all is not what it seems.
i-baster wrote:
Thank you very much. I am genuinely flattered. I appreciate your posts very much too. In fact the quality of posters on SZ is really exceptional.
i-baster wrote:
I'll drink to that

mikey mikey wrote:
It's been 22 hours now and I see that you have posted elsewhere here many times since I asked you (twice).

This leads me to believe that you do not wish to divulge this informaion.

That is your perogative.
You could have just said so

are you stalking him

No. I was reminded of this post by answering to i-baster's post and noticed that my question had been left hanging. So in case RA had other things to do rather than post, I went to see on his profile whether he had posted or not.

Is that stalking or is it in fact getting my facts straight before I post?

mikey mikey wrote:
Oh, im just some guy that you befriended because you must have liked my post so much .

But until you apologize to Rick for ganging up on him in this thread we are not on speaking terms.

As for my handle over there your making me feel mysterious right now.

Just to clarify 3 ppl use this log-in;
Sober Oi!
Stoned Oi!
Stoned n pissed Oi!

I think that the way things went for many on the other forum created this suspicious nature and it's understandable,and maybe some of the others were sinister types,and maybe Mikey thought I was one of them,or that I had a agenda,I will accept that fact and all things considered this thread topic was in bad taste considering the fresh wounds of the other forum,and apologize for my ignorance about it,

Thanks RA for your support and concern,lets hope all this ends in a peaceful and friendly way,and Mikey I hope we can resolve this.

RealAmerican wrote:
Until you can explain how one poster (me) can gang up on anybody, I am unable to apologise sincerely.

Quote it or it didn't happen.

How's your neck btw?
Or have you not yet established that with alienbiketrail/rick/ric'ks.boither/rick's.uncle?

Penn & Teller watch out!

Rick wrote:
me too

nice timing

I might PM RA and ask him who he is on the DIF...it's my forte. I'm just a nosey fucker
I'll keep it to myself though

mikey mikey wrote:
Yes Mikey, I think you may have misunderstood me there. I was just saying that I would like to see folks here make peace when they have conflict. I have seen many people here make-up after quarrels. Some I haven't. thought I expressed already how I felt about the DIF on this thread and others.
dantesrevival wrote:
No I never said it was okay and would never want to see this place resort to that kind of interaction. I made a direct comment to 'Rick' about lashing out on people. I am pleased to see that everyone has calmed down and seems to be getting along better.

Mikey now that we are friends again you were going to tell me about the origins of the PNAC?

They are the most sinister organization on this Earth?

Are they not?

Asking questions of someone because I and other's feel there was deception and ulteriorn motive doesn't give someone the right to hurl abuse, when the question it's only a simple question.

And as it turned out Rick was being deceptive in that there are supposed to be 3 people using his account, frankly though the writing style of rick has remained consistent.

RealAmerican wrote:
Certainly PNAC are a head on the Hydra and I am certainly keen to explore it and the neo-con/Imeprialist forces behind it.

I think it needs its own thread as it deosn't really exclusively pertain to WASP people (e.g. Rice, Powell, )

mikey mikey wrote:
@ Rice & Powell (I can't believe you would even bring those two up)

I don't even consider Rice or Powell as PNAC.

Let's be honest the nucleus would be (Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, Cheney, Rumsfeld)

RealAmerican wrote:
They both played central roles in the PNAC foreign policy for years: They're PNAC.

btw you may want to look up "no true Scotsman" fallacy
RealAmerican wrote:
You forgot Kristol, but never mind

But these are WASP? (i.e. White Anglo Saxon Protestant)

Wolfowitz, Perle and Feith are all jewish.
(allowing people like rodin that PNAC is teh j00z )

mikey mikey wrote:
Is that the reason why the David icke forum is the way it is?

I mean you did say that the PNAC is the Head of the Hydra...

Hydra being Reptilians?

It was much more than those few guys. PNAC held all the power in the Bush administration.
In fact I have always held the opinion that Bush was selected by them as simply a recognised name for the store front.

Bush/PNAC Admin