IMPORTANT NOTE:
You do NOT have to register to read, post, listen or contribute. If you simply wish to remain fully anonymous, you can still contribute.
|
Home  Forums |
|
|
|
|
Topic History of: Did the Gulf of Aden Stargate open on November 14th ?
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
Prunella Minge |
SJB wrote:
I'd just like to post what I think about BR and his critics.
In his lucid moments, I find BR very perceptive. He makes strong and accurate points, and often hits the nail bang on the head. Sometimes the links he gives don't quite support the issues he raises, but that doesn't necessarily invalidate the issues he posts about. In general, I like his posts about current affairs.
However, BR can be somewhat eccentric, as we know. Personally, I think there's plenty of truth in the NWO stuff about behind the scenes control and globalisation or whatever, but I'm not so convinced about the role lizards or stargates play in it. Sometimes I wish other posters would indulge (ie gloss over) BR's wackier ideas rather than dissect them so brutally. Then we can concentrate more on discussing BR's best contributions.
I don't see how we can gloss over so many over-long threads that treat anyone who fails to rubber stamp the assertions as deluded fools. It works both ways. If he was a bit humbler, open-minded and tolerant, a conversation might start. |
|
SJB |
I'd just like to post what I think about BR and his critics.
In his lucid moments, I find BR very perceptive. He makes strong and accurate points, and often hits the nail bang on the head. Sometimes the links he gives don't quite support the issues he raises, but that doesn't necessarily invalidate the issues he posts about. In general, I like his posts about current affairs.
However, BR can be somewhat eccentric, as we know. Personally, I think there's plenty of truth in the NWO stuff about behind the scenes control and globalisation or whatever, but I'm not so convinced about the role lizards or stargates play in it. Sometimes I wish other posters would indulge (ie gloss over) BR's wackier ideas rather than dissect them so brutally. Then we can concentrate more on discussing BR's best contributions. |
|
Locked Out |
And if you are still persist in your line that "it's clear" that I "have something personal against BR", may I draw your attention to what I posted on this site 1 month and 2 weeks ago;
"The old "you don't have to read it" line is becoming a little hackneyed. It's true that you don't have to read BR's posts but if you have bothered to write a piece or have a serious point to make yourself only to have a debate you'd like aired effectively stifled by a load of NWO related stuff I'd contend that you have a right to feel aggrieved. Further to that several threads a day all containing the same essential message {ie "it's the NWO"} do much to make people wonder whether this isn't simply just another conspiracy site.
I don't believe anyone is requesting that BR stop posting conspiracy stuff altogether. Rather the general feeling is "less would be more". This has already been said by one poster but I think it speaks for many more.
BR is something of an institution. And all institutions must bear in mind that if people are turning away from the feeling that they are useful, then they must strive to better serve those they wish to serve or face the fact that they will go to the wall in the fullness of time.
However....
BR and I are old antagonists. I'd hate to see him choose the latter course because it would make my day that much more dull. We all have concerns about heavy handed government policy or policing. This board is one which, I believe, values civil liberties. So even if I don't agree with BR on many things I'd shrink from any call to deter his postings or fail to value the time and effort he puts into them.
His opinions - and his logic - may be flawed.
But his rights to them are his and his alone.
That doesn't mean we can't argue, but it's not our place to censure. His contributions this week have been for the most part much more balanced. We should recognise that and move on. This sudden call for him to be in some way muted is one which may garner some sympathy. But not from me. It's a little too late in the day for KoH to become mainstream.
If it's a vendetta it's a pretty apologetic one. |
|
Prunella Minge |
Plissken wrote:
And another thing, LO: JK was recently attacked over the lack of evidence to back up his claims vis a vis Jimi Hendrix.
His response was to say that he hoped (amongst other things) to entertain people. That was good enough for me.
I find the majority of BR's posts to be entertaining, and they are a welcome relief to the doom that is often projected on this board.
Keep it up, BR. Ignore this dullard.
Yes. 'Dullards' are people who don't believe in things like 'stargates'. You two are extraordinary. |
|
Plissken (aka Pete Clarke) |
I apologise unreservedly for calling you a dullard, LO. Must be my time of the month.
When you wrote your farewell post about five months ago, you lamented the loss of posters such as myself, and Denise, as well as the intelligent debate you were used to. Well, I never went away, I just had less time on my hands, and I fancied a change of moniker.
I could spend fifteen minutes coming up with a witty and imaginative response to your insults, but I really do have far more interesting (and lucrative) things to be doing with my keyboard. Namely, editing my very first novel down from its current 275,000 words to my publishers recommended 225,000 words.
Despite the hectoring of my agent, it's a task I've been struggling with since signing my publishing deal last October, hence the usual brevity of my posts on this board.
I've been working my book for five years, and such was the pain, I will probably never write another, although I will at least co-write the big-screen adaptation of my yarn.
I'm sure most of you willl think this is BS, but that means absolutely nothing to me. And, if any of you want to see the 'evidence', you'll be able to purchase it from Amazon and all good book sellers hopefully in the autumn of this year.
Goodbye everyone, and good luck to all.
Pete Clarke
(soon to be) Published Author |
|
|
|
|
