paranoid crap

"the way MI5 put terror back on the front pages in July in London"

Prove it.

No ... you prove your Conspiracy Theory about Muslim suicide bombers. Key pieces of compelling evidence are still missing.

But, Observer didn't assert anything at all??? He seems to suggest that the post could be innacurate and seeks evidence to bake those claims up.

Or are you using the Bible Code or Numerology to reveal a hidden message???

He (you) is defending the Government's position here, as he does consistently. Since these men have been exposed as LIARS and criminals, the burden of proof is upon them - not their Opposition - to support their various Theories with compelling evidence.

How about a clear picture of the men who silenced Mr. Menezez, walking out of the tube station? Their faces are always mosaic'ed out. Who do they work for? Who are they?

Where is the CCTV footage?

Where is the evidence ... ?

Observer asked for substantiation of the posts claims that MI5 were responsible for the London attacks. They is none forthcoming. All we get is an attempt to sidestep the request- no-one has argued any counter thesis; merely challenged the above.

We can safely assume then that the post is INsubstantial thus innacurate and thereby should according to editorial rules be hidden.

Sad and Twilight (aka Impossible Proofs)

Let me repeat what I've said elsewhere.

In order for any argument to be taken seriously, it is necessary for the accuser to lay out his case; evidence, corroboration, and so forth. We then weigh this up - assess the likely veracity of that evidence, the reliability of the witness, etc - before coming to a decision. This is accepted throughout the civilised world as the appropriate way forward.

The two of you and those of similar mind claim that no evidence exists to support your hypotheses, as far as I can tell because those involved in the acts have concealed them almost utterly. How then, can we consider or accept your argument? We have nothing specific to test it against. No objective yardstick by which to measure the case.

Rightly or wrongly the government has made a case for Islamic-extremisim led terrorism that largely seems to hold water. I have looked at the publicly available details of the London bombings, and whilst there are undoubtedly questions still to be answered it does all seem to square.

You, and those of similar mind, need to be in a position to post cogent, persuasive replies if you are to have any chance of convincing enought people. It is not enough for you to ask me to "prove" the Goverment's case, because they have set out their stall. Now it is your turn, and to the same evidencial standards.

I look forward to the day that you do post such detail, but fear that it will be a long time in coming.

"You, and those of similar mind, need to be in a position to post cogent, persuasive replies if you are to have any chance of convincing enought people"

Well the evidence is right before us,those with eyes to see,and ears to hear will understand.

Truth is the daughter of time not authority (Bertolt Brecht)


And still it moves (Galileo)


It is not my job to convince anyone,only print that which in my "opinion" .."is"

Some folks are just born with the ability to see what is,others dont or remain in Denial.
or simply dont care.There are those who work hard for a living to put food on the tables and raise a family.Hard bloody work,and to tired to challenge anything.

That is their free will,and rude of me to cross that.

Though the media is rude in the fact that they dont report what is.

You post a piece that asserts quite clearly as *qualified fact* "[...]MI5 put terror back on the front pages in July in London,"

When challenged to substaniate this "fact", you reply:

"It is not my job to convince anyone,only print that which in my "opinion" .."is""

Thus by your own admission you lack evidence and your post (as they usually are) is innacruate and misleading:
__________

 http://dictionary.reference.com/

inaccurate
*> Mistaken or incorrect; not accurate.

accurate
*>Conforming exactly to *fact*; errorless.
*>Deviating only slightly or within acceptable limits from a standard.
Capable of providing a correct reading or measurement: an accurate scale.
Acting or performing with care and precision; meticulous: an accurate proofreader.


mislead
To lead in the wrong direction.
*> To lead into error of thought or action, especially by intentionally deceiving


deceive
*>To cause to believe what is not true; mislead.

v. intr.
To practice deceit.
*> To give a false impression: appearances can deceive.

opinion
*> A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof:
(This meaning REQUIRES substantiation, before you get any silly ideas!) A judgment based on special knowledge and given by an expert: a medical opinion.

Newswire Open Posting Guidelines
articles and/or comments may be hidden for the following reasons:
Repeated : content that is reposted or text that was originally a comment posted as a report.
*> Non-news : posts which are clearly purely comment, opinion or rants unrelated to a recent event or action etc.
Discrimination : posts using language, imagery, or other forms of communication promoting racism, fascism, xenophobia, sexism, homophobia or any other form of discrimination.
*> Inaccurate : posts that are inaccurate or misleading.
Advertising : posts with personal or product promotions.
Hierarchy : The newswire is designed to generate a news resource, not a notice-board for political parties or any other hierarchically structured organizations.
*> Disruptive : Contributions by individuals who habitually publish above mentioned discouraged content. Posts where topical or regional selections disrupts the utility of the sub pages (ie spamming regional and topic selections).
Reposts : Articles that are simply pasted from corporate news sites. Please write something original, by all means link to articles elsewhere and quote from them but don't just copy them.
__

This post contravenes IMUK's Editorial Policy on three counts.

The evidence is everywhere,i think one really should ask MI5 and the people behind blair to release the evidence which would show that which is written is in fact untrue.What you are actually asking is for people to believe everything that comes through mainstream media.

I do not,and have not seen any evidence to back claims of towers which fall like pancakes because of fires,or how passports can survive such blasts,or photos of a plane hitting the Pentagon,or cctv images of rucksack bombers on underground trains.

All i have seen are lies.If you do not see them,thats fine.I do.When i see 3 fingers,i see 3 fingers,not how many they tell me to see.Though of course under torture one could more than likely be persuaded to see twenty fingers.

i belong to no party or religious order.can the same be said about you.

thanks

DD

"The evidence is everywhere"

Then it shouldn't be hard to cite.

"What you are actually asking is for people to believe everything that comes through mainstream media."

I'm really really really doing no such thing. I'm really am merely asking for proof it was MI5 as you state. I'm asking no-one do believe anything. Okay, I'm perhaps guilty of insuiating overtly that I think you are talking out your brown hole.

Sorry, did MI5 do the Twin Towers in July??? Stop havering and stick to the point!

"All i have seen are lies."

I thought subjectivity was the enemy??? Your POV is your own and your's alone. You seem to think you have some vision that other do not. Prove it. Prove MI5 did the July bombings!

THAT is all I ask. Not for some waffle about anything else.

May I be so bold, and exceptionally polite for a Scotsman. Have you ever considered you may be totally deluded regarding your skills of perception?

"i belong to no party or religious order.can the same be said about you."

Oooh, you are doing so well at not insulting anyone, but I can detect an itch?

But, I'm glad you asked me that. Any old excuse to sing the greatest song ever written... if you are drunk:

[nods at Harry Lauder]

Ah belang tae Glesca
Dear ault Glesca Toon
Ah whit's ra matter wae Glesca
Cos it's gaun roon en roon

et cetera

I am a memeber of the British Blood Donor's association (O+), a library, a gym. I only started voting after Iraq and encouraged several other non-participants to do the same (to vote against Blair!) I've never been a member of a political organisation, any religous sect, never been a spook, a copper or a lawyer. Not even the scouts!

I think I see DD, Twilight, PsyOps, JacksLucid, andAl Qaeda = CIA/Mossad/MI6's problem here, and its a simple one; the evidence they have normally just isn't convincing enough. I'll repeat what I said on a similar thread.

Let me give an example. I'm not attributing this specifically to Al Qaeda = CIA/Mossad/MI6, I must add, but its a typical case. And before the IMC admins get upset I'm not using it as a 911 platform, again its just a good example and responds rather nicely to the point DD made, above.

The conspiracisits claim that steel buildings do not undergo catastophic structural failure due to the effects of fire on the frame. They often quote tables about melting points and so on which at first glance appear convincing and carry people with them. They ask for examples of tall steel buildings which have failed due to fires.

But I'm an architect (yes, really). I work with steel structures and I know, from day-on-day experience, that steel weakens markedly under the effects of fire and must be protected. Structural engineers I work with know this. Steel manufacturers advise on it. Every single set of building regulations in the Western world insists (and have always done) that structural steel frames carry considerable amounts of fire protection.

The conspiracisits are just plain wrong in this particular case. I suspect there are many examples from other fields where experts know they are wrong. If the conspiracists have to state a case, then they can and are tackled on a point-by-point basis by those who really do know their stuff. They cannot hide behind vague assertions and half-truths.

This is why they do not post evidence. Unlike his fellow conspiracists, DD has had the sense to realise he is only giving an opinion; unfortunately the others do not have the same ability.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

... [you] want to get anything from your involvement in this issue, first define your terms ...

If it is proof you want - one way or the other - you will be waiting a long time. Objective proof is a rare beast, hardly seen in the shark infested waters of international politics.

If it is evidence you seek, what are your criteria for accepting it?

... It seems to me (and others who post here) that some want their evidence cake and to eat it too ...

... Do you trust utterly the evidence of the state (better refered to as the military industrial complex, after all we live in a fascist state where corporate and state power have merged)? ... perhaps the 5th estate is your poison (not forgeting its intimate place in this corporate/state alliance)?

... Either way, you are relying on someones elses opinion and acumin.

So, bearing all that in mind, what evidence is there that the us & uk may have conducted false flag operations, specifically against their own[sic]?

Well I guess we could begin with an acknowledgement that the empire builders of past have all used this method from roman emperors to that reichstag moment (the german one!) ... anyone remember the train station bombing in Italy in the 70's in 1980 by the so-called Red Brigades ... the supposed "communist terrorist" Red Brigades were phonies, a patsy outfit created by Lodge P2, the neofascist shadow government with Italy in its grip.

Then we have the testimony of a former MI5 agent (hint: be quick to discredit him) David Shyler, who claims that [it] was an inside job (7/7).

... but wait, why not do your own research:

 http://www.rense.com/Datapages/londonbmb.htm

Hundreds and hundreds of pages of data ... not all of it sensible ... but as Holmes said, 'when you have ruled out the impossible what remains, however improbable is the truth'

... and I happen to believe that the postion taken by some here is the corect one: blair/bush and their pals ARE proven liars, the burdon of proof is on them, not us.

Best article on london false flags (my opinion):

 http://www.onlinejournal.com/Commentary/070805Leonard/070805leonard.html

... now, let the games begin (my $$$ is on 'jacksaloony' coming up first, closely followed by 'lizard' references)

Observer (Magoo), there is an easy way for you to prove your point. Prove the Government's Conspiracy Theory about 7/7/21. Provide the missing, key pieces of evidence which would prove their case - thus proving that they did not intentionally scare the public in order to distract from everything else that was going on ...

Since these men have been exposed as LIARS and criminals, the burden of proof is upon them - not their Opposition - to support their various Theories with compelling evidence.

How about a clear picture of the men who silenced Mr. Menezez, walking out of the tube station? Their faces are always mosaic'ed out. Who do they work for? Who are they?

Where is the CCTV footage?

Where is the evidence ... ?

Observer isn't Magoo. I know this because I am. I'm not an architect. So, there are at the least 3 people here asking for evidence AFAICT.

Furthermore, you can't hide behind your usual "prove the official blah blah!" because Observer and myself never cited any official versions to gainsay yours. We are simply asking you to provide proof of your statement.

Proof isn't a rare beast. Proof is witness statements corroborated by events and foresenic testimony from an impartial source. Proof happens all the time in the world- within the realms of reasonable certainty. It isn't what some other like-minded person happens to think might possibly be the case- that's just rumour.

If you don't have evidence, don't pretend you do. Because it is misleading.

Believe me, if MI5 really was up to something, I'd want to know along with the rest of the country- including MSM.

Shayler stopped being a reliable source of information since he stopped being able to provide actual evidence. His statements became further compromised by his career choice. People like Shayler & Jones IMHO are out to make a living off people who WANT to believe the kinds of things they say. The same as Icke. The same as Ernst Zuendel. It's all tuned to an audience. There is no empirical method whatsoever. "Play them the songs they want to hear and they'll dance!" That's not information, it's just a mantra.

To be honest, I couldn't care less if you thought Hitler was living in the moon on a double decker bus. It just bugs me that the pair of you frequently post claims that can't be substantiated, and worse still claim them to be immutable fact, and worse still throw a strop when challenged.

It just makes this place look amateur. Learn the English subjunctive at least! It'll save a lot of bitching.

Sad, Twilight, DD, Don't Limit, and friends

Let me be quite clear.

It is the accuser who lay out his case; evidence, corroboration, and so forth. We then weigh this up - assess the likely veracity of that evidence, the reliability of the witness, etc - before coming to a decision. This process is accepted throughout the world.

You have made an unequivocal accusation of the highest order. Regardless of other theories, the onus is now on you to demonstrate how you arrived at your position. You need to cite your arguments, your sources, provide such evidence as is available. Only then can the rest of us decide whether we agree or not. Until then, you have voiced no more than an unsubstantiated opinion.

The challenge remains. Put a full, properly developed case to us.

We've two very parallel threads running here. However at the risk of repetition, the conspiracists have been challenged to prove their case, provide more compelling evidence, and give links. You have not done so. Can you?

Alas
No matter what is said here there will always be a number of view points.First of all one has to ask what "is" what do we see that is happening which is factual and undeniable.People who do not have an agenda,have no desire to win,only to aquire knowledge can go far.People whos thoughts are crystalised,will not look,will not question will usually take offence and more often than not sadly will resort to name calling.Such is the way humans work.

An interesting place to start is with who we are.For if we make no attempt to discover who we are,how and we react the way we do to certain stimuli/information and so on,understand our programing and so forth ...no work can be done. Or so I think.

A lot of people would say they know themselves very well.I would say,and in my opinion they/we dont.

Education does not even address this question,it is deemed not important,or not even on the sylabus.....when one is raising people to work within the system the last thing that the powers that be would want is a truely educated peoples,ones who would be open to new ideas new thoughts, a truely questioning mind and true co-operation.This is as it has been since we can remember.

For then they would lose their control.Control has been through fear,the use of violence to oneself or ones family,through the fear of hell from the dead man on a stick worshipers.Christ was not the first story of beings being attached to a piece of wood to die.

People speak lies when they do not even realise they are doing so.When one speaks as if they are an authoraty on a subject and are only repeating what they have heard.This is the sowing of lies.Wantingly or unwantingly.

It is not my job to do any ones research for them. I do not get paid for doing such a thing.If i am asked for my opinion and my reasoning for that opinion i will try my best to answer that question asked of me.

As far as providing proof.There is much written about certain subjects 9/11 SAS guys dressed as Arabs,innocent Brazilians being shot dead,and so on. One can only observe what goes on around oneself,read what is said about such matters and make or not make a decision for oneself regarding what one is observing,experiencing.

What is telling,is when one puts forward an opinion and is rudely attacked or name called or whatever.This we see happening all the time when folks have diffirent thoughts to what is happening,other than the media stated truths.

I agree,i do not agree is a humane way to go.It really is a waste of time to respond to folks who dont want to "discuss" who just want to scream at you and name call.

A wonderfull piece of information in my opinion is a written piece of work by Doctor Hervey Cleckly who has written "The Mask of Sanity"

a PDF of it can be found here for free
 http://www.quantumfuture.net/store/downloads.php

To know thyself and to start making ones own steps in self discovery which is a life long task, and is worthwhile task, and enables one to make up ones own mind rightly or wrongly regarding existence, concerning ones own life and so forth.

Untill one starts understanding what one is and what one isnt...who are you?

Draw your line in the sand.....one has the right to be selfish or co operative...without calling the other guy down.

Im sorry its late and i cant contribute much more than this at present

regards

DD

Okay,

thanks for the lecture on the dynamics of group identity and the social psychology of values.

But, that isn't really the issue here. We asked you for proof that MI5 was responsible for the London attacks.

You'll note that that request hasn't pushed any ideas on to you, but rather tried to illicit yours.

I'll give you a hand:

Person X was spotted by at least two people doing action A. Action A is most likely to equate to action B because action C forensically indicates that B must have happened. Document A by person Y indicates that person X was implicated.

That *sort* of thing. It's how judicial and peer review systems usually work- does it all backtranslate?

To assert that MI5 was involved you must have something in the way of witnesses and physical evidence.

There is much written about the "SAS" incedent in Basra that is fundamentally flawed. Their euipment was completely and beyond any doubt wrong for the suggested "flase flag". The sad thing is they mave been up to something far more desctructive, or equally not, but the chances of ever finding out are diminished if people just fill the information void with rubbish stories.

The sad thing is that such people (Alex Jones et al) never retract their errors (a dead give away of someone who is intentially decieving) and damn themselves to public incredulity.

So, let's have it. Show us the audit trail of evidence that lead you to asserting/endorsing the notion that MI5 are responsible for the July attacks in London. Finally.

DD,

Let me be quite clear.

I do not have a problem with opinions when posted as such. However Twilight & co. do not post opinions. They spam the site with lengthy pieces making unequivocal accusations of the very highest order; government conspiracies, complicity in 11-9 and 7-7, impending police states, and state sponsored killing. No evidence is ever offered. Nothing. Zilch. Nada. Those who ask for such evidence are attacked, viciously, as spooks or trolls.

You alone have responded, and many thanks. Howver despite writing about a dozen lengthy posts late last night, Twilight has singularly failed to respond to the challenge. Many will doubtless draw their own conclusions.

The challenge remains, Twilight & co. Put up or shut up.

Gosh, it is hard to know were to begin here, there are philosophical errors, assumptions un-accompanied by reference to the facts (historical/physical) & an impossible burdon of proof ... which I assume in this context means absolute!?! (partial proof seems a little oxymoronic, given the absolutist terms demanded).

If you insist on the interchangability of the terms 'evidence' and 'proof', then you will get nowhere ...

... "We asked you for proof that MI5 was responsible for the London attacks."

... "[They] spam the site with lengthy pieces making unequivocal accusations of the very highest order; government conspiracies, complicity in 11-9 and 7-7, impending police states, and state sponsored killing. No evidence is ever offered. Nothing. Zilch. Nada. Those who ask for such evidence are attacked, viciously, as spooks or trolls."

Plenty of evidence has been offered (and rejected, ignored or passed over) and hows this for being viciously attacked:

... "paranoid crap" ...
... "Or are you using the Bible Code or Numerology" ...
... "talking out your brown hole" ...
... "Have you ever considered you may be totally deluded regarding your skills of perception?" ...

This all from the above thread - I've given up listing the many variations (all derogatory) of my posting name (all fulfilling schopenhauer's dictate of ridicule [the messenger]).

Then:

... "Their equipment was completely and beyond any doubt wrong for the suggested "flase flag" ...

Beyond any doubt does not leave any room for debate or even the introduction of further evidence ... and by what series of qualifications is such an absolutist statement made?

... "It's how judicial and peer review systems usually work" ...

Is it?

I thought the english law system (based on roman law) examined the evidence (all of it), cross examined it and sifted it on the basis of means motive method, before deciding - based on the preponderance of evidence - a verdict. Note: proof in law is a very different class of proof to that demanded in empirical scientific experiment and hypothesising (ie not absolute).

So which do you want? You will never achieve absolute proof for an historical analysis for example, but you might proove in absolutist terms, for example, that steel does not melt at certain temperatures, or that - given a specific mass, distribution and environmental exposure to stress (heat, pressure etc) - it doesn't begin to absorb enough energy to destabilize its molecular structure to institute structural failure.

... and then there is the debased terms: 'conspiracy' or 'conspiracy theory' ... which seem never allowed to actually mean what they suggest ... ie: a plot, a hidden design, a joining of unseen forces, [a] decision taken in secret etc etc ...

... are you privy to the inner workings of PNAC, AIAPC, CRF, NORAD etc? No, then by definition it is secret from you - that (it seems to me) the end result of these secret machinations always seem to make those in the military industrial complex [MIC] richer and those without money power or white skins DEAD, would indictate that such inner macinations are ill intended ... the absolute definition of conspiracy.

... "The sad thing is that such people (Alex Jones et al) never retract their errors (a dead give away of someone who is intentially decieving) and damn themselves to public incredulity."

How do you know?

I doubt (a subjective quality admittedly) that you have even read 1% of the output of such maligned characters as icke, jones et al. I have read lots. I don't always agree, but then again I am not philosophically fixated with absolutist, iconic figures. I can handle faults in those I admire ... my impression is that some are more humble than others (icke springs to mind, having observed self correction on numerous occasions and a willingness to poke fun at himself etc).

I am not here to defend their body of work however, nor am I here to lead you by the nose to a promised land of certainty ... you can lead a horse to water, but a pencil must be lead ...

[You] have focused the thread into the narrow remit of 'proving' that MI5 had no hand in the 7/7 spectacle.

It is absolutly impossible to prove a negative.

Means motive method.

They certainly have the MEANS - I should imagine there will be no argument there!

MOTIVE - do we really need such a remedial examination of the profit motive in warfare? Are we so unsure as to the motivation of those obssesed with money and power?

METHOD - if you cannot do it openly, such as in brown skinned countries, then you must do it covertly. The use of insiders, agents provokateur [spelling?] etc is well established.

The ability to sow false trials, to ghost out vital evidence, to spirit away anonomous characters - protected by the highest level of official secrecy -, to establish guilt through association and insinuation in the minds of those little more concerned with the football results, the latest fashions or ex-post facto justifications for latent hostility xenophobia and fear ... these things are well established in our content light, dumbed down, restricted media ownership, heirachical class dominated society.

As W.Churchill was fond of saying: 'lies are halfway around the world whilst truth is still getting its boots on' - only he was using this to illustrate the value of propaganda (baby killing huns, incubator stealing muslims).

I don't know what [you] people want here?

[you] seem to be content to disparage any 'alternative POV' and those that suggest it, and then as quickly fall back to the position that, 'well yes, the MIC is bad, has done bad things and we don't know whats really going on'

Numerous details and information is offered up - even requests for more infomation, or better understanding of existing terms are made -, base asumptions are interchanged freely, messengers are constantly under sustained and viscious attack for being less than perfect (ie as every human is) and allowing hubris to interfer ... is that the way to teach a child for example? Humiliation & punishment are the corollaries to schopenhauers stages [that knowledge passes through to become accepted] ... ridicule, violent opposition and acceptance.

It is good that we train ourselves in the way of 'the school of hard knocks' politics, but surely some of the reason we are here is to forge a new way of being [more] human to each other?

I have been guilty in the past of all the sins and errors demonstrated above.

I apologise.

I am but a fool.

To boab, observer, magoo, sceptic et al ... lets quit the in-fighting ... halt the fractionalisation of one of our few powerful tools ... work together towards understanding, accepting difference, establishing areas of agreement and persuing justice for those who have none and need it NOW, BADLY.

We have been lied to on a monumental scale. We have been suckered into believing the propaganda ... that nation fights nation, that religions are imiscible, that the base motives in human endevours are our only benchmarks ... that the good guys wear white hats and lead us whilst we quitely and safely follow ... that we are powerless and subject to the whim of creator, government & circumstance.

We are not.

We understand - vaugely - that we all live in a self contained living organism and that it is possible to arrange human affairs to the betterment and advancement of ALL.

We must beleieve it too ... the key to unlocking potential is self belief.

Peace.

Jack,

I put it to you that Twilight & Co. have stated - and lets emphasise that - on numerous occasions the most far-reaching accusations of criminal acts and conpiracies. These have almost univerally failed to be supported by evidence of any sort. The conspiracisits state, time and time again, that they *know* this to be true, but ask yourself; how can they be sure if they cannot explain to us how they arrived at this conclusion? Especially if, as you suggest, all the evidence has been concealed by the powers that be?

Twilight's complete failure to respond to such recent requests from a considerable number of correspondents is particularly telling, especially as he continues to post elsewhere on the site.

It is not only reasonable, it is incumbent upon us to ask for evidence or proof that supports such accusations. In the absence of this we would be fools to accept them. If Twilight & Co. can not - or will not - put up, then they should either start posting their theories as opinions, or stop spamming the site.

Your pal,

"[You] have focused the thread into the narrow remit of 'proving' that MI5 had no hand in the 7/7 spectacle."

No. We have only asked the poster to subsantiate the allegation. To provide us with *more* information. That is actually proving a positive (all relative positions anyway).

"To boab, observer, magoo, sceptic et al ... lets quit the in-fighting ... halt the fractionalisation of one of our few powerful tools ... work together towards understanding, accepting difference, establishing areas of agreement and persuing justice for those who have none and need it NOW, BADLY."

Aha, we agree at least on principal on something!

I agree the bitching has to end; it's a two way street. We all try to be polite and restrained with accusations of integrity and I reckon things will be less likely to go off the rails.

However, I don't ever see some of us ever being happy to accept what certain people offer as proof (opinion).

Basically what this thread has established more effectively than others is that some people are quite happy to offer their opinions and being factual.

You have mooted that certain people would stand to benefit; would have the means and motive... but at the end of the day your case falls apart due to lack of evidence. If this was a criminal charge it wouldn't make it past the state prosecutors desk... in the UK it wouldn't even make it that far.

These kinds of posts not only contravene the editorial rules but damage IMUK in so much as it makes it look loony and amateur.

A simple remedy would be to indicate the the statements are opinions with no evidence to back them up. Thus people can clearly understand what is being presented. Until that happens, I hope you understand that proof will be demnaded and opinions challenged. If it helps, think of us a "tough audience!"

But agreed let's keep it civil. The mudslinging and silly games- myself being as guilty as the next- are destructive too and it pisses the volunteers right off. So in the end everyone is demoralised.

Agree to to disagree and get back to the Marquis of Queensbury? Well perhaps a bag metaphor, since he was apparantly a pugnacious git. Back to civilty and sticking to the topic?

Besides, we both have The Voice of Reason and Concerned to pick on now hahahaha! Just kidding!

... some might consider also posting on this thread:

 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/10/326074.html

... and in that vein, perhaps we might consider using these threads over a longer term period, in order to co-ordinate a better understanding of the issues and what drives different people to comment on them here ...

... after all, although it is often stated here (rather dictatorally actually) that this medium is not this or only for that etc, the space these threads take up is - to all intense and purposes - non existant (ie there is no valuable resource or commodity being 'used up' ...

... and, like it or not, there are always going to be those that take opposite (polar) positions in regard to contensious issues, so why not try and develop a dialogue here, a language if you like, to enable future users to more easily pick their way through - what is really - a minefield of info and dissinfo?

... I'm going to digest the info here and on the above thread, and, hopefully, regugitate it soon ...

Peace