+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 18 FirstFirst 1 3 13 18 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 346

Thread: The 'censorship' discussion

  1. Link to Post #41
    United States Avalon Member
    Join Date
    13th January 2011
    Location
    Outback in the Four Corners
    Posts
    1,491
    Thanks
    11,607
    Thanked 10,399 times in 1,381 posts

    Default Re: The 'censorship' discussion

    Quote Posted by snoman (here)
    'You're free to apply your energy in what ever conversations you chose.'

    yeah, and the conflict junkies chew on the energy... nah thanks
    that was your post #67 (smile)

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to edina For This Post:

    Denise/Dizi (12th July 2019), Lost N Found (11th July 2019)

  3. Link to Post #42
    Avalon Member
    Join Date
    21st July 2010
    Age
    33
    Posts
    604
    Thanks
    294
    Thanked 2,728 times in 511 posts

    Default Re: The 'censorship' discussion

    Quote Posted by edina (here)

    Praxis, with all due respect, you seem to be confusing "freedom of expression" with censorship.

    And for what it's worth, it's illegal for a government body to censor, except for the exceptions written into the law now (ie pornagraphy, inciting violence).

    It's perfectly legal for a private entity to censor.

    Ergo, why the private entities were created to control the narrative.

    It's a work around, a means to suppress information deemed "subversive" to their agendas without arousing public outcry.

    First, it is not illegal for "a government" to censor. That is way to general a statement to mean anything. You literally just said it is illegal for Saudi Arabia to censor( as they fit your "a government") . I am also very confused about how you are using "illegal" and "written into the law".

    Second, You just explained why Bill is perfectly within his right to not only hide the Q thread but to take a step further and delete the entire thing!



    Finally The problem we are running into is the Q people think that all the stuff they are learning only could have come from Q.

    "Look at how many people it has woken up" they say.

    Great, Q has shown a bunch of people that there are indeed many and terrible things happening here.

    The problem is that it is wrapped up in a bunch of Trust the Plan or Future proves past nonsense. Lets stop for a second and remember that

    FUTURE PROVES PAST.

    Do ya ll not realize that is another way of saying the ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS?

    Lets keep Gitmo open because we might want to put Hillary in there!


    I dont want any of threads hidden actually. I want all the Q stuff to stay up for all time so that in the future people will use it for study, and not like the Q people hope. They will use it for sociological research into tribalism.

    You want to have a good time? Go to the start of teh Q thread and start reading. The best part about the wheat from the chaff, is the chaff is very dated. Yes Q has some wheat and some really really good wheat. The problem is the chaf is Ethno nationalism and bigotry.



    I

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Praxis For This Post:

    Denise/Dizi (12th July 2019)

  5. Link to Post #43
    Avalon Member
    Join Date
    25th May 2011
    Location
    Western Australia
    Posts
    1,428
    Thanks
    1,228
    Thanked 8,905 times in 1,395 posts

    Default Re: The 'censorship' discussion

    Quote Posted by edina (here)
    If people weren't reading the information they were critiquing, it would make sense as to why they perceived Paul in that way.
    This is my observation also. And it isnít isolated to the Q Social Movement. There are critical vocalizations about other thread topics getting attention that are made by people having no qualms saying they havenít read the data and/or canít be bothered reading the data. WTF??

    How can one arrive at the conclusion that invested research work is ďa waste of timeĒ (and Iíve read that a few times) when one doesnít even know why it is important, because one hasnít given the time of day to look at the data before making an assumption?

    And yet the predominant argument is that one is intelligent enough to make the criticism because those who are well informed by the data . . . arenít!

    The mind boggles!

    Perhaps the critics could seriously consider doing their homework before critiquing. Maybe then the conversation could get past opinionated stalemate and develop into informed debate.

  6. The Following 14 Users Say Thank You to Gemma13 For This Post:

    Clarity (14th July 2019), Denise/Dizi (12th July 2019), edina (11th July 2019), Ernie Nemeth (11th July 2019), gini (11th July 2019), Ivanhoe (11th July 2019), Jayke (11th July 2019), Lost N Found (11th July 2019), mojo (11th July 2019), mountain_jim (14th July 2019), peterpam (11th July 2019), RunningDeer (11th July 2019), Sadieblue (11th July 2019), Savannah (11th July 2019)

  7. Link to Post #44
    United States Avalon Member
    Join Date
    13th January 2011
    Location
    Outback in the Four Corners
    Posts
    1,491
    Thanks
    11,607
    Thanked 10,399 times in 1,381 posts

    Default Re: The 'censorship' discussion

    Quote Posted by YoYoYo (here)
    Quote Posted by edina (here)
    ...

    Paul seemed to me to be someone who could do that as well.

    He considered the information and the Q phenom from many perspectives.

    I wonder is this was not noticed.

    If people weren't reading the information they were critiquing, it would make sense as to why they perceived Paul in that way.
    I was fine with Pauls posts in the Q swamp critters thread, it was Pauls posts in the LARP or anti-Q threads.

    In the anti-Q threads he posted his thoughts while ignoring the latest posts, and disregarded the basic underlaying premise the thread was meant to be discussing. This, as far as I see, was the biggest cause of toxicity on the forum regarding Q. When people don't want to believe something a thread is discussing, they shouldn't go on and on about their point, perhaps leave a post or two and move on. It opened the flood gates for other pro-Q people to pile in, because Paul was a senior mod., and also encouraged dismissing basic premise of the thread as impossible etc. No, it is a matter of opinion, and he was welcome to his but why destroy an opposing thread?

    This is why separate threads did not work. You had Paul carefully keeping the pro-Q thread clean, and the anti-Q threads became a 'dumping ground' or a place for pro-Q people to say how the opposing premise was impossible.

    In the end a few pro-Q posters occupied the anti-Q threads to the point it was a joke, and I resigned, because there was no place to discuss anti-Q with other people sharing the same basic premise. The premise was smashed up by those who simply don't want other people to believe it, thinking they had proof, but this was their opinion including Paul.

    When I read pro-Q people complaining, at no point to they seem to realise this awful situation was going on. But life goes on. I put it down to a matter of perspective
    I agree, that can be frustrating.

    It was frustrating when people came into the Q thread in that way, too.

    I thought the premise of one of those threads was to explore pros and cons of the veracity of the Q material?

    When it first started I noticed the misunderstanding of the use of the word, "autists".
    I tried to explain what it meant and was asked to leave the thread by the moderation staff.

    I've occasionally glanced that way and to be honest, it reads more like a gossip column building a case against people who read the Q material.

    I honestly don't have time for that sort of conversation. So, I didn't participate.

    Admittedly, I will have missed anything that happened in those threads.

    What do you think the premise was for the alternative threads.?

  8. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to edina For This Post:

    Clarity (14th July 2019), Denise/Dizi (12th July 2019), Ivanhoe (11th July 2019), Jayke (11th July 2019), Lost N Found (11th July 2019), mojo (11th July 2019), peterpam (11th July 2019)

  9. Link to Post #45
    Avalon Member
    Join Date
    25th May 2011
    Location
    Western Australia
    Posts
    1,428
    Thanks
    1,228
    Thanked 8,905 times in 1,395 posts

    Default Re: The 'censorship' discussion

    Quote Posted by Praxis (here)
    Finally The problem we are running into is the Q people think that all the stuff they are learning only could have come from Q.
    Not true. Q was a catalyst and at this point in time continues to contribute. The movement has evolved and gained a life of its own. The awakening and investment in time and research from that awakening cannot be unlearned.

    Q is NOT the only catalyst in life for awakening. This forum proves that without any reasonable doubt.

    No matter what Q is eventually revealed to be, (if ever it is as it may just stop), there will be a percentage that cannot continue as they relied only on Q. But there is a massive percentage that has demonstrated, over several years now, that they will not stop their investment into research and analysis and activism of the injustices of our world.

    How can that not be a good thing!

  10. The Following 13 Users Say Thank You to Gemma13 For This Post:

    Clarity (14th July 2019), Denise/Dizi (12th July 2019), Deux Corbeaux (11th July 2019), Ivanhoe (11th July 2019), Jayke (11th July 2019), Lost N Found (11th July 2019), mojo (11th July 2019), mountain_jim (14th July 2019), peterpam (11th July 2019), PurpleLama (11th July 2019), RunningDeer (11th July 2019), Sadieblue (11th July 2019), Valerie Villars (11th July 2019)

  11. Link to Post #46
    United States Avalon Member
    Join Date
    13th January 2011
    Location
    Outback in the Four Corners
    Posts
    1,491
    Thanks
    11,607
    Thanked 10,399 times in 1,381 posts

    Default Re: The 'censorship' discussion

    Quote Posted by Praxis (here)
    Quote Posted by edina (here)

    Praxis, with all due respect, you seem to be confusing "freedom of expression" with censorship.

    And for what it's worth, it's illegal for a government body to censor, except for the exceptions written into the law now (ie pornagraphy, inciting violence).

    It's perfectly legal for a private entity to censor.

    Ergo, why the private entities were created to control the narrative.

    It's a work around, a means to suppress information deemed "subversive" to their agendas without arousing public outcry.

    First, it is not illegal for "a government" to censor. That is way to general a statement to mean anything. You literally just said it is illegal for Saudi Arabia to censor( as they fit your "a government") . I am also very confused about how you are using "illegal" and "written into the law".

    Second, You just explained why Bill is perfectly within his right to not only hide the Q thread but to take a step further and delete the entire thing!

    I said a government body, and I didn't clarify this was in context of the US Government. I don't know anything about censorship laws of other countries. Hope that clarifies my statement.

    And yes, Bill is in his right to do exactly that.

    Quote Finally The problem we are running into is the Q people think that all the stuff they are learning only could have come from Q.

    "Look at how many people it has woken up" they say.

    Great, Q has shown a bunch of people that there are indeed many and terrible things happening here.
    I don't know who thinks that. I certainly don't. I've been looking into the wide of range of information presented by Q for a very long time. Easily since the 90's. Some topics since the 70's.

    I'm happy that the Q-phenom is galvanizing people who were not looking into those topics to do so on an heretofore unprecedented scale.

    Quote The problem is that it is wrapped up in a bunch of Trust the Plan or Future proves past nonsense. Lets stop for a second and remember that

    FUTURE PROVES PAST.

    Do ya ll not realize that is another way of saying the ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS?

    Lets keep Gitmo open because we might want to put Hillary in there!
    That's one way to interpret those words. I interpret them differently.

    Would you be willing to hear how I interpret them?

    Some people listen to understand. Others listen to refute.

    I agree with Paul in that our current culture is struggling to have the difficult conversations in a healthy way, or in a way to handle what is happening well.

    But we have been in a 40+ year "demoralization" campaign. So, to me, it's understandable.

    I find I don't always know how to speak to it, myself, because I'm still taking in so much information.

    I also feel there are huge historical patterns to consider as we are bringing the darker aspects of our culture into light of public awareness.

    I often think that if people do not have that perspective, if people don't understand that these things have been happening for centuries, then humanity may still be susceptible to it re-occuring.

    I'm for what works, and the energy of the Q movement, Q phenom, or whatever you want to call it, is in my opinion, working.

    If your opinion is different, ... okay.

    I didn't ask that threads that express your point of view be removed from public view.

    Quote I dont want any of threads hidden actually. I want all the Q stuff to stay up for all time so that in the future people will use it for study, and not like the Q people hope. They will use it for sociological research into tribalism.

    You want to have a good time? Go to the start of teh Q thread and start reading. The best part about the wheat from the chaff, is the chaff is very dated. Yes Q has some wheat and some really really good wheat. The problem is the chaf is Ethno nationalism and bigotry.
    Thank you Praxis. I feel historians will study this phenom for many reasons.

    And yes, I have done that. I even downloaded the pdf that Bill posted earlier on the thread.

    I happen to feel that just as strong states provide a counterbalance to the federal government.

    And strong local governments provide a counterbalance to state governments, that

    Strong nations accountable to the people they govern, are necessary for a check and balance on transnational corporations and the banker class.

    There is tension in this arrangement, it's creative tension. It's not comfortable.

    I felt we were one election away from the total capitulation of nations to the banker class.

    We're still in danger of a total takeover. And the level of long term thinking and deception of the people orchestrating this is huge and should never be dismissed.




    Related Threads:
    Last edited by edina; 11th July 2019 at 15:41.

  12. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to edina For This Post:

    Denise/Dizi (12th July 2019), Ivanhoe (11th July 2019), Jayke (11th July 2019), Lost N Found (11th July 2019), mojo (11th July 2019), peterpam (11th July 2019), Sadieblue (11th July 2019), Savannah (11th July 2019), ulli (11th July 2019)

  13. Link to Post #47
    Costa Rica Avalon Member ulli's Avatar
    Join Date
    19th November 2010
    Posts
    13,595
    Thanks
    64,507
    Thanked 124,468 times in 13,274 posts

    Default Re: The 'censorship' discussion

    Quote Posted by Mike (here)
    Quote Posted by ulli (here)
    People were upset that Paul had retired. People were upset that there was a chorus from members and the entire moderator group sending ridicule and even abuse their way, simply for following the Qanon phenomenon. Many of the accusations were really quite irrational, showing far more party political bias than anyone whom they accused. Words like hoax and psi-ops were being used.
    Has anyone ever considered that movies and music are psi-ops as well? Controlled emotional manipulation, to evoke a response in the viewer/listener.

    Paul had expressed a wish that the thread would not become closed to non-members, yet that wish was ignored.
    The entire atmosphere surrounding the sudden decision to quarantine the discussion behind a members only wall was one of hostility and bias. This in my view added to the feelings that this was an act of censorship.
    Had there been an announcement that included the regulars on the thread in a more respectful manner this thread would not even be necessary now.


    I understand people being disappointed that Paul left. hey I was too. but why 'upset'? he wanted to go! Who are you upset with?

    I'm not entirely sure what you're referring to as far as abuse and ridicule. Bill made a pretty cordial announcement regarding the Q threads, and what I recall next is a Q supporter strutting around like a rampaging toddler, threatening to bury the forum with a blog and insulting a bunch of people. She's still a member btw. So, I would dispute the allegation that the mods are censorship happy.

    Words like hoax and psi-ops are mere opinions. People are entitled to them. They're not insults. I mean, they don't belong in that thread, I'll grant you that..and fair enough.

    I likely won't even make a dent disputing some of these things, but I'll try anyway: there was NO hostility involved in the decision. If you say it was dumb or unintelligent, or poorly thought out, I'd be perfectly willing to listen to you. Truly! I don't mind people disagreeing with me, or questioning my judgement - even aggressively - but I vehemently deny that any hostility whatsoever was involved in that decision. ZERO.

    I don't know how the announcement could have been any more respectful. And as far as Paul not being here, it's a bummer to alot of people. I get it! But he's no longer an admin here, and has therefore forfeited his say in these matters.



    Mike, we have a couple of misunderstandings here.

    1) I never meant to argue against the decision itself, and didnít find the decision nor Billís announcement disrespectful at all. If you read carefully what I wrote you will see that.
    I believe you when you say there was no hostility in the decision.

    No, I used the word ďatmosphereĒ, and meant the vibe of the ensuing discussion on the forum after the announcement was made.
    I was referring to the posts by other members, even from some mods, that was generated in the thread.

    Perhaps I could have made myself clearer had I not used the word ďdecisionĒ. But the level of hostility in the debate that ensued was quite extraordinary.
    In the old Avalon days the moderators would have dealt with snide remarks, and from either side; not so much the opinions.
    And there were always opposing opinions, on whistle blowers, on UFO disinfo, on channelings.


    And 2) the way you picked on my choice of word -upset-, when you thought -disappointed- was the correct choice. Youíre being picky. I personally find those two words interchangeable. If you want I can edit my post. No problem.

  14. The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to ulli For This Post:

    Denise/Dizi (12th July 2019), edina (11th July 2019), Jayke (11th July 2019), Lost N Found (11th July 2019), Mike (11th July 2019), mojo (11th July 2019), mountain_jim (14th July 2019), peterpam (11th July 2019), RunningDeer (11th July 2019), Sadieblue (11th July 2019), Valerie Villars (11th July 2019)

  15. Link to Post #48
    Avalon Member peterpam's Avatar
    Join Date
    29th June 2012
    Posts
    1,663
    Thanks
    15,437
    Thanked 8,829 times in 1,595 posts

    Default Re: The 'censorship' discussion

    Quote Posted by waves (here)
    Quote Posted by Mike (here)
    Quote Posted by waves (here)
    Quote Posted by Mike (here)
    hey Waves, please keep it civil! Thanks my friend

    Folks, there's some potential to have a productive discussion here.

    Before posting, please just ground yourself a little and release any tension or excessive emotion at the door.

    I did for 590+ posts over 8 years, but I'm fed up. I don't see any helpful discussion here, I see the same tunnel visioned names repeating and repeating and repeating themselves, hopelessly unwilling to look outside their box.
    I predict not ONE of them is going to ever get even a little what anyone they don't agree with is trying to tell them.
    Nothing will change without a big house cleaning if those hopelessly not here to listen and learn.


    fair enough!

    but the Q folks are thinking the same exact things about you, just for the opposite reasons.

    it's an emotional and intellectual wash. invectively hammering home the same points ad nauseum won't help

    we may not be able to make any head-way here, but let's not make things any worse! there's a big difference between mere tension and all out warfare. if we can merely keep it at the tension level, perhaps we will have succeeded. we don't need to be killing each other here
    But you'll just keep spinning wheels without getting real, the tension is for keeping trying to keep a lid on truth. The intelligent minds here have no more doubt about Q as a very dangerous and unhealthy psyop. Period.

    So I really wish the denial would stop. It's not like there any equality in the maturity/education level of the two sides, even Bill has used the term 'cognizant dissonance' and meant it strongly.

    What that means is the non-believers very much understand what has convinced Q believers to buy into the entire Q thing and why they've fallen for all the related cultish issues. I and my peers could discuss it for hours with examples galore.

    But not ONE of the Q-believers truly understand the what is so convincing to non-believers - none could explain with a humble heart what is so intelligent and reasonable to the other side - nor do they have ANY interest.

    They're not interested in learning it. It would take a lot humility and self-analysis. It's a deep mix of all the social engineering crafts many of us have been learning about for years - a very complex issue that requires knowledge about numerous facets of history, mind control history, cult history, politics and programming and more all in one big soup.

    So fixation combined with obliviousness to anything outside of it is called cognitive dissonance. And the fixated are going to piss and moan and play the victim and get mad and get arrogant and feel censored blah blah blah.... and they do not represent the kind of open mind, the truly educated in mind control, resistant to cult, the resistant to programming, the curious and willing to learn minds Avalon once attracted.

    So the truth is Avalon has a small faction of extremely fixated and deluded minds trying to make you all feel guilty for not giving them a platform to keep feeding their unhealthy addiction and it's never going to resolve.


    You have to make a choice. You can create an inviting place that attracts and keep mature minds as members or you can attract more and more fixed, dissonant minds who are demanding, uncooperative, need lots of babysitting and get pissed when someone enters their thread to challenge them.

    Anything untrue about any of that?
    Did I write a poor me, poor victim message here. NO.

    If the above is the truth, the only question is now what do you do.

    I say Avalon needs to make a choice for healthy or unhealthy.

    Waves, I was wondering if you could tell me what group I best fit into. I strongly believe people that follow the Q phenomena have a right to do so and should be able to do it unhindered and uncensored. I am neither for or against it. Does that put me in the Q group which you have just described as uneducated, cult like, uninterested in learning, fixated, oblivious, arrogant, deluded, addicted and dissonant, or do I belong to your group which you describe as intelligent and mature?
    Last edited by peterpam; 11th July 2019 at 16:54.

  16. The Following 13 Users Say Thank You to peterpam For This Post:

    Clarity (14th July 2019), Denise/Dizi (12th July 2019), Deux Corbeaux (11th July 2019), edina (11th July 2019), Jayke (11th July 2019), Lost N Found (11th July 2019), mojo (11th July 2019), mountain_jim (14th July 2019), RunningDeer (11th July 2019), Sadieblue (11th July 2019), Savannah (11th July 2019), Star Mariner (11th July 2019), ulli (11th July 2019)

  17. Link to Post #49
    United States Avalon Member RunningDeer's Avatar
    Join Date
    6th February 2012
    Location
    Forest Dweller
    Posts
    13,152
    Thanks
    98,076
    Thanked 111,351 times in 12,885 posts

    Default Re: The 'censorship' discussion

    I didn't catch the exchange between Dennis and Paul because I had loosely followed Q info through my YouTube subscriptions. I thanked edina's post because I agree about what she said about Paul.

    I express similar sentiments on June 12, 2019:
    One thing that was hard to watch were people who claimed Paul was harsh or pulling his admin weight. I found him to use monstrous restraint when trying to moderate across the threads.

    Iím not emotionally invested in all the back and forth, Q this, Q that, he said, she said. What bothers me is how itís played out with Paul since heís left and read comments from people I care for and held in high regard.

    Once Paulís status was changed, he no longer had access to administrative capabilities, so he couldnít have unsubscribed his account. Four days ago, on July 7th, Paul popped in to add a post. Shortly after, his paul_test_2 was retired. Iíve forgotten when I notice that his paul_test account was retired but it was after Paul left and before he popped in one last time.


    Last edited by RunningDeer; 11th July 2019 at 19:06.

  18. The Following 17 Users Say Thank You to RunningDeer For This Post:

    Clarity (14th July 2019), Denise/Dizi (12th July 2019), edina (11th July 2019), gini (11th July 2019), greybeard (11th July 2019), Hym (11th July 2019), Jayke (11th July 2019), Lost N Found (11th July 2019), Mike (11th July 2019), mojo (11th July 2019), Nasu (11th July 2019), peterpam (11th July 2019), Sadieblue (11th July 2019), Star Mariner (11th July 2019), ulli (11th July 2019), Valerie Villars (11th July 2019), YoYoYo (11th July 2019)

  19. Link to Post #50
    UK Avalon Member YoYoYo's Avatar
    Join Date
    24th July 2015
    Location
    South East England
    Age
    46
    Posts
    567
    Thanks
    7,176
    Thanked 2,619 times in 536 posts

    Default Re: The 'censorship' discussion

    Quote Posted by edina (here)
    ...

    I agree, that can be frustrating.

    It was frustrating when people came into the Q thread in that way, too.

    I thought the premise of one of those threads was to explore pros and cons of the veracity of the Q material?
    Looks like we have found a point of agreement. Correctly or not, I believe the scale of this irreverent posting was more severe against the 'q is a larp ' side.

    Quote Posted by edina (here)
    When it first started I noticed the misunderstanding of the use of the word, "autists".
    I tried to explain what it meant and was asked to leave the thread by the moderation staff.
    I'm sorry to hear this, it sounds like you asked a single simple question and you were brushed off and dismissed, which is awful and rude. For what it's worth I believe it would be useful to pull that example out from the past, and name and shame with a new focus on that incident.

    Quote Posted by edina (here)
    I've occasionally glanced that way and to be honest, it reads more like a gossip column building a case against people who read the Q material.

    I honestly don't have time for that sort of conversation. So, I didn't participate.

    Admittedly, I will have missed anything that happened in those threads.

    What do you think the premise was for the alternative threads.?
    I don't blame you, it's jolly hard to digest even ones own source info. from ones own side of the fence, let alone the shear volume of info. from the other side! I'm very happy to give a brief overview: an anon. by the alias 'Pamphlet' was caught on a video live stream posting as Q, after a whistleblower said Q was Pamphlet and his friends.

  20. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to YoYoYo For This Post:

    Clarity (14th July 2019), Denise/Dizi (12th July 2019), edina (11th July 2019)

  21. Link to Post #51
    UK Avalon Member YoYoYo's Avatar
    Join Date
    24th July 2015
    Location
    South East England
    Age
    46
    Posts
    567
    Thanks
    7,176
    Thanked 2,619 times in 536 posts

    Default Re: The 'censorship' discussion

    Quote Posted by RunningDeer (here)
    ...
    What bothers me is how itís played out with Paul since heís left and read comments from people I care for and held in high regard.
    ...
    I'm truly sorry I'm not singing the praises of the senior mod who saved the server, invested significant toil as a developer and a mod, and a personal poster, and gave years of selfless service to Project Avalon. I almost feel like suggesting Paul deserves a gold coloured handle, like Bill! (apologies for my impertinence, and you won't hear that often).

    But in this saga he does have a starring role. I'm not proud, I'm not being obtuse towards what the great man achieved. The truth is what it is, it's not pretty, I'm not proud. Paul, and it has been said by a better authority than me, was caught by the politics to an irrepressible level, and that was a big part of the problem.

    But I take the point this is not a fair representation on its own

  22. The Following User Says Thank You to YoYoYo For This Post:

    Denise/Dizi (12th July 2019)

  23. Link to Post #52
    UK Avalon Founder Bill Ryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th February 2010
    Location
    Ecuador
    Posts
    21,432
    Thanks
    74,572
    Thanked 269,829 times in 19,917 posts

    Default Re: The 'censorship' discussion

    Quote Posted by ulli (here)
    the entire moderator group sending ridicule and even abuse their way
    A needed correction, if I may. What you said there is inaccurate and actually quite untrue.

    Quote Posted by ulli (here)
    Paul had expressed a wish that the thread would not become closed to non-members, yet that wish was ignored.
    Here's the accurate history. The idea of making the thread opt-in was mine, a few weeks before Paul retired. It seemed like a positive, bright idea. Paul beseeched me (his word) not to do that.

    So I respected that, and we didn't. Paul, almost always stoically unemotional, has never used such a strong expression to express something he wanted.

    But he wanted it for personal reasons. Not because of what might be best for the forum and its members.

    He had become more of a Qanon supporter than a moderator, as long ago as last August (2018). He became very partial in his views, and although I had respected his request not to touch the main Qanon thread, he ignored my own requests (which were agreed to by pretty much every other moderator, except maybe Dennis) NOT to post on the Q threads ó to ensure moderators' impartiality. I had also undertaken that myself.

    I felt that was important. Paul did not.

    All that contributed to the mods' logjam that rendered us unable to make a single step forward in finding creative solutions to the issue of strongly opposed opinions among the members. Every mod in the team, past and present, would confirm that it was Paul who was the moderator that was the obstacle to our obtaining consensus on many issues.

    I don't say that critically. I'm just reporting what was happening, like reporting a vote in parliament, or a board room. What I say is simply what occurred.

    Whatever anyone else might think, I respected Paul enough not to overrule him, which I did not want to do, and did not do. But that meant no progress could be made. We could barely talk about the issues. It was very difficult.

    Again, I want anyone reading this to understand that I'm reporting how things were. Nothing more. Everything I write here is exactly accurate.

    Paul did not expressly explain why he stepped down. He retired himself. (Self-terminated, as Arnie would say. ) We were left guessing.

    It was NOT because of the Qanon issue. It was connected to the mods' hiatus of 5-10 June, reported to the members on this thread, which was only partially connected with the Qanon question. I certainly feel like talking about that, but it is best if I do not.

    After Paul retired himself, he forfeited the right to contribute to moderators' decisions. He need not have done that. He could have stayed and worked with us to benefit the forum and the community.

    His departure was 100% his choice and his action. We didn't even know about it until after it happened. He simply left us a one-line message that he had left the forum.

    The summary is:
    • You can't have moderators' decisions voted on by a ghost who's no longer present round the table.
    • You can't have business decisions made by someone who's left the company.
    • And you can't have household decisions made by someone who's chosen to divorce and leave the family.
    Last edited by Bill Ryan; 11th July 2019 at 17:47.

  24. The Following 27 Users Say Thank You to Bill Ryan For This Post:

    ClearWater (11th July 2019), Constance (11th July 2019), Denise/Dizi (12th July 2019), Dennis Leahy (11th July 2019), drneglector (14th July 2019), Elen (12th July 2019), Ernie Nemeth (11th July 2019), gini (11th July 2019), Gracy May (11th July 2019), happyuk (11th July 2019), Ivanhoe (11th July 2019), Ken (11th July 2019), mountain_jim (14th July 2019), muxfolder (12th July 2019), Nasu (11th July 2019), onevoice (11th July 2019), Rosemarie (11th July 2019), RunningDeer (11th July 2019), Sadieblue (11th July 2019), Sophocles (12th July 2019), Star Mariner (11th July 2019), sunwings (11th July 2019), Tintin (11th July 2019), ulli (11th July 2019), Wind (12th July 2019), Yoda (11th July 2019), YoYoYo (11th July 2019)

  25. Link to Post #53
    Avalon Member viking's Avatar
    Join Date
    16th March 2010
    Posts
    3,703
    Thanks
    6,179
    Thanked 14,534 times in 2,196 posts

    Default Re: The 'censorship' discussion

    Hmmm...

    I always question once you have to start paying for 'truth'...

    Did Jesus/Jmmanuel whatever label you give him charge for 'truths'...?

    Viking
    You decide...your thoughts..your actions..your reality.
    Choose well.
    http://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...are-the-change

  26. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to viking For This Post:

    Blacklight43 (11th July 2019), Denise/Dizi (12th July 2019), YoYoYo (11th July 2019)

  27. Link to Post #54
    United States Avalon Member
    Join Date
    13th January 2011
    Location
    Outback in the Four Corners
    Posts
    1,491
    Thanks
    11,607
    Thanked 10,399 times in 1,381 posts

    Default Re: The 'censorship' discussion

    Quote Posted by YoYoYo (here)
    Quote Posted by edina (here)
    ...

    I agree, that can be frustrating.

    It was frustrating when people came into the Q thread in that way, too.

    I thought the premise of one of those threads was to explore pros and cons of the veracity of the Q material?
    Looks like we have found a point of agreement. Correctly or not, I believe the scale of this irreverent posting was more severe against the 'q is a larp ' side.

    Quote Posted by edina (here)
    When it first started I noticed the misunderstanding of the use of the word, "autists".
    I tried to explain what it meant and was asked to leave the thread by the moderation staff.
    I'm sorry to hear this, it sounds like you asked a single simple question and you were brushed off and dismissed, which is awful and rude. For what it's worth I believe it would be useful to pull that example out from the past, and name and shame with a new focus on that incident.

    Quote Posted by edina (here)
    I've occasionally glanced that way and to be honest, it reads more like a gossip column building a case against people who read the Q material.

    I honestly don't have time for that sort of conversation. So, I didn't participate.

    Admittedly, I will have missed anything that happened in those threads.

    What do you think the premise was for the alternative threads.?
    I don't blame you, it's jolly hard to digest even ones own source info. from ones own side of the fence, let alone the shear volume of info. from the other side! I'm very happy to give a brief overview: an anon. by the alias 'Pamphlet' was caught on a video live stream posting as Q, after a whistleblower said Q was Pamphlet and his friends.
    I'm not really into the whole "name and shame" thing. I think that breaks down communication, and increased understanding.
    I can't even remember who was involved.

    So, that whole thread is based on the accusations against Pamphlet?

    That issue was also discussed at length when it happened in the Q thread.

    Eventually, the debunker was debunked himself, and no one really hears from that guy anymore.

    Meanwhile, Pamphlet was doxxed. And his family threatened.

    I remember listening to a video where he addressed the accusations made against him.

    He started going by his real name and said that he wasn't genius enough to pull that off.

    The Q posts continue.

    If Pamphlet were behind the Q posts, I think that when he was doxxed and his family threatened and the "gig was up" so to speak, the Q posts would have stopped.
    That's usually what happens when a LARPer/Hoaxer has been called out.

    One point to add, I don't know how Pamphlet would ever have the capability to change the President's plane's call signs, do you?
    Last edited by edina; 11th July 2019 at 17:55.

  28. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to edina For This Post:

    Denise/Dizi (12th July 2019), Jayke (11th July 2019), Lost N Found (11th July 2019), ulli (11th July 2019)

  29. Link to Post #55
    UK Avalon Member YoYoYo's Avatar
    Join Date
    24th July 2015
    Location
    South East England
    Age
    46
    Posts
    567
    Thanks
    7,176
    Thanked 2,619 times in 536 posts

    Default Re: The 'censorship' discussion

    Quote Posted by edina (here)
    Quote Posted by YoYoYo (here)
    Quote Posted by edina (here)
    ...

    I agree, that can be frustrating.

    It was frustrating when people came into the Q thread in that way, too.

    I thought the premise of one of those threads was to explore pros and cons of the veracity of the Q material?
    Looks like we have found a point of agreement. Correctly or not, I believe the scale of this irreverent posting was more severe against the 'q is a larp ' side.

    Quote Posted by edina (here)
    When it first started I noticed the misunderstanding of the use of the word, "autists".
    I tried to explain what it meant and was asked to leave the thread by the moderation staff.
    I'm sorry to hear this, it sounds like you asked a single simple question and you were brushed off and dismissed, which is awful and rude. For what it's worth I believe it would be useful to pull that example out from the past, and name and shame with a new focus on that incident.

    Quote Posted by edina (here)
    I've occasionally glanced that way and to be honest, it reads more like a gossip column building a case against people who read the Q material.

    I honestly don't have time for that sort of conversation. So, I didn't participate.

    Admittedly, I will have missed anything that happened in those threads.

    What do you think the premise was for the alternative threads.?
    I don't blame you, it's jolly hard to digest even ones own source info. from ones own side of the fence, let alone the shear volume of info. from the other side! I'm very happy to give a brief overview: an anon. by the alias 'Pamphlet' was caught on a video live stream posting as Q, after a whistleblower said Q was Pamphlet and his friends.
    I'm not really into the whole "name and shame" thing. I think that breaks down communication, and increased understanding.
    I can't even remember who was involved.

    So, that whole thread is based on the accusations against Pamphlet?

    That issue was also discussed at length when it happened in the Q thread.
    ...
    *ehem*

    I respectfully disagree with your opinion that it's not a hoax.

    Especially considering how Pamphlet was exposed by a whistleblower then caught on video livestream.

    I'm very comfortable to agree to disagree though. Perhaps we need separate threads to take our perspective, since our premise have diverged. We both understand the need to hold on to an underplaying premise, so we would not disrupt each others threads, once we had decided on incompatible 'proofs' (aka beliefs)
    Last edited by YoYoYo; 11th July 2019 at 18:12.

  30. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to YoYoYo For This Post:

    Denise/Dizi (12th July 2019), edina (11th July 2019)

  31. Link to Post #56
    Canada Avalon Member
    Join Date
    4th November 2012
    Posts
    2,239
    Thanks
    4,079
    Thanked 9,031 times in 1,961 posts

    Default Re: The 'censorship' discussion

    Quote Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
    There's another version of the book analogy, that goes wider.

    If I hold a conference, and lots of people speak (not just me, as if I were writing a book all by myself), but no-one can enter the conference without paying at the door, and they can't later see the videos of the presentations without buying them ó is that restricted access to the public 'censorship'?
    Bill,

    A better analogy is your choice of fellow speakers would represent a form of editing or control through the selection process. You wouldn't ask someone to speak if they represented a neo-Nazi social media phenomenon.

  32. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to AutumnW For This Post:

    Denise/Dizi (12th July 2019), edina (11th July 2019)

  33. Link to Post #57
    Costa Rica Avalon Member ulli's Avatar
    Join Date
    19th November 2010
    Posts
    13,595
    Thanks
    64,507
    Thanked 124,468 times in 13,274 posts

    Default Re: The 'censorship' discussion

    Quote Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
    Quote Posted by ulli (here)
    the entire moderator group sending ridicule and even abuse their way
    A needed correction, if I may. What you said there is inaccurate and actually quite untrue.

    Quote Posted by ulli (here)
    Paul had expressed a wish that the thread would not become closed to non-members, yet that wish was ignored.
    Here's the accurate history. The idea of making the thread opt-in was mine, a few weeks before Paul retired. It seemed like a positive, bright idea. Paul beseeched me (his word) not to do that.

    So I respected that, and we didn't. Paul, almost always stoically unemotional, has never used such a strong expression to express something he wanted.

    But he wanted it for personal reasons. Not because of what might be best for the forum and its members.

    He had become more of a Qanon supporter than a moderator, as long ago as last August (2018). He became very partial in his views, and although I had respected his request not to touch the main Qanon thread, he ignored my own requests (which were agreed to by pretty much every other moderator, except maybe Dennis) NOT to post on the Q threads ó to ensure moderators' impartiality. I had also undertaken that myself.

    I felt that was important. Paul did not.

    All that contributed to the mods' logjam that rendered us unable to make a single step forward in finding creative solutions to the issue of strongly opposed opinions among the members. Every mod in the team, past and present, would confirm that it was Paul who was the moderator that was the obstacle to our obtaining consensus on many issues.

    I don't say that critically. I'm just reporting what was happening, like reporting a vote in parliament, or a board room. What I say is simply what occurred.

    Whatever anyone else might think, I respected Paul enough not to overrule him, which I did not want to do, and did not do. But that meant no progress could be made. We could barely talk about the issues. It was very difficult.

    Again, I want anyone reading this to understand that I'm reporting how things were. Nothing more. Everything I write here is exactly accurate.

    Paul did not expressly explain why he stepped down. He retired himself (self-terminated, as Arnie would say. ). We were left guessing.

    It was NOT because of the Qanon issue. It was connected to the mods' hiatus of 5-10 June, reported to the members on this thread, which was only partially connected with the Qanon question. I certainly feel like talking about that, but it is best if I do not.

    After Paul retired himself, he forfeited the right to contribute to moderators' decisions. He need not have done that. He could have stayed and worked with us to benefit the forum and the community.


    His departure was 100% his choice and his action. We didn't even know about it until after it happened. He simply left us a one-line message that he had left the forum.


    The summary is:
    • You can't have moderators' decisions voted on by a ghost who's no longer present round the table.
    • You can't have business decisions made by someone who's left the company.
    • And you can't have household decisions made by someone who's chosen to divorce and leave the family.
    I hear you, Bill, and given your explanation I can see your point. There were too many things going on here that some will have to remain mystery. Too many levels of perception, too. Hopefully with time we will sort through this mess.

    Im sorry I said ďthe -entire- moderator group, and I will take that back. But there were a few, who gave their strong opinion on the topic, as if the Q investigators were Flat Earthers. I must say I was surprised while reading along at how vehemently they expressed.

    To me the role of a mod always meant to keep the conversation civil, without interfering with peopleís personal opinions.
    But then I wasnít around when the earlier debates re Q were happening, so I didnt realize there was a bit of a history. People seemed fed up, and their minds seemed made up, and the fragmentation had already happened.


    Which brings me to Paulís position, as administrator. Maybe he had too much on his plate, with tech maintenance as well as moderating the conversations.

    Like me, he felt that Q posts would help get everyoneís attention to the Deep Stateís workings. Informative. Like when Cider Somerset used to post lots of videos on the Jimmy Saville case.

    And unlike the others here did not attribute ďthe planĒ to mischief making, but welcomed it as the priority measure to bring things back on track. A return to moraliy.
    My take is always that mass movements are like a swinging pendulum.
    Anyway, thanks for sharing your take on things.

  34. The Following 13 Users Say Thank You to ulli For This Post:

    avid (11th July 2019), Denise/Dizi (12th July 2019), edina (11th July 2019), gini (11th July 2019), Jayke (11th July 2019), Lost N Found (11th July 2019), mojo (11th July 2019), mountain_jim (14th July 2019), peterpam (12th July 2019), Rosemarie (11th July 2019), RunningDeer (11th July 2019), Star Mariner (11th July 2019), Valerie Villars (11th July 2019)

  35. Link to Post #58
    United States Avalon Member
    Join Date
    13th January 2011
    Location
    Outback in the Four Corners
    Posts
    1,491
    Thanks
    11,607
    Thanked 10,399 times in 1,381 posts

    Default Re: The 'censorship' discussion

    Quote Posted by YoYoYo (here)
    Quote Posted by edina (here)
    Quote Posted by YoYoYo (here)
    Quote Posted by edina (here)
    ...

    I agree, that can be frustrating.

    It was frustrating when people came into the Q thread in that way, too.

    I thought the premise of one of those threads was to explore pros and cons of the veracity of the Q material?
    Looks like we have found a point of agreement. Correctly or not, I believe the scale of this irreverent posting was more severe against the 'q is a larp ' side.

    Quote Posted by edina (here)
    When it first started I noticed the misunderstanding of the use of the word, "autists".
    I tried to explain what it meant and was asked to leave the thread by the moderation staff.
    I'm sorry to hear this, it sounds like you asked a single simple question and you were brushed off and dismissed, which is awful and rude. For what it's worth I believe it would be useful to pull that example out from the past, and name and shame with a new focus on that incident.

    Quote Posted by edina (here)
    I've occasionally glanced that way and to be honest, it reads more like a gossip column building a case against people who read the Q material.

    I honestly don't have time for that sort of conversation. So, I didn't participate.

    Admittedly, I will have missed anything that happened in those threads.

    What do you think the premise was for the alternative threads.?
    I don't blame you, it's jolly hard to digest even ones own source info. from ones own side of the fence, let alone the shear volume of info. from the other side! I'm very happy to give a brief overview: an anon. by the alias 'Pamphlet' was caught on a video live stream posting as Q, after a whistleblower said Q was Pamphlet and his friends.
    I'm not really into the whole "name and shame" thing. I think that breaks down communication, and increased understanding.
    I can't even remember who was involved.

    So, that whole thread is based on the accusations against Pamphlet?

    That issue was also discussed at length when it happened in the Q thread.
    ...
    *ehem*

    I respectfully disagree with your opinion that it's not a hoax.

    Especially considering how Pamphlet was exposed by a whistleblower then caught on video livestream.

    I'm very comfortable to agree to disagree though. Perhaps we need separate threads to take our perspective, since our premise have diverged. We both understand the need to hold on to an underplaying premise, so we would not disrupt each others threads, once we had decided on incompatible 'proofs' (aka beliefs)
    Yeah, this is probably a point where things break down.

    My understanding is the the supposed "video livestream" was not really a "video livestream".
    That the "video livestream" was itself a hoax.

    This was proved to my satisfaction.

    And of course, the Q posts continue.

    And they definitely are beyond Pamphlet's capabilities.

    I'm comfortable agreeing to disagree on this.

    It would be an inaccurate assumption to say I never considered that situation, because I did. I just came to different conclusions than some people.
    Last edited by edina; 11th July 2019 at 18:36.

  36. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to edina For This Post:

    ClearWater (11th July 2019), Denise/Dizi (12th July 2019), gini (11th July 2019), Lost N Found (11th July 2019), mojo (11th July 2019), mountain_jim (14th July 2019), RunningDeer (11th July 2019), ulli (11th July 2019), YoYoYo (11th July 2019)

  37. Link to Post #59
    UK Avalon Member YoYoYo's Avatar
    Join Date
    24th July 2015
    Location
    South East England
    Age
    46
    Posts
    567
    Thanks
    7,176
    Thanked 2,619 times in 536 posts

    Default Re: The 'censorship' discussion

    edina, I very much appreciate being able to demonstrate incompatible 'underplaying premise' by answering your questions and talking with you, and finding the edge of disagreement (in a positive way). Just a small point I would appreciate correcting: I actually said Pamphlet and his friends, but that is a crude approximation

    Thank you for the disagreement!

  38. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to YoYoYo For This Post:

    ClearWater (11th July 2019), Denise/Dizi (12th July 2019), edina (11th July 2019), RunningDeer (11th July 2019)

  39. Link to Post #60
    United States Avalon Member RunningDeer's Avatar
    Join Date
    6th February 2012
    Location
    Forest Dweller
    Posts
    13,152
    Thanks
    98,076
    Thanked 111,351 times in 12,885 posts

    Default Re: The 'censorship' discussion

    Quote But I take the point this is not a fair representation on its own
    Thanks for adding that part, YoYoYo.

    Particle repost(s):

    Paulís countless hours of expertise for over the 8+ years are evident across the roadways of Avalon. The many who travel through benefit from his efforts to educate and foster balance of body, mind and spirit. His footprints are everywhere.

    Paul created 334 threads in the categories listed here, a total of 27,725 posts, 816 of which are on the Q thread. There were a total of 10,214 Q posts. My guess is that Q number is higher because he took over when KiwiElf needed to step away. All while he performed administrative duties, forum maintenance and upgrades, other posts, etc.
    Technical Q&A, News and Updates, General Discussion, Current Events, Conspiracy Research, Global Financial News, Free Energy and Future, Express Yourself, Alternative Medicine, 9/11, Astronomy and Cosmology, Climate and Environment, Ufology, Extraterrestrial Contact, The Lighter Side, History, The Internet, Geopolitics, Surveillance and Personal, What Does It Mean?, Personalities in the Alternative, Attacks on the Alternative, Science, Pedophilia/Human trafficking, etc.

    Quote Posted by YoYoYo (here)
    Quote Posted by RunningDeer (here)
    ...
    What bothers me is how itís played out with Paul since heís left and read comments from people I care for and held in high regard.
    ...
    I'm truly sorry I'm not singing the praises of the senior mod who saved the server, invested significant toil as a developer and a mod, and a personal poster, and gave years of selfless service to Project Avalon. I almost feel like suggesting Paul deserves a gold coloured handle, like Bill! (apologies for my impertinence, and you won't hear that often).

    But in this saga he does have a starring role. I'm not proud, I'm not being obtuse towards what the great man achieved. The truth is what it is, it's not pretty, I'm not proud. Paul, and it has been said by a better authority than me, was caught by the politics to an irrepressible level, and that was a big part of the problem.

    But I take the point this is not a fair representation on its own

  40. The Following 14 Users Say Thank You to RunningDeer For This Post:

    Clarity (14th July 2019), Denise/Dizi (12th July 2019), edina (11th July 2019), Ernie Nemeth (11th July 2019), gini (11th July 2019), Jayke (11th July 2019), Lost N Found (11th July 2019), mojo (11th July 2019), peterpam (12th July 2019), Sadieblue (12th July 2019), Star Mariner (11th July 2019), ulli (11th July 2019), Valerie Villars (11th July 2019), YoYoYo (11th July 2019)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 18 FirstFirst 1 3 13 18 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts