And grating on and on about the same thing is how getting tired of something BEGINS. In that sense, you're contributing to the problem.
If you're going to argue something, research BOTH sides first, present REASONABLE evidence, and make sure your audience is WILLING to listen.

I'm a Christian. I've stated this multiple times on the forum before. I'm probably one of the most, if not the most, outspoken about my faith, which I'm strong in and have engaged in numerous peaceful discussions about.
In my religion, as everybody knows, there is a God. Those who believe and trust in him go to Heaven at the ends of their lives to be with him, and those who decide to follow sinful lives are left to Hell where they continue in anguish.
Multiple times in the Bible does it command Christians to evangelize and attempt to get as many people to come to God as possible. It would make sense. Nobody, thinking there's a Hell, would want their friends or loved ones to go to it. It's an important issue to us, a matter of eternal life or death.
I could easily go around the forum spamming that people need to convert. I could cite Christian websites, post links to ministries, sprinkle Biblical quotes, and attempt to enforce morals. But do I do that? No. In fact, I almost never talk at length about it unless prompted or referencing my background in humorous context.
Why would I not do it? I could make a whole thread about it and dedicate my time to it for people to read! This, to me, is an issue more important than all the corruption and injustices in the world! It's LIFE AND DEATH!
Because I know that endless spamming and an unwilling audience only leads people AWAY from your cause. Just look at the reputation that Jehovah's Witnesses have. Nobody wants a bunch of annoying Bible-thumpers to come knocking at your door and telling you how you need to change the way you've been living all your life. People hate them and sometimes even think of creative ways to get rid of them. Heck, even I don't like them.
I'd be put into the category of "one of those insane, rambling fundamentalists", and would only add to the idea that all Christians are a bunch of lunatics worthy of nothing but ridicule, and, consequently, that God is a completely idiotic idea.
And so I don't do it. Instead, I choose to serve by example. A lot of people (although of course not all, and not everybody likes me) regard me as intelligent, funny, and level-headed. If people are looking at me and thinking "Gee, maybe not all Christians are idiots. I mean, this guy's nice.", then they'd be more open to listening, and I can sit down and have a rational, thoughtful discussion with them.

Point is, if your reasoning for constantly flooding the forum with conspiracy theories is "PEOPLE NEED TO WAKE UP AND HEAR THIS!", you need to rethink your approach. Offering an opinion, possibly an alternative one which can cause discussion and insight, is a good thing. Shoving it down somebody's throat is not.

So every single scientific study has been bought and paid for by the "man". Which ones are true then? None. Or only the ones that agree with your beliefs? Those are made by mavericks who refuse to be silenced.

A similar discussion went on in your own thread, OneFiercePuppy did a much better job at debunking a lot of your theories than I likely can, much less at 3:40am. You couldn't argue with most of what he said there, but that sure didn't stop you from continuing to believe, which is my real point here.

The one that Breja mentioned, alongside with the NATO meetings. The one that you responded to with "[History] Rewritten? Or was it already white-washed?". The one that angered him. If you were actually not paying attention, and it wasn't in relation to the topic at hand, then it was just nonsense. I assumed it wasn't.

That's even worse.

I spent the past week mistaking you for a poor naïve fool being taken for a ride, but clearly you are nothing but a spammer. Trying repeatedly to push his beliefs onto the community, by spamming the forum and necroing your own thread over and over and over, every time a new episode of your favorite podcast is released, despite clearly no one being interested.

No. He does that for money and self-aggrandizement, and because I'm way too tired, let me copy paste this from a different post I wrote days ago. It's the same reason for:

"Making videos on shitty Steam Greenlight trailers for games that would have otherwise languished in obscurity forever, saying "This is shit! How could someone put this on Greenlight?!". Then all his fanboys can immediately vote for it and get it approved, so that he makes a gameplay video on it when it comes out. It inevitably does, and he makes the video saying "This is shit! How could this have passed through Greenlight?!". He does make revenue on both videos, and I feel like giving these games attention only encourages them, which is why I find the whole thing hypocritical."

This is what I'm saying about you. You're angry and dissatisfied with the status quo, so you seek anyone who will criticize it, voice the feeling of discontent back at you, and start hanging on every word they say as if it's gospel, even if they are clearly making money off of this "noble crusade", and off of you. It's this with Sterling, and it's the same thing with Alex Jones.

...then you should see what the quieter voices are saying. You've already accused various organizations of covering up evidence to make themselves the only ones talking, and you get upset when that happens, but not when it's just the conspiracy theorists talking?
What if the conspiracy theorists you cite are actually part of a conspiracy themselves?
Whoop, didn't refresh in time. This here is basically what I'm saying.

That's really not going to happen with rt. I was patient with him even after it became obvious he was trolling, just in case he was doing it just because nobody had taken the time to point him in the right direction. I offered terms to search to get to the ideas that mattered, offered a few links (since we disagreed, only very few since there would be no reason for him to accept my sources). He continues to ask questions that indicate utterly no understanding of the topics covered. He doesn't want answers. He wants reality to conform to his ignorance, and that's why I lost patience and was rude in my last reply to him. I can be very patient with someone who doesn't understand, but rt isn't that someone. He wants to show up and repeat willful lies couched in the rhetoric of the credulous, and that can be dangerous to anyone who wants to actually learn things. That's why I'll keep checking that nonsense thread about the "internet handover". I know a huge amount about it. I'll keep speaking up when someone posts nonsense so anyone else interested can, in fact, learn what's going on and what it means. [url= Well, that reason. plus I'm insomniac and often have nothing to do for a few hours at night XD ][/url]

You're young. You probably still have enough piss and vinegar to want to change the world, and to see people as what they should be able to be. Good on you. ^_^

The NIST literally did no investigation and when asked why they didn't test or look for proof of explosives, they simply refused and moved on. Explosions that would, oh I don't know, throw beams into other buildings perhaps?

I'd say dissect the entire video, but you won't, and he won't so I don't bother.

I thought there was mention of some assassination somewhere. Hmm.. moving on.

Whatever you say.

*sigh* The status quo... you mean not being hired for my technical skills, you mean that only 1 in 4 finishing college can get a job in 4 years? You mean that there's a good 10% or higher unemployment rate? You mean DRM being pushed by Ubisoft and Square Enix and EA? Then yes I'm damn tired of the status quo. I can't change a lot of things. But I can do a little bit to maybe, get some people to look at current events. Events that can change, or become incredibly bad very soon.

I made my argument why I started this with my opening post. And I'm not exactly spamming every single thread with 'THE END IS NEAR!' and quoting biblical quotes. Maybe two, or three, or ten will take notice and actually look, but not comment to agree due to group criticism, not wanting to be looked at with the 'bad crowd' or the like, or be bullied or trolled for hinting to agree; Fear of rejection can be a powerful force. And you know what, I have nothing to be rejected by anymore. I simply don't care. This has a higher priority.

Although with that said, I won't be uncivil. I will answer and reply in other threads, and not derail it with spiderman memes. Instead I'm going to continue to be me, and if that involves being bluntly and brutally honest, then that's what it will be. I should never have let someone else's opinions of me or other topics hold me back before.

Thank you, for making me realize I was holding back.

I offered him my friendship, and he accepted.

Oh shoot, you've actually been through this whole song and dance already? I admittedly didn't read much of the back posts of his thread. Heck, I never even opened it until I heard people complaining about it. I just noticed his constant bumping of it.
In that case if everything I've said here's been worked over already, I apologize if I've clogged up the thread in debating with him/feeding the fire as it were.

Yeah, I do tend to try to give people as much benefit of the doubt as I can before completely counting them as a hopeless cause, since I know everybody can change. I suppose I sometimes extend this more than I should.

See this post and onwards to watch every one of his concerns be addressed in series, while he continues to doggedly show no learning about anything. See this entire thread to see him refuse to hold his sources accountable even when people check them for him and show that they don't make the claims the talking heads say they make. EDIT: Oh, and the beautiful part in that second thread where he actually cites a page on snopes to defend his nonsense, when the page in fact shows a full discrediting of the entire point he was trying to make. That was a halcyon moment.

I'm always down for a good argument. I'm deeply grateful for the people (here on this forum and in real life) who have, metaphorically speaking, put their feet so far up my ass I tasted their toejam. That's how my deepest-held wilful ignorance gets cured, one good argument at a time. One months-long bashful episode of deep research and learning at a time. But there's no arguing with the people who've turned the full force of their faculties against learning.

On the contrary, so called "impartial" studies are usually much more manipulative bullshit than those where the funding parties are obvious. 'Cause, you know, scientists have to live as well.

And there always is a funding party. An interest group, usually some company or other. I've met some geologists working at an "impartial" institute once. They said they're mostly OK with what they're doing, it's just that if the funding interest group doesn't get the results they want, the study doesn't get published. Best case scenario for them, the interest group orders a series of studies on the same subject and only the one with the most favorable results for the interest group gets published.

I like my studies state funded, at least over here. Because those bueraucratic morons don't give a shit about whether their report says "no dangerous substances in soil sample found" or "highly radioactive substances found in soil sample", the state pays them either way.

Trust the "impartial" studies without common sense and you end up believing some crazy truther scientist who tries to sell you red paint chips as the never-seen-before ultimate top secret micro-engineered super-explosive that supposedly burns and evaporates instantly and completely, but still conveniently leaves minute long signature color smoke trails and signature residue that can be found in just about any sample ten years later.

The Man got to 'em, maaaan! That's like some meta shit, The Man knowing that we need tin foil to protect ourselves, so tin foil suppliers are taken out. MAAAAN!



Or I screwed up the link. Coulda sworn I copy-pasted...

Okay, add a / to the end. That works. http://www.advent-rm.com/catalogue/tin/foil/ Expensive stuff, but you gotta pay to keep the mind control rays from penetrating...

True. Although it certainly helps with statistics and tests when several sources come to the same findings, preferably those not funded by the same groups and interests. But it's more obvious that those funded by groups and interests are more for profits, so they get funding easier. And those that don't follow the vested interests their funding dries up.

Just answering this part because, good God, you do not want to listen.

YES. The accident that conspiracy theorists are claiming it's an assassination.

This just proves my point. YOU DO NOT PAY ATTENTION. You didn't read anything he wrote, you just saw a scattered mention of the word "assassination" and went "Of Course! Those bastards! It doesn't surprise me one bit that they, whoever they are, would assassinate someone like him, whoever he was. This stuff is right up their alley."

So what assassination/accident thing are we talking about exactly? I don't recall it actually being fully cited, only mentioned off hand. My response was history and white-washing happens. A lot. Special forces (Black Ops) are sent in who's actions are never reported to the media and who the government could deny having any part of. There's biblical evidence, hell even in the upper and southern US states a number of the history books seem to not agree how the civil war went.

I'll say again. History is my worst subject. My specialty is computers and programming.

The only one mentioned in the last few pages and the one you replied to.

Again, this just proves my point: YOU DO NOT PAY ATTENTION. You just randomly replied to someone with a canned statement of something you believe.

The funniest part is: he himself was arguing the same thing about history, but because YOU DO NOT PAY ATTENTION your statement just came off as nonsense.

The thread about handing over the internet and your responses to OneFiercePuppy there seem to indicate otherwise.

The internet as we know it is built on a core of basic systems and a combination of protocols. With the TCP (Transmission Control Protocol) used for verification and living/repeat of packets, while IP (Internet Protocol) is used to actually talk between two computers. There's many other systems/protocols that can be used, however TCP/IP has a very good fit.

Regardless the system talks on a local net/subnet level where a broadcaster (the 0 address in the subnet is reserved for this) is often used to repeat and send the messages where they are intended to go. If they can't find the address they refer up a level, until there's a machine/path that knows how to send the message and then goes back down.

Because you naturally want more than 1 dedicated connection you have port numbers, along with a packet ID to help with transmission of data, along with resending of broken/missing packets. Using port numbers has also allowed gateways or multiple machines to pretend to be on a single address.

That is the core of basic internet.

Layered on top is often instead of knowing an exact address we use the DNS (Domain Name Service) which in turn will translate names into addresses. I don't know about you, but I don't memorize the addresses of Yahoo, Google, Youtube or other sites, so if the DNS gets compromised/taken down the internet could go silent REAL fast.

All other services added on don't necessarily matter, they will merely be protocols, formats and data layered on top of TCP/IP and maybe DNS.