Mysteries, Chemtrails, Aerosols :: Mysterious NZ

[Crakka]

Ok this isn't one of those stupid threads where I want everyone to tell us what they actually use :roll:

Just thought I'd remind you that Google is evil incarnate! Therefore you should always be using an alternative search engine or scraper.

The one I use 99% of the time is Scroogle. Click that link to find out more about how Scroogle crumbles cookies. If you're typing in the address manually yourself make damn sure you put the correct URL in there or you'll end up on some pRon searcher!!!

You can go directly to the Scroogle Scraper here - http://www.scroogle.org/cgi-bin/scraper.htm

The secure browser address - https://ssl.scroogle.org/

You can use this secure address as the default search engine in your browser (recommend Opera) - https://ssl.scroogle.org/cgi-bin/nbbwssl.cgi

And have fun with the random anti-Google quips, quotes & cartoons on their scraper page! :D This was todays one -

[Tranceformer]

Cheers, i like Scroogle too!

[Ross Marsden]

Oh, yeah.

I did a test. I Scroogled "contrails diagnosis", and I Googled the same phrase.

The results were the same, and in the same order.
The top 3 hit my abandoned site. There must be lots of links to it from somewhere.

Try it yourself with your favourite searching phrase.

[steve clougher]

The Chemtrail police are watching you, Ross

[Crakka]

[steve clougher]

Well, googles or scroogles or goons, there aren't enough rentacops to process us all
That mad bugger in Norway could not have withstood a concerted rush
The biggest weapon in any arsenal is the illusion that that arsenal is bigger than it really is

[Ross Marsden]

The Chemtrail police are on to me!

I have been BANNED from GLP!

:oops: :!: :?:

Badge of Honour ?

[Deano]

Ha i was banned from there too once Ross dont feel so bad, they have trigger happy mods sometime. What were you saying by the way if you dont mind me asking? (probably only a day ban)

[Ross Marsden]

I don't recall my last activity there.

I monitor the "chemtrail" threads and take a stab now and again. I enjoy the "where is the moon?" and "the sun is setting too far north/south" threads.
I'm not obsessive or badly behaved.

I filled in the "Request unban" box, but my IP is still banned at time of writing.

Missing my daily scoop of universal weirdness.

[steve clougher]

I just scroogled up GLP to find out what you're talking about and I've been banned already, without even getting in the door
I asked to be unbanned of course, and in answer to the searching questiOn: "why shOuld we unban you?", I put that I'm new here and that anyway I'm only the piano player
If that doesn't work I shall invoke my friend the banshee and I shall scweam and scweam, so there

[Ross Marsden]

LOL Steve, you must be spoofing my IP address.
Stop it!

[steve clougher]

Ross I think they think I'm you pretending to be me

[Crakka]

You guys must've done something really bad 'cos I went to GLP to see what all the fuss was about, got sidetracked on a thread titled "Think Mila Kunis Is Hot? Think Again!" and saw lots of lovely swear words aimed her way for wearing an Obama supporters t-shirt! The most straightforward post said "This just proves what a stupid c**t she is!". Comments don't come much harsher than that and that post had been there for a while with no ban in sight when I was reading it! :P Btw, that thread was hilarious in several ways not least of all that people posting on a forum like that had such an intimate knowledge of all things Holy Wood and TV Land :shock:

[steve clougher]

I'm cool, Crakka, I never heard of Mila Kunis
Nice name

[Ross Marsden]

A while back, you had to pay a sub. to register and get a proper screen name and a few other features (no ads) and functionality.
Then they relented and let ppl register a name and get a few features (not no ads, though) for free. So I did.
The catch, was after a year of that little bit of convenience, your timer is up and its $10/month etc to carry on.
So now I ma busted back to "Anonymous Coward" (instead of Pseudonym Coward).

I haven't bothered. It's the drain of the Interwebs for reasons like the one mentioned by Crakka.. That site is addictive and an insidious time waster. Not like this one. :wink:

[steve clougher]

Here's a scary post
This reporter is a conspiracy debunker, not even a very good one
He is young, and is listed as a freelance journalist with about fifty articles under his belt
In other words, wet behind the ears
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/features/could-the-uk-government-shut-down-the-web-2235116.html
No mention of conditioning (mind control)
No mention of surveillance (invasion of privacy)
No examination of the prospect of multiple internets, already a reality (military and public service.)

[Crakka]

Some good comments after that article (which is pretty c-r-a-p-l-y written btw!) :wink:

[steve clougher]

Same guy, even worse journalism
I've done my research a bit better; he's about 40, 50-odd articles since 2008.
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/features/truth-and-lies-conspiracy-theories-are-running-rampant-thanks-to-modern-technology-6260128.html
The most amateurish piece of disinfo I've ever seen
No doubt he's just an innocent turning the words over, for a crust.
The neocons wouldn't employ him
Shut!!! They haven't offered me a job yet!!!

[Crakka]

Hahaha! At least there's a bloody good number of intelligent and "informed" people completely trashing this guy AND The Independent in the comments and rightly so! He certainly writes like he's talking to naive children - unfortunately there's heaps of over-20s out there who never mature and will actually think this guy & others like him "re-present" some kind of actual truth!

Thanks for the entertainment steve :wink:

[Crakka]

And rather timely as I saw your post this morning, I just listened to bFM's resident Conspiracy Corner c-o-c-k-h-e-a-d Matthew Dentith crapping on about the so-called "Tea Party Tapes" (gee original title!). Only a few minutes in and he was already dribbling that David Icke thinks John Key is a lizard which was unrelated to the actual story. I'm not a David Icke supporter/apologist by any stretch but it's so obvious what MM (and I definitely include bFM in that now) are up to lately, ramping up the anti-"conspiracy theory" stuff...

[steve clougher]

I have it on the best authority that John Key is a snake
Yes, the predatory lazy journo is willing to sacrifice true students of the conspiracy to make grist for his private mill. Never mind, in other articles he mines the cheap shots at the expense of other groups, like women.
Nevertheless, I have a feeling that it would be very good if the average Joe and Joelle could soon be brought to realize that in fact there is a conspiracy. The control of the Internet, which is really upon us, will close an amazing window of opportunity

[Crakka]

Speaking of mainstream media and their biases...

Rachel Abrams, Jennifer Rubin and the Media's Talmudic Double-Standard
Wednesday, November 16, 2011

RACHEL ABRAMS wrote that Palestinians are "animals" and their children "devils' spawn." Mrs. Abrams' hatred was endorsed by the Washington Post's Jennifer Rubin ("Rubin said that she admires Abrams, has quoted her a lot, thinks she's an excellent writer and endorsed the sentiment behind the Abrams blog post").

Big Media, like the New York Times, have suppressed all reporting of this volcanic Talmudic hate by a prominent Zionist who is the wife of Elliott Abrams. Racist statements by Zionists and Khazars are protected from sustained reporting and editorial outrage.

The Talmud decrees that gentiles are lesser beings that do not possess the Neshamah HaElyonah which superior Judaics possess. Therefore, hate-speech directed against Palestinians and their children does not register in the western media the way it would if it were directed at fully human beings.

Source - http://revisionistreview.blogspot.com/2011/11/rachel-abrams-jennifer-rubin-and-medias.html

[Crakka]

More detail from an article earlier in the week...

Why the Washington Post won't fire Jennifer Rubin
Saturday, Nov 12, 2011 5:28 AM 09:40:57 GMT+1300
By Glenn Greenwald


Jennifer Rubin and Patrick Pexton

Several weeks ago, I wrote about a truly twisted, deranged rant by neocon royal family member Rachel Abrams. Abrams - wife of Iran-contra convict and Bush 43 official Eliot Abrams, step-daughter of Norm Podhoretz, half-sister of John Podhoretz, and a Board Member of Bill Kristol’s Emergency Committee for Israel (ECI) - unleashed a torrent of anti-Palestinian hatred upon the release of Gilad Shalit that could be produced only by the most rotted of souls:

Then round up [Gilad Shalit's] captors, the slaughtering, death-worshiping, innocent-butchering, child-sacrificing savages who dip their hands in blood and use women - those who aren’t strapping bombs to their own devils’ spawn and sending them out to meet their seventy-two virgins by taking the lives of the school-bus-riding, heart-drawing, Transformer-doodling, homework-losing children of Others - and their offspring - those who haven’t already been pimped out by their mothers to the murder god - as shields, hiding behind their burkas and cradles like the unmanned animals they are, and throw them not into your prisons, where they can bide until they’re traded by the thousands for another child of Israel, but into the sea, to float there, food for sharks, stargazers, and whatever other oceanic carnivores God has put there for the purpose.

While Abrams’ post sparked widespread revulsion, it found one noted admirer: The Washington Post‘s Israel-obsessed blogger Jennifer Rubin, who re-tweeted Abrams’ promotion of her post with obvious (and admitted) agreement.

In the ensuing controversy, ECI claimed that Abrams’ murderous desires were directed only toward Palestinian “terrorists,” not Palestinians generally - a self-evidently false excuse that quickly fell apart after Abrams wrote that, in essence, all Palestinians are Terrorists (“there are no fine points of distinction in what they’re after”). To make her genocidal wishes even clearer, Abrams then directed her bile to ThinkProgress’ Ali Gharib - an Iranian-American who was one of the many commentators objecting to her original post - explaining that she’d also “feed HIM and his friends to sharks.” To put it mildly, Abrams’ post was bigoted, violence-inciting, and driven by hatred of the purest and most repellent strain.

It’s the opposite of newsworthy that a rabid neocon like Abrams spews this sort of anti-Arab hate-mongering; that is basically the defining attribute of neoconservatism. But what is significant is that Jennifer Rubin promoted and endorsed it without any hesitation. Over the past 18 months, we’ve witnessed a series of journalists fired for far less virulent sentiments directed at Israelis and Jews (Rich Sanchez’ complaints about disproportionate Jewish media influence and Helen Thomas’ call for Jews to leave the region), and even for completely innocuous remarks whose only sin was offending neocons (Octavia Nasr’s mild eulogizing of a moderate Hezbollah cleric). Yet here we have a Post blogger who has endorsed this extreme hate-mongering, and does so with total impunity.

Is there any doubt whatsoever that had Rubin promoted a rant spewing these sorts of ugly caricatures about Jewish children and Israelis with accompanying calls for savage violence - rather than directed at Palestinians - that she would have instantly been fired, then castigated and attacked by all Serious precincts? As Gharib reports today, that was the question posed by a Post reader via email to the Post‘s Ombudsman, Patrick Pexton. To his credit, Pexton had previously condemned Rubin on his Ombudsman blog, writing: “in agreeing with the sentiment, and in spreading it to her 7,000 Twitter followers who know her as a Washington Post blogger, Rubin did damage to The Post and the credibility that keeps it afloat.” After denouncing Abrams’ rant as “reprehensible,” Pexton added: “That a Post employee would retweet it is a huge disappointment to me.”

That’s all fine as far as it goes, but what about the question posed by the reader: wouldn’t Rubin have been fired for promoting this hate-mongering had it been directed at Jews and Israelis rather than Palestinians? Pexton’s email response, published by the reader who emailed him, was this:

Off the record, I think it’s quite possible. But the ombudsman does not hire or fire people here. I only comment.

unilaterally decree their statements to be “off the record” and then expect that to be honored in the absence of any agreement by the person to whom they’re making the statement. What is most striking here is Pexton’s highly revealing cowardice - probably well-grounded - in wanting his observation about this double standard to be kept private; shouldn’t an Ombudsman who believes this be eager to raise it in public? As the reader noted in reply to Pexton:

If, in your opinion, such a grave double standard exits, why do you comment off the record? Why not publicly state your opinion? Why self censor? Doesn’t that reinforce insidious limitations on free speech?

Think of the absurdity. You must stay cautiously silent about a perfectly reasonable opinion while Rubin and Abrams can let fly with genocidal remarks. With respect, your silence contributes significantly to the poisoning of public debate.

Please speak up.

What’s particularly remarkable is that Pexton is admitting (albeit wanting it kept secret) what any honest observer knows to be true: that there is a very high likelihood - I’d say absolute certainty - that Rubin would have been fired had she promoted a post like this about Jews and Israelis rather than Arabs and Palestinians.

But this is the insidious, pervasive bias that has long been obvious in a profession that relentlessly touts its own “objectivity.” Even the mildest criticism of Israelis and anything even hinting at criticisms of Jews is strictly prohibited - a prohibition enforced by summary, immediate dismissal and enduring stigma. As Nicholas Kristof wrote during a visit to Jerusalem last year: Israel “tolerates a far greater range of opinions [about Israel] than America.”

But the most extreme forms of anti-Arab and anti-Muslim bigotry and hatred flourish often with no condemnation and virtually always with no sanction (Juan Williams’ firing by NPR was one of the very few exceptions, though that was ultimately motivated by long-standing NPR animosity toward Williams’ role on Fox). Had Rubin promoted (and admitted agreeing with) such disgusting bile toward Jews and Israelis, her journalism career would have been over, but because it was directed at Palestinians, it continues to thrive. Indeed, the neocon fanatic who runs the Post‘s Editorial Page, Fred Hiatt, predictably defended and praised Rubin, calling her “an excellent journalist and a relentless reporter” who “is often the target of unjustified criticism.” (Pexton argued that what Rubin did violated Post rules “that apply to editors, reporters and bloggers,” but since Rubin is an opinion writer, those rules do not apply to her: except Hiatt and Rubin herself repeatedly describe her as a “reporter” and a “journalist”).

Herein lies one of the great myths of American political culture: the media’s “objectivity.” No institution plays a greater role in restricting the terms of permissible debate in America than they do. The fact that they impose these limitations with such gross bias is bad enough; their self-praising insistence that they do no such things makes it that much worse. If the Post applied media standards equally to anti-Arab and anti-Israeli commentary, then Jen Rubin would be waiting on the unemployment line next to Rick Sanchez, Helen Thomas and Octavia Nasr. But it plainly does no such thing, and therefore she will remain exactly where she is.

Source - http://www.salon.com/2011/11/11/why_the_washington_post_wont_fire_jennifer_rubin/?source=newsletter