Abusive behaviour, justified by conspiracy theories?

4 posts / 0 new
Last post
Yiwah
Abusive behaviour, justified by conspiracy theories?

In the infamous 911/WTC collapse threads, there has been a long, protracted debate between mainly three people...jas with Fidel, and Pants-of-Dog

Fidel has already been given a few warnings for his incredibly abusive language and personal attacks.  He was also give a three day time-out for the same.  Recently he had a number of posts that were full of personal attacks for which he was asked to dial it down. 

Fidel then goes on to accuse Maysie of stifling political dissent, accusing Pants-of-Dog of 'doing the math wrong', accusing Pants-of-Dog of deliberately derailing the conversation and so on.  These constant accusations, abusive insults, appeals to 'truth' and so on are, to be frank, disturbing. 

Is Fidel being given a 'pass' for his disgusting behaviour simply because he's championing a conspiracy theory? He has a stated belief that actions taken against him for his behaviour are the result of complicity with the conspiracy...is this giving moderators pause, or is the subject matter simply so arcane that no one can figure out who is insulting who?

How long do people get to scream "liar! Fraud!  Idiot!  Government stooge!" at someone who wants some actual proof of the conspiracy in question?

 

For your edification, here are the latest vile posts by Fidel with Moderator reaction and response:

 

Fidel wrote:

Go chase your tail. You've created a lot of work for yourself and are way behind schedule. Perhaps you will address some of these concerns about your credibility sometime soon. And before I forget, thanks in advance.

Fidel wrote:

You're not sure whether your asshole was punched or bored, do you? In fact, you don't know the truth about that either.

ETA: And it's clear by now that you don't understand vectors either. You're a liar and a fraud.

Fidel wrote:

You don't know what you're talking about. You are a confused young man who dreams of imaginary castles. They say the problems begin when you actually move in to that castle.

Fidel wrote:

D of t by itself does not describe Newton's second law. And you can not isolate delta-t and suggest that because it does not express transfer of momentum in this instance, then I must be wrong. Use your head for something other than a hatrack fcs,

Did you read any of Garcia's essay in support of Bazant's theory? I don't believe you did in derailing yet another thread beyond all hope of for the most casually interested who might hope to understand some serious issues concerning mass murder and the worst building/engineering failure in the history of steel framed buildings by 9/11/2001. You make mock of mathematics and physics in general, and it must be thoroughly confusing for someone who might want to participate if it wasn't for your chaotoc and asinine meanderings littering these threads on 9/11. You're not well informed and seem to be proud of derailing our serious discussions concerning a false flag incident on 9/11. It's sad.

Fidel wrote:

No, I will not do as you command mods to do here. I will continue to point out how silly your asinine arguments are until at least one of the mods with a shred of math ability finally understands your real motive for posting in 9/11 threads. Your goal is to confuse people and derail these discussions.

And I will continue to lobby mods to have you turfed from these threads, and it's because your idiotic and unscientific nonsense has no place in a serious thread concerning 9/11 discussion. You deserve a D-grade for all your bad math and utter nonsense concerning 9/11.

 

Maysie wrote:

Fidel, you're going to have to dial back the insults. Now.

If this discussion can't continue in a calm manner I will be closing this thread.

Fidel wrote:

I'd like to request that another person moderate these 9/11 threads in a fair and impartial manner and preferably someone who pays a little attention to what's actually being said and not just how many messages are in their queue accusing me of giving the 'dog a difficult time of things for his bad math and otherwise falsifiable claims in general. There is a term describing what Pants is up to in these threads, but it's a bannable offense proclaimed by the pro American inquisition to even mention it apparently. This is ridiculous.

Fidel wrote:

Pope Teddywang wrote:

Please don't close the thread Maysie.

It's what thread gladios do: disrupt and otherwise try their damndest to stop people from discussing the truth. And their agenda is very politically motivated, yes it is.

Yiwah

Fidel wrote:

You don't know high school math, Pants. Why do you persist in telling us that you do?

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Yiwah, this is an inappropriate way to call out someone's behaviour. If you have a problem with a babbler, report it to a moderator. We don't make public haranguings part of babble practice.

Closing.

Yiwah

Edit: posted before relevant comments, apologies

Topic locked