Czuch: My only gripe is in that bottled ale (real beer) is done mostly in 500ml bottles.. only a few do a full pint (568ml)

Shame..

(V): so your saying that the fruit and veg stallls where you live only using the pounds and ounces
they must by law display the metric measurments

unless im reading it wrong here on this page from the BBC

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6988521.stm


its really stupid that one or the other was not kept
to have 2 systems on the go at the same time is has i say very confusing
i remember the outrage before dedecimalization in the early seventies but ppl soon got use to the change so why have 2 systems on weights and measures
older ppl l;ike myself who wernt taught anything metric would of adapted to it just like the ones did who were opposed to dedecimalization

Bwild: okay, good points!

Bwild:

Bwild:     perfect!~

Snoopy: It's easy to learn, although I do admit one of our maths teachers was very hot on mental arithmetic, and I did technical drawing so I had to know some basic conversions. Plus our log books, etc had at the back conversion tables so picking it up was quite easy.

I like Imperial, but can work in metric and back if needed.

"Investigation of 9/11: Produced in Europe. So far this is the best overview we have seen. It's hard to believe that anyone can see this and still believe the official myth of 9/11. Watch before it is pulled from the Internet." Google Video 2009 Mar 17
--Unfiltered News

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2296490368603788739&ei=ADrASauHK5-G_AHUweXKAQ&q=zero&hl=en

The Usurper: I must be honest here.....I watched the first 15 minutes but didn't have time to watch the rest (1 1/2 hours)....1 hour44 mins 54 secs in total

If you are trying to prove something give us something that the average busy working stiff has time to contemplate.

That isnt fact....it is a story "Based on an Idea" by Gruppo Zero???? did I read that right?.....who the hell is he and what is his claim to fame? or have I got it all mixed up?

But one thing I did see/hear in the first 15 minutes was that the towers were built to "withstand place crashes" now that is interesting....why would someone do that....Not knowing New York at all...is there an airport VERY near?
because if there isnt???

not looking to get into a debate here on truth/fiction...just a query.

Bernice:Tall skyscrapers in NY are built to withstand plane crashes, a small plane hit the empire state building many years ago. but the twin towers did not have the heat retardant that the original specs. called for because of the cost going over budget during building.

Bernice: "If you are trying to prove something give us something that the average busy working stiff has time to contemplate."

I know time is of the essence in everyone's lives. Unfortunately, there is really no short cut to taking the time to learn about these things, just as it takes time to become knowledgeable about any number of subjects. The best I can do here is stress the importance of the subject and entice readers of the Politics DB to sacrifice the time required. Ultimately, of course, each person will decide for himself/herself what is worth pursuing...or whether, perhaps, their hard day's work has earned them the right to not have to think when the day is done. This is perhaps true....but unfortunately it will leave us with a lack of insight into the world & into the events that shape our lives.

Vikings: well there you go...you learn something everyday....I didn't know about the small plane hitting the empire state building...thanks for enlightening myself and anybody else that didn't know that.

The Usurper: Ultimately, of course, each person will decide for himself/herself what is worth pursuing...or whether, perhaps, their hard day's work has earned them the right to not have to think when the day is done.

I know this will kill you to hear... but thats exactly how it is supposed to be, right? That we pay other people to take care of this crap so we can enjoy our lives at the end of the day? You will tell me that is exactly how they have been able to take advantage of me, because I do not keep a good eye on them, and they have decided to take advantage of me and create some new world order behind my back!

I can understand where you get ideas like this, but I can not believe any of fit yet...

Bernice:There are probably some shorter videos on youtube that can satisfy your questions I would think.  How reliable those videos are is an open questions.  Suffice it to say, the topic of 9/11 is fast approaching this specific guideline and will likely be declared a dead horse soon:

* Learn to let go - don't keep harping on about the same thing, or harking back to previous arguments.

Some of the other "topics" presented here really fall under a single heading (One World Government).  At least it seems to me that this is the reoccurring theme.  Topics can only be addressed for so long before they get tedious and boring.  Unless there is a high interest in a particular topic, I see no value in revisiting old arguments again and again. 

Artful Dodger: Learn to let go - don't keep harping on about the same thing, or harking back to previous arguments.

This will soon be a blank board if this rule is enforced

Artful Dodger: We have less than 10 regular contributors here.... only reason to enforce this is to silence Usurper, no?

Czuch: If people on the board want to continue the discussion, fine.  But most of the time it's not a discussion. 

As for "Learn to let go - don't keep harping on about the same thing, or harking back to previous arguments."   I've seen enough links on the 9/11.  Enough is enough.  If people want links, they can go back and read the ones already posted.  No new ones, ad nauseum, are needed. 

If on the other hand there is an ongoing discussion where people are engaged in a conversation, that's different. 

Czuch: "We have less than 10 regular contributors here.... only reason to enforce this is to silence Usurper, no?"

Looks like it's about time for me to bow out of here. I've seen it coming for awhile. Thanks for seeing it too.

"I know this will kill you to hear... but thats exactly how it is supposed to be, right? That we pay other people to take care of this crap so we can enjoy our lives at the end of the day?"

Actually, it is not supposed to be that way, at least according to Thomas Jefferson, who said: "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." His point is that, however we might like it to be, at the end of the day we are personally responsible for securing our freedom, and if we neglect this duty or attempt to leave it to others, the price we pay will be the loss of freedom we took for granted.

The Usurper: so thats it then???? Im taking my ball and going home??? If I cant post 9/11 links, then im outta here?

Czuch:No one said you can't post links.  In fact, I just said that if the people here want to discuss a certain topic, like 9/11, then discuss it.  But flooding the board week after week with more of the same isn't a discussion.  And telling people they need to wake up etc doesn't invite dialogue. 

As I said before I posted those guidelines, I gave it a lot of thought.  I looked at other forums and read their guidelines.  I took the ones that best fit here, and compiled them into one.   They are fair and they are reasonable. 

I also underlined guidelines to stress the fact that they aren't hard and fast rules, but only strong suggestions. 

It's really quite simple what I'm asking the board to do.  Make and argument.  Stick to one thing at a time.  Invite dialogue and consider the idea of others.  Be friendly about it.  Don't lecture.  Don't be condescending.  Don't bloviate. 

You aren't going to change the world here.  Like you said, there are maybe 10 regulars.  So keep that in mind when you post.  It's no one's "duty" to warn the world of the impending danger of things to come.   That' not the purpose of this board.  It's a discussion board.  And it's for everyone. 

As for the 9/11 discussions.  Personally I'm all for it if people participate.  But it's not the ONLY thing that could be of interest.  As for use of links/quotes.  Here is what I have suggested:

*Quoting other sources is fine but do so in the context of your own argument.

*Don't flood the board with quotes.  Quotes should support the argument you are making, not BE your argument.

*Keep the amount of quoted material down to a minimum.   The rule of thumb is "less is  better."  If an entire post is quoted material, it might get deleted.  Again, make your own arguments.

You'll find these kinds of guidelines on most forums.  The purpose is to keep discussions moving forward.  In the context of one's argument, links and quotes are more than acceptable.  I think it's pretty clear what is meant by all of guidelines I've posted.

Bernice: This statement hits the nail on the head with respect to convincing anyone about anything.  You have to have something you can chew on to get you started.  Glenn Beck calls it "The One Thing."  What is the "One Thing" about 9/11 that is worth thinking about? 

Most of the long videos (and they are worth watching if one has the time) give you so many details that it's enough to make your head explode.  Some of the ideas presented are connected to other "circumstantial evidence" and without the connection, they don't seem important.  But you don't need all the information at once to be convinced that "something is up."  You need "The One Thing."  The "One Thing" is like putting a stone in one's shoe.  It's there to irritate to the point that you have to deal with it.  Just a small stone is needed.  It is meant to be bothersome to the point that the person has to find that stone, and deal with it once and for all.

For me, the one thing is how the towers fell, and how building 7 fell.  In the history of skyscraper fires, never before 9/11 or after, has any building fallen due to fire.  The towers crumbled.  It's important to understand the construction of the buildings to see how this seems impossible.  You don't have to know the answer, you only have to arrive at the question: Why did the towers fall in the way that they did and why does WTC7 look exactly like a professional demolition?

In 2005, a skyscraper (In Madrid) burned for over 20 hours!  And after the fire burnt out, the skyscraper was still standing.  In fact, in any skyscraper fire, the building always stayed standing.  Only the towers fell.  Why?  Forget the official explanation, I want to know the science of it. 

Since the structural integrity of the lower part of the towers had 100% its strength, why did the buildings crumble all the way to the ground?  Each tower had a huge reinforced steel core that stretched from the top to the bottom of the building.  How did this huge core simply crumble.  It should have been left standing.

Finally, the buildings were designed to withstand the impact of a plane.  One scientist said that if a plane were to hit the building, it would be like putting a hole into a steel reinforced netting.  Only the area around the hole would be compromised.  The rest of the netting remains at 100% its stength. 

That's the stone in my shoe.  That's my "One Thing."  And what is my conclusion?  Simply this:  Something's not right with the picture.  There's more to this story than we are being told.  If I can't get past why and how the building fell in the way that they did, that alone can be enough to make me start to question the rest of the story.

BTW, just because I have questions doesn't mean that there is in fact a conspiracy.  It could simply mean I don't know enough about the facts of building construction, particularly the construction of the towers or WTC7, to make any kind of judgment at all.  And in the end, my doubts prove NOTHING.  For example, just because fire has never brought down a building doesn't mean it's not possible. Some experts say it is possible.  Others disagree.  Some experts who have studied the 9/11 tragedy for years have concluded that the towers fell due to fire.  Other experts say this is impossible.  It could very well be that the official story is the correct one. 
;)

Artful Dodger: To me, its like stopping terrorism, you have to get them 100% of the time, they only have to get it right once,

To prove bush and cheney and the rest of the US government committed 9/11, you have to prove it 100%, it cannot be one doubt here and one doubt there, if it really went the way you say it went and the whole thing was an inside job including a huge cover up, it should be easy, like domino's, once one leg falls so does the rest, something like this would have crumbled long ago if there were any shred....

Czuch:This is exactly the problem with the entire conspiracy theory.  It's really just a bunch of doubts packaged together and sold as one thing.  Kennedy was killed in 73 and people are still debating it.  9/11 will suffer the same fate.  Unless something besides reasonable doubt surfaces.  And it's just as you say; a series of doubts doesn't necessarily add up to anything. 

Artful Dodger:

JFK was killed in 1963, I think....

awesome:Thanks for that.  You're right, it was Nov 22 1963. 

  Bwild:    you bad!  

Bwild: hahahahaha.....like it ;)

Czuch: "so thats it then???? Im taking my ball and going home??? If I cant post 9/11 links, then im outta here?"

Actually, AD is right, in one sense. I came here to open doors of thought, make points most don't think about. I've done that. What I've talked about takes a lot to absorb, and can't be absorbed at all without serious & time-consuming study. I could be wrong, but I question whether you or anyone here will put in that kind of effort.

The "one thing" AD talked about....the fall of the towers...can be used as the lever to bring the whole official story down. It just takes the courage of conviction. But there are other "one things", equally valid. The standown of NORAD on 9/11...the behavior of Bush on 9/11....all the prior knowledge of the impending attacks...etc.

But a dead horse is a dead horse. I'm only here to make points in discussions of real importance, on issues that effect us & the world. I'm not really here to play online games & pop in once a while for a one-liner on the Politics DB. I am mission-oriented.

Because of that, it is true, I have to be able to post on the issue that concerns me, because to me, it is the important post to make. To this point, AD has not blocked any of my posts. But he has maneuvered to put himself into a position to be ABLE to block them, with an official excuse for doing so to explain his moves. And his continual posting of these "new guidelines" are intended to announce the fact that the board needs to be controlled, and he is going to do it.

I'm not much interested in a controlled board, except the basic need to not use profanity & to keep discussion more or less civil. Nor will I consent to allow my debating opponent to use his authority as a moderator to "guide the debate."

Now, we could debate all day on whether he is actually attempting to do that. Although, strictly speaking, such a debate is already off-limits, and a challenge of moderating principles is supposed to be handled by PM. Now, I'm not here to attack or harass the moderator. I'm here to discuss what I like to discuss, make the points I like to make, copy-&-paste items of interest, provide links I consider useful, etc. When the moderator tells me I must begin censoring myself or he will do it for me, he goes too far, in my opinion.

You said, again: "so thats it then???? Im taking my ball and going home????"

That's a good analogy. The playing field must be even & competitive. We don't need an umpire with a personal stake in which team wins....whatever the reasons for that stake, or whatever the game. Otherwise, sure, why not go home? When I played pee-wee football, we were undefeated and went into a team's stadium where the local refs were determined to give the other team the game. Finally, shortly into the 3rd quarter, our coach looked at the team and pointed up the bleachers and said: "To the bus!" We left the stadium in mid-game. I've always admired him for doing that.

The Usurper:

I've not declared the 9/11 discussion a dead horse.  I said that as long as there is a discussion about it it's fine by me.  For all I care, if the board wants to talk 9/11 stuff until the cows come home that will be ok.  But if it's a one-man-show, well then there is a limit to how long it should go.  No one is interested in having ideas shoved down their throats.

If you are mission-oriented, this is not the place to accomplish a mission.  We are few in number.  Try theologyweb.com.  The big boys hang out there.  There are other forums as well but theologyweb has many PhD's that participate. 

Post on any issue you want.  No one is saying you can't.  But don't be condesending, divisive, dominating, and if there is no interest in a particular topic, let it go.   There are a hundred other political topics to discuss.

I have always been in a position to block posts if I had good reason.  I have maneuvered nothing.  This board is still in its infancy.  I have rightly set up parameters so that no one person can dominate or push their agenda.  It's not a conspiracy.  I need no "excuse" to block posts if they are considered divisive or too aggressive.  I've always been in a positon to moderate posts. 

The guidelines are not an announcement that this board needs to be controled.  On the contrary, it's more an announcement that this board will be run in a way that is fair-minded and gives all participants equal voice.  It is also an attempt to head any and all problems "off at the pass."  As I said already, these guidelines can be found on many forums.  Check out the more popular fourms and you will find they all have posting guidelines.  Operate withing the parameters of the board and you have complete freedom.  There is no "control" over what is discussed.

You may not be interested in a controled board, but I'm less interested in any one person dominating the board, or forcing their agenda down the throats of others. 

I have no intention of using my authority to guide the debate.  I will bring things back within the parameters should things stray too far.  Any moderator worth his or her salt would do the same (or should).

There is no reason to "debate" the guidelines.  No one even knows how the board will be affected by the guidelines.  They are certainly not restrictive.  Is 9/11 the only topic in the world we can discuss?  Hardly.  If people are interested in it, chat away.  If not, drop it.  When will you be satisfied you've said enough of the subject?

If you want to provide links of interest, do it.  If you want to copy and paste items of interest, do it.  But if these links and copy/paste items are a substitue for an argument, then we have a problem.

I have items of interest I will post from time to time as well.  There are ways to do this that are in keeping with the guidelines.  I've put out ideas for discussion in the past.  If people ignored or didn't comment on the items I posted, I'd go on to the next one.

I'm not the umpire and I have no stake in which team wins.  The analogy doesn't fit here.  I haven't moderated anyone to silence them.  I've handicapped no one when a discussion was taking place.  That will never happen unless there is a flagrant violation of etiquette.

There is another alternative open to the board.  If people don't like the decisions I've made, go to the globals.  If they agree with you, they have the authority to remove me and find a replacement.  If they made that decision, I'd have no power to stop them.  I'd be out and someone else would take over.  That's the way the system works.

Artful Dodger: Thank you for your well-considered response. As long as I am not restricted, I am happy. I note in passing that this is your first response to any post of mine in about 3 weeks....even to posts that were directed to you. That is your privilege. And as long as it is my privilege to post things of interest to me, whether or not others choose to ignore those posts, again....I am happy.

As to my "mission," everyone who posts brings a point of view to the table. Especially on a Politics board. This seems a good place to me to challenge the views of others and to present my own views. Again, this is politics.

As to 9/11, it is one subject I've posted a great deal about. The posts have been fewer of late...I've made my points. But I also post on a variety of other subjects, politics-related. The "theme" of my posts is that there is an elite conspiracy we ought to be aware of & try to stop. 9/11 seems to be a good catalyst for waking people up to that. But there are other avenues. Lately I've been focusing on some of those other avenues.

I'm learning too. I've even been forced to abandon some well-cherished positions I formerly held, the further I've researched & thought about the issues at stake. Where my opinions have changed, I've been honest enough to point it out here, and to concede points scored by my debating opponents.

To sum up....I have posted here not only because I think it is potentially useful for others, but also because it is useful for me, to clarify my thoughts, to hear objections & consider them. Once I feel that the law of diminishing returns makes it no longer useful to myself and/or potentially to others, I will probably move on.

Again, thank you for your response.

Everyone is free to post whatever they want.  Just keep the guidelines in view.  That is an expectation for everyone.  

"Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be greatful! This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all people of the world will plead with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being granted to them by their world government."
--Henry Kissinger in an address to the Bilderberg meeting at Evian, France, May 21, 1992. Transcribed from a tape recording made by one of the Swiss delegates.

The significance of this quote is that it reveals the elite conspiracy.

How about discussing Queensland politics?

we had an election yesterday....what are your views on that?

there is a country outside the USA you know.

The Usurper:How exactly does it reveal that?

Bernice: I agree with you.

Bernice:  There is?  lol  Tell us more about the election. 

The Usurper: I'm not much interested in a controlled board, except the basic need to not use profanity & to keep discussion more or less civil. Nor will I consent to allow my debating opponent to use his authority as a moderator to "guide the debate."


I can agree with you on this point for sure

Czuch:  So do I.  But you need controlling Czuch   j/k

Artful Dodger:

Artful Dodger: "How exactly does it reveal that?"

Kissinger is predicting the future to his fellow co-conspirators, is he not? He is saying Americans in the future will willingly abandon individual rights, and will accept world government, through the mechanism of fear. I'm not sure how much more obvious it could be.

Czuch:So are you going to watch the 9/11 video?  If you do, I will and then we can compare notes. 

The Usurper:It's not obvious just by looking at the quote.  I've seen similar quotes regarding the nature of people and their attitudes toward freedom.  What's missing is a context to put things with and a bit of an explanation as to how you conclude these are his fellow conspirators.  I see nothing in that quote to indicate that. 

Artful Dodger: I see your point. It is possible that Kissinger is simply arguing that Americans are vulnerable to an elite conspiracy, without himself being a member of it. In order to make the further point, that there IS a conspiracy, and that he is a part of it, context is required.

The fact that he would SAY this, is significant, considering who Kissinger is, and his political power. He is speaking to the Bilderberg group, a secretive organization of world leaders. I say secretive because they meet privately & do not reveal their agenda publicly. To understand how he is speaking to co-conspirators, therefore, would require some knowledge of the Bilderberg group, for which there are some good books out there.

Everything requires context. And every argument assumes some level of common understanding as a foundation. It is possible that someone has never heard of either Kissinger or the Bilderberg group...in which case the quote, while its point about the possibility of using fear to drive Americans into world government may be clear, nevertheless may not drive home the point that such a scenario is a real plan in the making.

The Usurper:As I understand it, the Bilderberg group started in the early 50's and did so to counter the anti-American sentiment in Europe.  As for secretive, that's true.  They do meet in secret.  But could it be that they don't want what they do say to be misconstrued (as the press does so well) and they don't want things taken out of context.  Also, since what is said in there could have international political ramifications, it's not surprising that they want to protect the need to speak freely without the fear that some reporter with a desire to break a big story will take their words and create an international crisis.

I'm just saying that there are several reasonable explanations for most situations.  Conspiracy is just one.  You may be right in your analysis.  But it's not an obvious conclusion. 

Artful Dodger: It's true, many explanations are possible, and there is no getting around deeper research to weigh the relative merits & demerits of any possibility.

An interesting point about the Bilderberg meetings is that major news media are always present & well represented. Not only so, but the owners of the various news media also attend. So while it may be true that there is a fear of "common reporters" (and this I believe is true), it also seems likely that the leaders of the "Fourth Estate" are bedfellows with leaders of the other three Estates...not a very healthy arrangement, I would think. And it tends to support the conspiracy model.

Czuch: "I can agree with you on this point for sure"

All agreements between you and I are hard-earned, so I appreciate your post.

Ok now, back to reading "Who's Who of the Elite: Members of the Bilderbergs, Council on Foreign Relations & Trilateral Commission," by Robert Gaylon Ross, Sr.

They don't call me "the little engine that could" for nothing. lol

Artful Dodger: well....we voted LOL....it is compulsory over here...$70 fine if you don't.

But you do have the option of a donkey vote.

Labour went back it was a case of better the devil you know than the devil you don't I think.

There is no money left in the coffers so how the promises are going to be fulfilled beats me.

Another 3-4 years before Qld has another so we have to put up with the ones we got LOL

OH....a woman became premier....the first woman to be voted in in her own right....so history was made I guess ROFLMBO

Here's a great commentary by Republican Congressman Ron Paul, entitled:

"Commentary: GOP should ask why U.S. is on the wrong track"

In his commentary he discusses the reasons for the demise of Republican political power and the inherent folly of the Democratic power that has replaced it....and recommends the way back. One of his closing statements is:

"To ignore the political struggle and only 'hope for the best' is pure folly. The march toward a dictatorial powerful state is now in double time."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/11/paul.republican/index.html