AJC: another insidious Zionist network
Page 5 of 5

Author:  UncleZook [ Sun Jun 01, 2014 6:12 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: AJC: another insidious Zionist network

Two posts that illuminate Mags' hypocrisy and gameplaying. I can't rebut there in the suspension threads, not being a chosen one ... so I'll use Mr. ULY's thread here to highlight Mags gameplaying.

More than two months had passed before the Suspension Poll-Andwight thread was reactivated with renewed interest by Mags, our self-purported paragon of speech virtues:

Re: Suspension poll - andywight
Postby magamud » Thu May 29, 2014 5:22 pm
I would like to vote in favor of Andywights first official banning.

Since we have identified Andy as a sociopath, I submit he is disqualified from any position of power and loses his vote earned.

Can we reset the vote?

... then ... a mere three days after the reactivation, Mags posts the following:

Re: Suspension poll - andywight
Postby magamud » Sun Jun 01, 2014 10:00 am
I relinquish my vote and concede control of the board to Chic.

It's quite disgusting, really. He doesn't even have the guts to pull the trigger, himself. Mags wants Chico to do the dirty work of banning those that Mags deems unfit for this forum ... so that Chico gets the fallout later ... while Mags gets what he wants. In the best case, Cupid is too dense to notice that the tail is wagging the dog.


ps: And now we find that Chico is using Screech Owl as a precedent to ban Andy for two days.

ps2: "What's that, Chico? Yours is the most accommodating free speech forum on the internet??

ps3: ... erm ... yeah, ok ... let's have another round of beer for our little green buddies from the big saucer in the parking lot ... and two rounds of green beer for the two little men of United People. Worsh down that humble pie. :lol:

Author:  Chicodoodoo [ Sun Jun 01, 2014 6:13 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: AJC: another insidious Zionist network

Hmmm, sociopaths are pathological liars, and here we have two cooperating known sociopaths spinning their webs of intrigue. Should we believe them?

We do so at our own risk. The relevance of the true identity of the banned Heebert at Universal Spectrum seems insignificant to me. We all know and accept that forum members can be as anonymous as they choose to be. It is, after all, my choice that I post my actual picture on the forums I choose to participate in, just as it is Andy's choice not to post his actual picture. But I can understand why the mystery of Heebert would be highly significant to two sociopaths hell-bent on character assassinating me. For sociopaths, the ends justify the means.

Page 5 of 5 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group