Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-07-04 17:24:30)
To be fair he's on like his fourth or fifth long term account. So he's been mod slapped multiple times.Dilbert_X wrote:
For every troll post of mine I'll find 20 of yours - and the mods did give you a free pass.
thats a sig. sig has nothing to do with posts. so, you just proved, that right there was trolling. adding nothing to the discussion except flame.Dilbert_X wrote:
For every troll post of mine I'll find 20 of yours - and the mods did give you a free pass.
Your "Muslims should be shot with depleted uranium" sig was gold.
Last edited by 11 Bravo (2010-07-04 17:37:39)
Last edited by 11 Bravo (2010-07-04 17:53:37)
Last edited by 11 Bravo (2010-07-04 17:59:38)
you think very highly of yourself. you bore me tbh.Uzique wrote:
he-ey as long as im being an entertainer rather than an endless-drag and constant irritable moan... right...
Last edited by 11 Bravo (2010-07-04 18:17:22)
Maybe you should explain what you mean by 'changed'.11 Bravo wrote:
i do when a thread aint destroyed by you guys. i can prove that. many threads in the past were great. things changed when trolls like you came in.Uzique wrote:
and you are the building blocks of every good d&st thread! with such astute, erudite contributions!
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-07-04 19:55:37)
http://wbipi.blogspot.com/Bertster7 wrote:
A group of nutballs, running a load of related sites. Some of which have been shut down.Dilbert_X wrote:
Trouble is you present the source as being some kind of authority, when its actually some unabomberesque nutball.lowing wrote:
then don't attack the source, attack the information in the source. Who cares if it from a racist ( which I do not claim it is) if you disagree with the information refute it and lay off of your playbook.
Then you ignore any information which doesn't agree with yours.
You don't present arguments, you present statements and challenge people to prove them wrong.
There's Glen Reinsford of cairbaby.com (shut down) and religionofpeace.com - which seems to be lowings main source for everything.
There's Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch, where we can see numerous references to the fact that cairbaby was shut down and a campaign for web blocks imposed by filtering companies to be removed for the religionofpeace site.
There's also Khalim Massoud of Muslims Against Sharia - a hilarious site obviously not run by Muslims. His responses to emails he was sent regarding defamation law suits are quite in line with what one might expect:Subject: Re: Law suits, ain’t this grand
Are you threatening me, you little biatch? You must have been sucking cousin dad’s xxxx for too long, if you really think that a demented piece of sxxt like you could scare anyone. And if you weren’t that stupid, you’d know that if you’re a Christian or a Jew, we’re praying to the same God, you retarded inbred. Also, you unhealthy fascination with larva is troubling. You should discuss it with a shrink at the free clinic, you dumb piece of white trash (Bill Warner).
From: Khalim Massoud [email protected]Just a few examples from the website of a Private Investigator who has done some investigating of these dodgy websites. As a result of this, Muslims Against Sharia have had their PO box revoked by the USPS:From: Khalim Massoud [email protected]
Muslims Against Sharia
To: BW (Bill Warner)
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 7:08 PM
Subject:Re: Law suits, ain’t this grand
You told on me, you little piece of sxxt (Bill Warner)? Obviously a little biatch like you is too much of a chicken sxxt to handle anything herself. I am surprised that you haven’t dug up the “fact” that I’m not a real Muslim, etc. etc. etc..
You (Bill Warner) must have been excessively molested as a child to feel that insecure at your advanced age. Ever considered counseling?
Khalim Massoud
President
Muslims Against Sharia
[email protected]
241732 PO Box, OMAHA, NE 68124
http://pibillwarner.files.wordpress.com … &h=485
Some people will persist in using stupid sources, rather than mainstream sources. If only there were some criteria on what sort of sources are acceptable, then it would avoid all this nonsense.
Just because some nutjob has a blog does not make them a credible source. That is something that leads to lots of problems in D&ST and perhaps there should be a stickied thread explaining what constitutes a credible source (the sort of things you would imagine are common sense for most people) and that information taken from sources that do not conform with those guidelines should be taken with a pinch of salt?
I never claimed I am right. I claim there is substantial evidence to show Islam in the negative light it basks in. You deny all of it and dismiss it as isolated incidences that have nothing to do with Islam, and when I ask you to support that opinion with some facts, you claim you do not have to because you see no need to waste your time with such bullshit. It is ridiculous how you guys form arguments.Dilbert_X wrote:
The point is, YOU need to do that here.lowing wrote:
As far as the information I have site, it can be verified based on current events, and media outlets. It also sources its information used. Something you would KNOW if you actually read the information.
"I'm right cuz islamwatch.com sez so" isn't an argument, or a debate.
It would be like saying "joos r evul cuz it sez so in 'Mein Kampf' you reed it and go argue with Hitteler"
