Ableton Forum

dum wrote:

ikeaboy wrote:Jesus suggesting you can't voice an opinion unless you're willing to spend all your days championing it is a bit fucking trite isn't it?
Is UKRuss picketing interfaith conferences as we speak?
What do you think the people who give time to this shit are posers, more so than musicians? .
And Dum you were helping the discussion by using clear lucid points why bother tacking on insults at the end? are you My Cousin Vinny?

I don't think the insults were unwarranted.
Maybe you should read the thread from the start again.
Who started using terms like 'morons' 'idiots' 'fuck off' etc first ?
leeds joined to troll, and purely to troll. ukruss joined to drop a red herring, and started with the 'incendiary' references to people's intelligence (or lack thereof). failstation got off to an OK start, but quickly got into his 'morons' 'fail' etc phase.

And as for a little context, leeds just joined to troll out of spite. I speculated that he must be a cockend for either trolling this topic as he did, or trolling purely out of spite for me. Hardly whacky of me to say so. But beyond that, I did also tackle the ideas & opinions he put forward. He didn't take the opportunity to retort on that level, he chose to post an ad-hominem and leave. Last time I posted a topic related to Gaza, it was to link to a documentary 'unseen gaza' ... failstation was there trolling, as you might expect, and United Kingdom Russ joined to drop the racist slur I quoted above. Which the mod had to caution him on, rightfully. So, he joins this thread to drop a red herring. Fair enough, and I offered him a counter-argument. I also suggested he was fat & lazy - which he is - and now he's acting majorly butthurt because I said so.

So really, why single me out for tacking insults to the points I make ? I don't mind the guys insulting me or others... I will also provide and focus on arguments & counter-arguments to further the discussion. What's going on here, is that ukruss is incapable of defending his argument...and is therefore hanging on to this ludicrous notion that he's above receiving an ad-hominem, or indeed delivering one.

UKRuss wrote:start incendiary internet flame wars.

ha! how rich.

Maybe they weren't unwarranted, just unnecessary, you were doing grand on the pure fact front (I thought anyway) that's why I mentioned it in relation to you specifically. I think you're getting trolled partly because you care passionately about the topic, regardless of your point of view, by people who seem to be buying into the attitude you see a lot of people show regarding anyone who has a non- mainstream point of view. Point and sneer from the security of the crowd. Some people started disagreeing with your point of view and then started abusing you for having a point of view. But you were getting trolled never the less and you feed the trolls by throwing back abuse no? Maybe I'm wrong I never had any stomach for forum arguments they always did my head in and I reckon it's put a lot of people off reading the thread, it seemed like a wider variety of people were posting before it got nasty, which is a shame because it was people swapping points with 3dot and Loop Station Zebra (before he started acting like a prick) . UKRuss just seems very keen to roll out his (or Dawkins or is it Hitchens?) opinions on religion and takes it personal when its pointed out that it's not helpful or relevant.

That's more like it. (apart from once again falling into a final veiled insult, but thats just how you roll since I assume you accept it is unliklely that I am actually clinically retarded. Or do I need to post medical evidence? Perhaps we can agree to dispense with the ad hominems?).

I think it is also OK for other people not to know as much as you believe you do on a particular topic of debate that you chose and still to have a valid opinion. I imagine we could all choose topics that we feel we have a superior knowledge on. I have two theses sitting in university libraries, i could chose those. Unfortunately neither are on topics of any interest to the general public. You get my point though.

And this is an interesting debate, albeit a very old one. It is a renewed topic of interest becasue of the flotilla attack and the renewed focus on the gaza strip. However, you could have started the post with your debating points and I still feel you posted for incendiary reasons and for that reason alone I didn't feel foolish in any way launching into an internet rant on religion. It suited the thread IMO.

It also seems to be a recurring theme of yours that in order to hold any valid opinion we must be able to cite references. I would argue that unless you are going to post cross-references holding the opposing view you are not really debating regardless of whether or not you agree with one side or the other. A reference posted in support of your own argument simply means you have researched to a degree that simply supports your own way of thinking, nothing more. But you may mean that too. If you do, I agree.

I don't disagree with anything you've said otherwise except on one major point.

I believe that when it comes down to it, the hatred, even though it may appear to be a political tactic to control the will of the people, stems ultimately from religion and therefore it is religion that causes the division.

If the zionists use religion to control their people and further their own ends then it is still religion that is there to be used as a tool. If it was not there, they would have to find another tool. maybe they would find one, but at the moment it is religion becasue it is the one thing that unites the people against their perceived threat.

We shoudl consider the threat too. Palestine, wjhy is it so important for them to be controlled? Security? possibly. Resources? What resources? What is there in Gaza that could be os so much interest to Israel? Nothing. land possibly? but it's not as if they are bursting at the seams. So why do they really want to destroy palestine and it's people? There is only one outstanding difference between them: Religion. The real driver? Annihilation of one religion to protect the religious interests of the other.

Therefore by simple logic, and without reference, I claim that if religion was removed from the equation (even if that is an impossible dream) the problem would be a different one and it would be a simple 'war over resources' as most wars are. Since there are no resources worth a damn such as oil, then it is likely there would be no trouble. historically the problem would not have existed if Judaism and Islam did not exist.

My logic stems from the follwing argument:

Lets assume there is on true god, a belief held by christians, muslims and jews alike. Let us also say for the sake of argument that 1 billion people believe in each of these three religions and there are no other religions. If there is only one true god then 66.67% of relgious believers are wrong.

That is the best they can hope for.

Political wranglings and the league of nations treaty leading to the british mandate caused the problem. that is a historical fact. The palestinians have been the vitim because they do not have the same resources and backing as the israelis, that is also a fact. but the terrorism, the bombing and the intentional imprisonment of the palestinians is a matter of religious control over the holiest of holy lands. These arabs are the only muslims they can control. Therefore they do, because they can and it is dispicable.

But you cannot see it in isolation, you must recall the lebanese wars, where militias were named by religion, you cannot ignore the influence of Egypt, Jordan, Syria in the equation, Islamic nations one and all. How about Irans continuous will to 'wipe israel from the face of the earth'. Why?

Is this is a simple race issue? Arab vs Jew

For me: no. Becaue neither of these people are races in my view, they are united by one thing: Religion and it is religion that drives them even if that then gets manipulated in politics.

ikeaboy. I think I have pointed out why I believe it is relevant. You are obviously not aware of Dums past as troll extraordinaire on these 'ere boards. And of course, here comes Dawkins. All atheists must agree with Dawkins. I'm more of a Bertrand Russell fan myself. He has a great name.

UKRuss wrote: ikeaboy. You are obviously not aware of Dums past as troll extraordinaire on these 'ere boards.

Exactly. There's no thread he's started - ever - where he doesn't quickly start unleashing vitriol. Threads he doesn't start? Same.

He's been booted over and over for his shit, but loves us too much to let us go.

I'll get to the points ukruss raises in a while
but on the topic of trolling, I can give a quick summary.

My supposed trolling career:

1: complain about ableton's business model, advertised features that aren't delivered for nigh on a year etc. Result: legions of fanboys troll me and subsequently we never get on. troll counter troll etc.

2: unsympathetic to americans in political threads started by others (eventually start my own political threads). Result: legions of the more-or-less the same people troll me and subsequently we never get on. troll counter troll etc.

3: some dude who my main detractors are very fond of disrespects my family (because I'm a popular whipping post), i disrespect his family (only better) and subsequently we never get on. troll counter troll etc.

Entirely.

If I'm the guy you say I am, my banning streak would be merely down to the majorly butthurt constantly, and hypocritically, complaining to the mod to the point he gave in. There is no doubt in my mind that if I was a fanboy I would never have been banned - despite everything else. I have never, once, 'trolled' newbs. Fanboys have a history of shitting on newbs without consequence. Which would you say is more important ? Newbs getting a fair shot, or some forum-whore who feels slighted ?


That's about it. If I'm who you think I am, it's merely a matter of mob mentality ruling the day.
Dennis PM'd me a while back telling me people were demanding I be banned (again?), I put it to him exactly as I see it, and I haven't been banned yet. I have not changed the way I post since that PM either.


anyway, failstation... look who's talking. the only thing that keeps you from being banned is you play to the in-crowd. and you're an unimaginative fuck, so double 'fail'.

UKRuss wrote: I believe that when it comes down to it, the hatred, even though it may appear to be a political tactic to control the will of the people, stems ultimately from religion and therefore it is religion that causes the division.

If the zionists use religion to control their people and further their own ends then it is still religion that is there to be used as a tool. If it was not there, they would have to find another tool. maybe they would find one, but at the moment it is religion becasue it is the one thing that unites the people against their perceived threat.

I don't know if you can see the apparent contradiction here, but IMO this is where you're getting caught up. Religion is being used as a way to get people on both sides to be more devout in their animosity towards each other, but in no way is it the base reason. You even state that politicians are using religion to control people. In the cold war politics was used to get americans to fear russians, and visa versa. Since the USSR was officially an atheist state, it would be safe to say religion wasn't being used to control people....
Politics and people in power in general will always use whatever they can to control people and divide, you even state that "they would have to find another tool", which history is filled with, simply thousands of christian VS christian wars etc. So exactly how is the conflict about religion then?

We all know what the conflict is about, but we avoid addressing it directly. Ethnic group A (jews) get terrorized by barely religious extreme ethnic fascist state.
Old empire UK hands over occupied territory to A. Ethnic group B (palestinians) is quickly a minority, and other ethnic groups flip out. Ethnic group B is now considered a nuisance
by A, rights are took away. Rest of world acts like it's all B's fault conveniently because rest of world still feels like a douche bag for not paying attention to A's plight at the hands of
extreme ethnic fascists.
Religion has only a surface involvement here. At the core it's a matter of palestinians feeling from day one they were out numbered and marginalized, and Israelis feeling like any threat is some sort of pogrom starting up, and pretty much starting one themselves in retaliation.

UKRuss wrote:However, you could have started the post with your debating points and I still feel you posted for incendiary reasons and for that reason alone I didn't feel foolish in any way launching into an internet rant on religion. It suited the thread IMO.

No. You can't claim to be familiar with my political inclinations, and in the same breath claim I'm feigning them for incendiary reasons. Who else is posting about palestine ? No one. Someone's got to do it, everything else is discussed.

UKRuss wrote: It also seems to be a recurring theme of yours that in order to hold any valid opinion we must be able to cite references.

I ask people to cite references when they are presenting something as FACT. If they claim their opinions are based on facts, then it's only reasonable to requests sources. This is the right way of going about things, no ? Anyone asks me for a reference and they get it.
3dot's wiki link PATENTLY should have some citations in it. Any. even one.

UKRuss wrote: I believe that when it comes down to it, the hatred, even though it may appear to be a political tactic to control the will of the people, stems ultimately from religion and therefore it is religion that causes the division.

nope. You can only really apply that logic, if you insist, on one side of the conflict. The aggressors side. if palestinians were atheists they would react just the same. and there are long lists of jews who condemn zionism with fierce vigor. however, their back is not against the wall as it is for the palestinians - hence no endemic 'homegrown' terrorist activity in israel.

UKRuss wrote: If the zionists use religion to control their people and further their own ends then it is still religion that is there to be used as a tool. If it was not there, they would have to find another tool. maybe they would find one, but at the moment it is religion becasue it is the one thing that unites the people against their perceived threat.

Sure, I've already stated and always have that zionism hijacks religious rhetoric. No argument from me there. Their perceived 'threat' by the way , are the victims of their ruthless occupation. That's like saying a rapist is 'threatened' by his victim and justifies murdering them, imprisoning them etc on those grounds. Nonsense.

UKRuss wrote: We shoudl consider the threat too. Palestine, wjhy is it so important for them to be controlled? Security? possibly. Resources? What resources? What is there in Gaza that could be os so much interest to Israel? Nothing. land possibly? but it's not as if they are bursting at the seams. So why do they really want to destroy palestine and it's people? There is only one outstanding difference between them: Religion. The real driver? Annihilation of one religion to protect the religious interests of the other.

The real question is why AMERICA want's to pay for this occupation. That zionists want to occupy the region, on whatever grounds, is not as important as how they achieve it. So again, religion is totally moot. Barring of course the rhetoric used by the aggressors. Hmmm..why would America want a strong hold in the middle east....hmmmm...

UKRuss wrote: Therefore by simple logic, and without reference, I claim that if religion was removed from the equation (even if that is an impossible dream) the problem would be a different one and it would be a simple 'war over resources' as most wars are. Since there are no resources worth a damn such as oil, then it is likely there would be no trouble. historically the problem would not have existed if Judaism and Islam did not exist.

My logic stems from the follwing argument:

Lets assume there is on true god, a belief held by christians, muslims and jews alike. Let us also say for the sake of argument that 1 billion people believe in each of these three religions and there are no other religions. If there is only one true god then 66.67% of relgious believers are wrong.

That is the best they can hope for.

Political wranglings and the league of nations treaty leading to the british mandate caused the problem. that is a historical fact. The palestinians have been the vitim because they do not have the same resources and backing as the israelis, that is also a fact. but the terrorism, the bombing and the intentional imprisonment of the palestinians is a matter of religious control over the holiest of holy lands. These arabs are the only muslims they can control. Therefore they do, because they can and it is dispicable.

Wrong. They are brutally occupying the region, the indigenous are resisting. Nothing more, nothing less.
the faith of the palestinians is really of little to no consequence, if they resist - they resist. And of course they will resist an occupying force.

UKRuss wrote: But you cannot see it in isolation, you must recall the lebanese wars, where militias were named by religion, you cannot ignore the influence of Egypt, Jordan, Syria in the equation, Islamic nations one and all. How about Irans continuous will to 'wipe israel from the face of the earth'. Why?

Desperate people do desperate things. if they were left alone, there would be no militia. and subsequently no need to come up with 'inspiring' names for militias.

Did the IRA detonate bombs in england because you don't believe in the virgin mary ? or because of the shameful way republicans were treated in their own sovereign land ? If I had a penny for everytime some perplexed yank asked me why catholics and protestants don't get along. I'd buy myself a buchla.

ultimately smokescreens exist to keep the populace complicit, and even supportive, of brutally occupying foreign lands.

Shame was mentioned earlier. Shame is productive. And in some cases, it's the least you can do. Especially if you claim to be politically aware.

I must admit UkRuss you got me thinking and you put your points across well (in that post anyway) but, as the last two posts put so well, religion is a means to an end in this situation.

(Betrand Russel eh? your a better informed atheist than I had given you credit for, I thought you were part of the last wave. I'm off to wiki Betrand Russel )

dum wrote:I'll get to the points ukruss raises in a while
but on the topic of trolling, I can give a quick summary.

My supposed trolling career:

1: complain about ableton's business model, advertised features that aren't delivered for nigh on a year etc. Result: legions of fanboys troll me and subsequently we never get on. troll counter troll etc.

2: unsympathetic to americans in political threads started by others (eventually start my own political threads). Result: legions of the more-or-less the same people troll me and subsequently we never get on. troll counter troll etc.

3: some dude who my main detractors are very fond of disrespects my family (because I'm a popular whipping post), i disrespect his family (only better) and subsequently we never get on. troll counter troll etc.

Entirely.

If I'm the guy you say I am, my banning streak would be merely down to the majorly butthurt constantly, and hypocritically, complaining to the mod to the point he gave in. There is no doubt in my mind that if I was a fanboy I would never have been banned - despite everything else. I have never, once, 'trolled' newbs. Fanboys have a history of shitting on newbs without consequence. Which would you say is more important ? Newbs getting a fair shot, or some forum-whore who feels slighted ?


That's about it. If I'm who you think I am, it's merely a matter of mob mentality ruling the day.
Dennis PM'd me a while back telling me people were demanding I be banned (again?), I put it to him exactly as I see it, and I haven't been banned yet. I have not changed the way I post since that PM either.


anyway, failstation... look who's talking. the only thing that keeps you from being banned is you play to the in-crowd. and you're an unimaginative fuck, so double 'fail'.

Your psychosis is fucking ASTOUNDING. The rationalizations that you employ without fail (or with fail?) at every turn are disturbing. I knew you were a bit sick in the head, but this? EPIC.

So, to summarize your excuses: "Everyone else is an asshole. Out to get me."

But look, I suppose you got to calls em as you sees em, right? Bravo. Brav-fucking-Oh.

*LSZ backs up slowly, very slowly, with a smile on his face and palms facing forward*

LoopStationZebra wrote:
Your psychosis is fucking ASTOUNDING. The rationalizations that you employ without fail (or with fail?) at every turn are disturbing. I knew you were a bit sick in the head, but this? EPIC.

So, to summarize your excuses: "Everyone else is an asshole. Out to get me."

But look, I suppose you got to calls em as you sees em, right? Bravo. Brav-fucking-Oh.

*LSZ backs up slowly, very slowly, with a smile on his face and palms facing forward*

jesus, I thought I was supposed to be the one full of hyperbole ?
I'm not claiming innocence. I'm just not willing to accept ALL of the guilt re: trolling.
I was banned because of the amount of fanboys who, covertly, requested it. Don't buy my 'excuses'... fair enough. But then again, you're always on my jock - and you argue purely for the sake of it - so what's new.

if you're not kissing my ass or imitating me, you're going well out of your way to argue with me.
and I'm the one with psychosis....

by the way, feel free to genuinely contribute to the topic at hand. if you're even capable of sincerity.

btw, on the topic of iran.
they offered to escort any future aid convoys, and hamas said 'no thanks'

Turkey, on the other hand, are stepping up to the plate.

and the oft quoted 'wipe israel off the map' bit. It's always interesting to note how shocked people are at the utterance of such words. failing to grasp that the same thing happened to palestine only 60 years ago (go check out your map, look for palestine). My grandfather didn't kick the bucket until he was 95. Time flies when you're getting fucked.

dum wrote:if you're not kissing my ass or imitating me

Whoops. Add "Delusions of Grandeur" to the diagnosis.

by the way, feel free to genuinely contribute to the topic at hand. if you're even capable of sincerity.

Did that already. Received a 'failstation' notice from you; along with the usual tripe.


My view really hasn't changed on this topic:

1. My sympathy lies with the Palestianian people and their collective plight.


2. The 'aid flotilla' was little more than a hamfisted red-herring affair. "Let's masquerade that we're on a mission of mercy, but what this is really all about is showing that we can attempt to defy the blockade. If innocent people on board are murdered, all the better. Martyrdom on the high seas is something that we haven't tried yet, and it's fucking well worth a shot, eh?"

That they even bothered with the pretense of having any aid supplies on board was nothing short of laughable.

That this thing was purported and reported to ACTUALLY BE A MISSION OF MERCY is unquestionable. It's how the group trumped it to the press prior to launch (though, again, the press wasn't invited at the dock upon launch), and it's how the group reported it (along with pretty much every news outlet and government commentators) after the fact.


3. Lastly, I hold firm to my belief that this should have been ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY a REAL mission of mercy. I'll repost one of my earlier comments for posterity:

There also should have been an agreement that, in the event of an IDF attack, everyone hits the fucking deck in the prone position as a demonstration of peaceful protest and solidarity. You are either on a mission of mercy and peace, or you are not. This was a mission alright; just not the kind it should have been.

So there you are.
I'll expect your usual barrage of insults and ad hominems toot sweet.

dum wrote:btw, on the topic of iran.
they offered to escort any future aid convoys, and hamas said 'no thanks'

Turkey, on the other hand, are stepping up to the plate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdistan

funny... a thread about a real situation.. where people died.. turns into a dum(b) fest..

I smell an attention whore..

btw... all the "aid" from the mod ships is getting stacked up in a military facility because Hammas refuses to accept it(??!!)

..guess they don't need those wheelchairs and concrete that badly eh?

dum.. either you don't see the strategic plays taking place.. / your're trying to act naive..
in any case .. you're either dumb or a hateful puppy..and I don't think you're dumb

LoopStationZebra wrote:

dum wrote:if you're not kissing my ass or imitating me

Whoops. Add "Delusions of Grandeur" to the diagnosis.

heh, everything you accuse me of lately is basically a projection of your own behaviour, often times at exactly the same time as you're doing it.

The difference is I don't go around lambasting people for behaviour I'm guilty of taking part in myself.

seriously, just look at yourself. of all the posters to call me out for trolling ? consider yourself lucky you're so dependent on mass approval or your ban-streak would be identical to mine too.

LoopStationZebra wrote:

by the way, feel free to genuinely contribute to the topic at hand. if you're even capable of sincerity.

Did that already. Received a 'failstation' notice from you; along with the usual tripe.

heh, get over yourself. you want to invoke the word 'fail' when 9 people have been murdered in cold blood, I'm saying failstation because [a] you failed to comprehend the purpose of the flotilla it's ironic, given the context. Save the 'im so sensitive' bullshit for some newb who isn't familiar with you or your posts.

LoopStationZebra wrote: My view really hasn't changed on this topic:

1. My sympathy lies with the Palestianian people and their collective plight.


2. The 'aid flotilla' was little more than a hamfisted red-herring affair. "Let's masquerade that we're on a mission of mercy, but what this is really all about is showing that we can attempt to defy the blockade. If innocent people on board are murdered, all the better. Martyrdom on the high seas is something that we haven't tried yet, and it's fucking well worth a shot, eh?"

as I pointed out pages ago, the purpose the flotilla was to break the blockade, with landing the aid coming in at a very close second. When the aid was delivered by land in the following days (sans essentials), it was refused because - yes that's right - the purpose was to break the blockade ..not purely get aid into the region. If you read some newspapers instead of gizmodo et al, you might have been aware of the flotilla's intentions before the massacre.

you're assertion that they were intentionally seeking martyrdom is flimsy at best. you really think Bruguière is an impartial source ?

LoopStationZebra wrote: That they even bothered with the pretense of having any aid supplies on board was nothing short of laughable.

That this thing was purported and reported to ACTUALLY BE A MISSION OF MERCY is unquestionable. It's how the group trumped it to the press prior to launch (though, again, the press wasn't invited at the dock upon launch), and it's how the group reported it (along with pretty much every news outlet and government commentators) after the fact.

heh, the press weren't invited to the dock.... so that's your line of criticism now ? Interesting evolution. And you know 'they' weren't invited to the dock how ? ... by 'they' do you mean 'all' journalists ? elaborate.

LoopStationZebra wrote: 3. Lastly, I hold firm to my belief that this should have been ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY a REAL mission of mercy. I'll repost one of my earlier comments for posterity:

There also should have been an agreement that, in the event of an IDF attack, everyone hits the fucking deck in the prone position as a demonstration of peaceful protest and solidarity. You are either on a mission of mercy and peace, or you are not. This was a mission alright; just not the kind it should have been.

meaningless, the REAL mission was to break the blockade. why do you have such trouble understanding that ? In the event of an IDF attack.... I don't think anyone was expecting to see their comrades shot in the face. No one had planned for that kind of assault. This isn't the first flotilla/aid convoy by sea... they were expecting the routine '20 miles off the coast, towed to ashdod' response and I'm sure they had plans in place for that. They got something entirely different. If they had expected to be shot at, murdered, headshots, disproportionate reaction.... they'd have actually brought arms with them. Not just fucking kitchen utensils.

LoopStationZebra wrote: So there you are.
I'll expect your usual barrage of insults and ad hominems toot sweet.

heh, another beaut of a parting shot. Please. You're AT LEAST as guilty of employing ad-hominems as I am, only I'm willing to add substance to mine 9 times out of 10.