arjay I note your rudeness is still a part of your posts.
And ignored a verbal rock hurled at me in another thread.
It is in your interests, not mine, I think you should understand your concerns are fueled by ideas not shared by many.
It is unwise to stand on your hill blasting the majority for being Different, then making claim all but you are wrong.

Belly I've been ver patient with you in the past.You are also rude along with yabby and Pericles with your constant innuendo of me be some conspiracy nutter.I take exception to that.All of you constantly fail to debate the reality of what I say.I find that very deceptive and beyond rude.It is called obfuscation.If the cap fits Belly,wear it.

This, Arjay, is the crux of why you're gathering so many enemies.

"All of you constantly fail to debate the reality of what I say."

You use the term 'reality' to insinuate that what we say is not real, but everything you say is.

The chain of debate works as one person (Person A) puts forward an argument, then the next person (Person B) puts forward an opposing view, or critiques the first argument.

In that situation, Person A has the choice of providing sources that back his claim. Person B then has the right to assess the reliability of said source.

It's at this point that your arguments have tended to go off the rails. When people have pointed out that you discount the views of the vast majority and instead latch onto a single extremist who supports your views, you react with bile, anger and dismissal.

Which, tends to generate the same response in those who debate you.

You claim your opponents don't listen to you, but it's mostly because you've been a broken record - plus, you don't really listen to them. Case in point, I never mentioned 9/11 yet here it is.

Say what you will about me, but I'll defend your right to speak out. Sure, I've occasionally said you should give the conspiracy theories a rest, and I'll tear your arguments to pieces on occasion but I've never said anything like:

"Suzanonline, you like many cannot understand the important issues."

Isn't that a tad condescending?

I've also never told somebody to be quiet and not talk at all - I would quote that comment but I see that it's been removed.

Four key things for you to remember for next time:

1) Focus on the arguments, not the people.
2) Respect that other people disagree and the fact that they disagree with you isn't because they're stupider than you.
3) Your sources need to be defended, just like anybody else's.
4) Don't ever tell people to be quiet.

Case in point TRTL,you were not mentioned in the 911 issue.This trio of pericles,yabby Belly have had a long vendetta against me and will not argue the reality.There is no point discussing anything with them.This is why I tell them to move on.

Some people are so locked into their left or right ideology that they cannot see the forest for the trees.Belly is so tribal with his precious labor Party he will not find fault no matter how corrupt and dishonest they are.We cannot trust either of the major parties since they both do the bidding of large corp interests while pretending to help the masses.

Innuendo, Arjay?

>>You are also rude along with yabby and Pericles with your constant innuendo of me be some conspiracy nutter.<<

Innuendo -n 1. An indirect or subtle, usually derogatory implication in expression

It hadn't occurred to me that I was being either indirect or subtle. I thought I had made it perfectly clear, on a number of occasions, that your fixation with conspiracy theories permanently clouds your judgment.

It seems that whenever you have a choice between a widely accepted version of events, and one that involves a New World Order, or a cabal of international "banksters" colluding on society's downfall, or the clandestine actions of the CIA/Military/Industrial complex, you go for the conspiracy theory, every time.

This is not healthy.

And this is simply untrue:

>>All of you constantly fail to debate the reality of what I say<<

On any number of occasions, I have pointed out that your source material does not support your theory - the Rumsfeld speech on 10th Sept 2001, for example - and also attempted to outline for you the basics of economics and banking, to help and guide you towards more intelligible posts. Your response is, invariably, to ignore facts, and cleave to your "theories". Even today, you regurgitate stuff that makes absolutely no sense, simply because you refuse to educate yourself on the basics:

>>One way forward is to make the RBA create the new money to equal GDP + inflation instead if borrowing from the US Federal Reserve who just create it from nothing anyway.What's wrong with the RBA computers? Are they inferior to the US ones or the Chinese ones?<<

There is so much wrong-headed illogic in just those three sentences, that it is impossible to know where to start unravelling your thinking processes.

Disagreeing with you is not being rude, Arjay. Questioning your interpretation of events is not an insult.

When you write outlandish and barely-credible stuff, you must expect to be challenged. It's called a debate, something to treat with respect, and to learn from.

Arjay it may be of use for you to know this.
Long ago you lost me.
I over 12 months ago said give it a miss, talking to arjay is not discussion, and not debate, its letting myself be insulted.
But we have different reasons for posting, some may have a need.
I just wanted to include you, to talk but not get to involved, so you did not feel isolated.
I have said good by to you many times.
Yet re entered conversations with you.
Your insults have become worse, I truly think, honestly, you are not totally responsible for that.
But mate, it is time, my honest hope you get control stay away from the conspiracy forums and get well.
Please ignore my future posts as I do yours.