Your donations are appreciated and help keep this site running. Even the smallest amount helps.
Thankyou

 
PROMOTE YOUR SITE
HERE
Only $3 USD/month
TRUTHSPOON.COM
The man they can't recruit!
Welcome, Guest
Username: Password: Remember me

TOPIC: Truth Zone: Are We a "Hate" Site or a Free Speech Site?

Truth Zone: Are We a "Hate" Site or a Free Speech Site? 12 Jan 2014 01:46 #1

  • cowboy
  • cowboy's Avatar
  • Offline
  • User is blocked
  • Posts: 106
  • Likes received: 175
I have enjoyed the discussions on truth zone for the most part, but there have been several unsettling matters which I have yet to address explicitly. One ongoing concern, which others may or may not share, is whether we can create a forum that is truly an arena for free speech (within limited and reasonable guidelines), or whether this will devolve, as another forum has, into a niche, pointless "hate" site.

Even though this debate is but a few days old, some of the brand new members may not be familiar with it. A member named "vambo" signed up, who was critical of DIF, but also defended TPV. In particular, vambo stated/asked:

"Why all the negativity regarding TPV? It needs capital to survive, do people really think it's just a scam to fleece the gullible?
Do the BBC give a breakdown of costs? Does any business you or I contribute to do that? If you want media exposure from sympathetic sources then the same sources need peoples input, financially and/or physically, it doesn't just exist on warm air and good wishes."

truth-zone.net/forum/general-discussion/62551-david-icke-the-peoples-voice.html?start=580

To this forum's credit, vambo received quite a few reasonable, informed replies in response. However, vambo's characterization of the forum as "negative" did receive a rather sharp reply from Generic:

Oh no, we've got the f-ing TPV apologists here too as well :hahano:
What part of the manipulative, promise-breaking, goalpost-moving, donaters-ignoring, funds-demanding BS is not obvious? :nono:


At this point, vambo still remained reasonable in response, replying:

So the general consensus is a good idea badly executed? I like the idea, I encouraged it on DIF and put some money in, not a lot,some.
I also called the whingers on that forum cunts but that's only fair, there's too many simpering kiddies there who are armchair anarchists and therefore fair game for the written kicking.


So I'm going to assume all the naysayers here haven't given money or have but won't give more.
Are you going to do anything positive or pro active along these lines or just have a large bitch fest on the forum? Sounds a bit DIF to me.

When vambo realized that his "kharma points" had been negatively affected, s/he objected, implying that those who disagreed with him/her, did not have the courage to do so "publicly":

And whooosh, my karma now drops to 3 due to some skulker who won't put their head above the parapet.And like I give a fuck if I offend your delicate sensibilities, I'm not here to win a popularity contest, where's all the fucking backbone gone from the world? Man up or STFU.
And this was supposed to be a better alternative to the DIF armchair anarchists? Seriously?. Don't worry your little head about it, someone else will do the fighting, you wait until the dust settles then you can pledge allegiance to the victor.
Fucking useless hippy wankers.


At that point, pheony steps as moderator and states:

This rant was totally uncalled for. Unlike the DIF, members of TZ are free to have their say on this subject without worry of being made inactive or banned. We ask that all forum members treat each other with respect. Please take note!

All good and well. But a slight problem. Only vambo has been warned to "take note" for their "rant," and no one else.

Generic was not "warned" for his "rant" about "f'ng' apologists." Jonb was not warned for his name-calling, referring to vambo as one of the "sheep."

I am concerned that there is a double standard here. Generic and Jonb and presumably any other forum member who disagrees with David Icke, has objections to DIF or TPV, have free reign to taunt forum members who do. Whereas a forum member who AGREES with or supports any aspect of the TPV agenda or supports DIF or Ick or anyone associated with, has a much shorter leash.

A double standard exists.

I objected when I saw that Vambo had been singled out for punishment and moderation. As a result, I was accused falsely of "selectively quoting" certain posts, and of somehow slandering Generic. My objection is here:

truth-zone.net/forum/members-area/62990-the-karma-on-the-forum-should-it-go-or-should-it-stay.html?start=60

Yes, but the "ill will" goes both ways. Below is a recent snippet from the TPV debate.

As you can see, "pro" posted a not very offensive set of rhetorical questions in support of TPV. Karma? -6
"Pro" is then deluged with messages critical of TPV and of "pro," including one poster who refers to him and to another as "fucking apologists."

It is certainly out of line to use the term "bitch fest" but it is also equally inflammatory and insulting to call TPV supporters "fucking apologists."

The poster calling TPV supporters "fucking apologists" receives a thank you. The poster using the term bitchfest to refer to TPV critics receives -6 karma.

There is a clear double standard, where TPV critics can be as abusive as they wish, without penalty, whereas TVP supporters have an extremely short leash and are subjected to the letter of the law or worse.

While some insist this is an open forum, the moderation and punitive behavior towards dissenting opinions among general members suggest otherwise.

---

PRO: "Why all the negativity regarding TPV? It needs capital to survive, do people really think it's just a scam to fleece the gullible?
Do the BBC give a breakdown of costs? etc..." #581

CON: "Oh no, we've got the f-ing TPV apologists here too as well :hahano: What part of the manipulative, promise-breaking, goalpost-moving, donaters-ignoring, funds-demanding BS is not obvious? :nono:"

CON: "No, the general consensus is icke and his team are a bunch of lying bastads (sic) ."

CON: "Great First post... welcome 91181 :)"

PRO: "So I'm going to assume all the naysayers here haven't given money or have but won't give more. Are you going to do anything positive or pro active along these lines or just have a large bitch fest on the forum?" #600


Pheony then subtly, or not so subtly accused me of trying to distort the evidence, when in fact I had simply attempted to post specific posts for the sake of brevity. Instead of slinging more mud, I asked my account be made inactive:

@ cowboy...

If you want to make a valid point, I would suggest that you don't cherry-pick comments.

vambo was given a warning for unreasonable behaviour, which is there for all to see.

I have nothing else to say on the matter.


Jonb chimed in stating that I was "very biased" (bullshit: I only included the relevant attack posts on both sides from vambo and generic).

Generic said: "I stand by what I said (although he was not admonished or "moderated").

Generic weighs in again saying that my use of posts was "very selective" (bullshit: I included BOTH his and vambo's insult)

Irrepressible then concurs, saying "I can't understand anyone doing that," implying that I had been selective in order to paint generic in a bad light (again, complete bullshit as I included both vambo's and generic's insults in their correct order (namely, with generic slinging mud first).

Diamondgeezer sides with pheony:

Admin comment.

@ cowboy.

What our moderator pheony said to you regarding 'cherry-picking' other members comments and then quoting them in your post in a way that makes them appear out of context as you did was correct....you were pulled up on it for good reason.


Bullshit. I included the relevant insults: generic and vambo's, in their correct order: Generic slung mud first.

Jonb issues this more or less incoherent dig: "DG all I think Cowboy did was overplay his hand, its not that wrong..."

Conclusion:

I can understand the hard feelings towards DIF and TPV. But this forum is supposed to be better than those shoddy products. It supposedly allows for "free speech" as long as discussion is within reason. Let the evidence above show that:

1. Vambo was singled out for moderation.

2. Generic was allowed to taunt Vambo WITHOUT moderation.

3. It is plain as day that Vambo was singled out BECAUSE HE SUPPORTS TPV.

4. When I objected to this double standard, I was subject to moderation! Generic, Diamondgeezer and Jonb all chimed in in support of pheony.

Hey look crew, if we want to be a free speech forum, we need to learn to treat people fairly, regardless of their ideological position. Most members have done so: the people I have listed above have not.

Open for discussion. :)
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
User(s) who Liked this post: Hexhammer

Truth Zone: Are We a "Hate" Site or a Free Speech Site? 12 Jan 2014 01:53 #2

  • Generic
  • Generic's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Fresh Member
  • Posts: 290
  • Likes received: 451
Well if you really want to beat the horse some more...

You keep leaving out the most important things here. Context and background. I'm not sure why..maybe because that would get in the way of the point you wish to make?

The only thing I would agree on is that I should/could have been taken to task for my comment, and asked to explain it. Which I would have happily done.

But it would have made absolutely no difference to the outcome...that of Vambo's agenda, his inetntions, and the identical wording of his torrent of swearing at doubters, repeated verbatim from DIF.

I suppose this is a bit like in football, when the "correct" decision is eventually made about a booking or an off-side, but the actual decision-mking process may not have been adhered to. I assume this is the point you are so determined to make.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Truth Zone: Are We a "Hate" Site or a Free Speech Site? 12 Jan 2014 02:00 #3

  • Hexhammer
  • Hexhammer's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Voluntarily Inactive
  • Karma is a bitch.
  • Posts: 1403
  • Likes received: 1676
TZ is not an any kind of a hate forum... Not in my knowledge, if it would be, I'd be out of here in a heartbeat.

Its no surprise Vambo got soon labelled and called by names and what else. The situation about TPV/DIF is rather volatile, now that the latest surge of craziness has started and awaken the beast called bitterness and anger about how we have been treated by DIF. In this climate of people typing posts full of fire and brimstone, it's no wonder that somebody supportive to TPV will easily get a hail of shit towards him, even if his arguments are valid and posts decent.

I'm sure that neither Jonb or Generic have any need to flail uncalled for insults all over the place just for the heck of it. Damn, I was near of going all out raving to Vambo, I even said something which he could have seen as offensive. I got pissed off at him, but not because he supports the TPV, of likes its idea, no, it was when he went all haywire. And I suspected him to be some not-so-nice person from DIF, socked up to stir shit up in here. I hope I'm mistaken.

Anyway, TZ definitely is a place for free speech and good time discussing and debating stuff. If people go way over the top, I'm sure the mods will do their job. The reason why Vambo was moderated after his rant was probably that even the mods thought that this guy's here to cause trouble. I think, considering the circumstances, it was the right decision to do.
"I've often felt that dreams are answers to questions we haven't yet figured out how to ask."
-Agent Fox Mulder
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
User(s) who Liked this post: Generic, cowboy, Baddoggydown

Truth Zone: Are We a "Hate" Site or a Free Speech Site? 12 Jan 2014 02:03 #4

  • cowboy
  • cowboy's Avatar
  • Offline
  • User is blocked
  • Posts: 106
  • Likes received: 175
If it is a "dead horse," then why add to it by replying? I welcome your reply of course, as that is the point of the thread (open but respectful and factually based discussion) but you are talking out of both sides of your mouth here. :) If it is a dead horse, then don't reply. If it is not, and the issue is unresolved, then chip in and heartily.

You say that "context and background" is missing, but refuse to provide it. You level an accusation but cannot provide evidence. Tsk, tsk.

You say that you should have been "taken to task" earlier (by pheony?), but even though you haven't, meaning there IS IN FACT A DOUBLE STANDARD, the issue is nonetheless a "dead horse" despite the fact that the double standard remains and is therefore a "live issue" rather than a dead horse. More double speak and contradiction.

You say that vambo had an "agenda" but refuse to recognize that this is speculation.

You claim that vambo unleashed a "torrent" of swearing (I can't quantify what a "torrent" is, perhaps you can clarify), but refuse to acknowledge that you initiated the swearing, by calling him a 'f'ing apologist," short for "fucking apologist," no?

I do agree that the rules were not applied equally and goddammit, you are correct that I am in fact determined to point this out. :)

(Apologies for the gd language, that will be edited out within 24 hours).
Generic wrote:
Well if you really want to beat the horse some more...

You keep leaving out the most important things here. Context and background. I'm not sure why..maybe because that would get in the way of the point you wish to make?

The only thing I would agree on is that I should/could have been taken to task for my comment, and asked to explain it. Which I would have happily done.

But it would have made absolutely no difference to the outcome...that of Vambo's agenda, his inetntions, and the identical wording of his torrent of swearing at doubters, repeated verbatim from DIF.

I suppose this is a bit like in football, when the "correct" decision is eventually made about a booking or an off-side, but the actual decision-mking process may not have been adhered to. I assume this is the point you are so determined to make.
Last Edit: 12 Jan 2014 02:07 by cowboy.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Truth Zone: Are We a "Hate" Site or a Free Speech Site? 12 Jan 2014 02:10 #5

  • Generic
  • Generic's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Fresh Member
  • Posts: 290
  • Likes received: 451
1. I have not said that I have no wish to discuss this; it's been called a dead horse by others and I was merely referencing that. Yes, it is something of a dead horse subject but I have yet to say "I refuse to debate this further".

2. Evidence? Well I can repeat the entire exchange between Vambo and myself/others on DIF just the day before they signed up here to show the agenda at play, and how their reaction here was not spontaneous or related to anything said by us...but a copy of his rant on there. But I figured that making reference to it and explaining the background was enough. It is not speculation. He showed his colours on the DIF quite clearly, and repeated that attitude here.

3. Yes, f-ing is for fucking. As in "oh god, the fucking apologists have come here now just to cause trouble". As in, "oh for fucks sake".

4. Vambo did the baiting, by pretending to ask a reasonable question, with no intention of providing genuine conversation. It was intended to inflame.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Truth Zone: Are We a "Hate" Site or a Free Speech Site? 12 Jan 2014 02:12 #6

  • cowboy
  • cowboy's Avatar
  • Offline
  • User is blocked
  • Posts: 106
  • Likes received: 175
For the record, vambo only went "haywire" as you call it, AFTER generic "lit into him" by calling him a fucking apologist. Prior to that point, vambo had been 100% reasonable (IMO).

I do appreciate and agree with your understanding that we cannot be 100% certain, or perhaps not even 80% or 50% certain of vambo's motives. This is speculative on our part, not a "fact" as others have implied.
Hexhammer wrote:
TZ is not an any kind of a hate forum... Not in my knowledge, if it would be, I'd be out of here in a heartbeat.

Its no surprise Vambo got soon labelled and called by names and what else. The situation about TPV/DIF is rather volatile, now that the latest surge of craziness has started and awaken the beast called bitterness and anger about how we have been treated by DIF. In this climate of people typing posts full of fire and brimstone, it's no wonder that somebody supportive to TPV will easily get a hail of shit towards him, even if his arguments are valid and posts decent.

I'm sure that neither Jonb or Generic have any need to flail uncalled for insults all over the place just for the heck of it. Damn, I was near of going all out raving to Vambo, I even said something which he could have seen as offensive. I got pissed off at him, but not because he supports the TPV, of likes its idea, no, it was when he went all haywire. And I suspected him to be some not-so-nice person from DIF, socked up to stir shit up in here. I hope I'm mistaken.

Anyway, TZ definitely is a place for free speech and good time discussing and debating stuff. If people go way over the top, I'm sure the mods will do their job. The reason why Vambo was moderated after his rant was probably that even the mods thought that this guy's here to cause trouble. I think, considering the circumstances, it was the right decision to do.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
User(s) who Liked this post: vambo

Truth Zone: Are We a "Hate" Site or a Free Speech Site? 12 Jan 2014 02:13 #7

  • Hexhammer
  • Hexhammer's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Voluntarily Inactive
  • Karma is a bitch.
  • Posts: 1403
  • Likes received: 1676
I feel guilty now... The whole subject of Vambo came up about a post I made... Oh shit. :facepalm:
"I've often felt that dreams are answers to questions we haven't yet figured out how to ask."
-Agent Fox Mulder
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
User(s) who Liked this post: Lauren Almighty

Truth Zone: Are We a "Hate" Site or a Free Speech Site? 12 Jan 2014 02:15 #8

  • Generic
  • Generic's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Fresh Member
  • Posts: 290
  • Likes received: 451
www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=263202&page=7

Now why would Vambo then wish to sign up for this forum, when he has clearly expressed his attitude to the naysayers....
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Truth Zone: Are We a "Hate" Site or a Free Speech Site? 12 Jan 2014 02:16 #9

  • cowboy
  • cowboy's Avatar
  • Offline
  • User is blocked
  • Posts: 106
  • Likes received: 175
"Pretending to ask a reasonable question" is in no way "baiting." Not even close. What YOU did was baiting. Calling someone a "fucking apologist" is highly likely to provoke an angry response; asking a reasonable question is not.
Generic wrote:
1. I have not said that I have no wish to discuss this; it's been called a dead horse by others and I was merely referencing that. Yes, it is something of a dead horse subject but I have yet to say "I refuse to debate this further".

2. Evidence? Well I can repeat the entire exchange between Vambo and myself/others on DIF just the day before they signed up here to show the agenda at play, and how their reaction here was not spontaneous or related to anything said by us...but a copy of his rant on there. But I figured that making reference to it and explaining the background was enough. It is not speculation. He showed his colours on the DIF quite clearly, and repeated that attitude here.

3. Yes, f-ing is for fucking. As in "oh god, the fucking apologists have come here now just to cause trouble". As in, "oh for fucks sake".

4. Vambo did the baiting, by pretending to ask a reasonable question, with no intention of providing genuine conversation. It was intended to inflame.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Truth Zone: Are We a "Hate" Site or a Free Speech Site? 12 Jan 2014 02:18 #10

  • Generic
  • Generic's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Fresh Member
  • Posts: 290
  • Likes received: 451
Except I knew who they were, what they had said, and been on the receiving end of it. I call joining the DIF's bete noire and posting there... baiting.

I merely expressed annoyance, extreme despair, at that particular DIF user coming here to continue their agenda when they had already shown themselves incapable of rational discussion.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
User(s) who Liked this post: Hexhammer

Truth Zone: Are We a "Hate" Site or a Free Speech Site? 12 Jan 2014 02:20 #11

  • cowboy
  • cowboy's Avatar
  • Offline
  • User is blocked
  • Posts: 106
  • Likes received: 175
It's vambo's business. As long as s/he is reasonable, their motives are irrelevant. It is a free speech forum (I hope). In such case, any and all opinions can be shared, as long as the member is not abusive.

Vambo was abusive, but only after you attacked him.

There is no "litmus test" for signing up to this forum. For you to suggest otherwise reveals what I had already suspected: only those who abide by the consensus are welcome.
Generic wrote:
www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=263202&page=7

Now why would Vambo then wish to sign up for this forum, when he has clearly expressed his attitude to the naysayers....
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Truth Zone: Are We a "Hate" Site or a Free Speech Site? 12 Jan 2014 02:23 #12

  • cowboy
  • cowboy's Avatar
  • Offline
  • User is blocked
  • Posts: 106
  • Likes received: 175
1. Generic, you are completely, thoroughly and utterly confused. Posting on another forum is NOT baiting on TZ. This is a bizarre, laughable claim.

2. You did not "merely express annoyance" at vambo. You attacked him/her. You were the one baiting vambo, not the other way around.

3. I will also add that pheony stepped in to "moderate" vambo's attack, but excused yours, never mentioning it actually. Curious.

4. Generic, notice no one has spoken on your behalf. It's a bad sign when you are the only one defending yourself. As a matter of fact, your statements were indefensible, period.

You are now in open, continual contradiction of yourself:

1. you were wrong to say what you did, but it's really vambo's fault.

2. the topic is a dead horse, yet you are the most vocal in this thread.

quote="Generic" post=92337]Except I knew who they were, what they had said, and been on the receiving end of it. I call joining the DIF's bete noire and posting there... baiting.

I merely expressed annoyance, extreme despair, at that particular DIF user coming here to continue their agenda when they had already shown themselves incapable of rational discussion.[/quote]
Last Edit: 12 Jan 2014 02:26 by cowboy.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Truth Zone: Are We a "Hate" Site or a Free Speech Site? 12 Jan 2014 02:27 #13

  • Generic
  • Generic's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Fresh Member
  • Posts: 290
  • Likes received: 451
Litmus test??

Why join a forum where you know the people who use it will have opposing views...and here's the important bit....but you are not able to discuss them rationally or without abusive language.

I've agreed that the exact protocol (if there is one) was not followed, but the correct outcome was reached. Troublemakers are not encouraged anywhere in life.

I've provided the "evidence" that was asked for. Links, background info....

Frankly I think it's never going to be enough for you.

I called out a shit-stirrer earlier than the rest, because they'd attacked me on the DIF over the exact same issue. The only problem I see here is that the mods might have shown more equality if they'd reprimanded me for the tone of my comment, that was made without full explanation (*at the time*). Everything else is just going round and round and round.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Truth Zone: Are We a "Hate" Site or a Free Speech Site? 12 Jan 2014 02:28 #14

  • irrepressible
  • irrepressible's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Voluntarily Inactive
  • Posts: 2354
  • Likes received: 1237
cowboy wrote:
Irrepressible then concurs, saying "I can't understand anyone doing that," implying that I had been selective in order to paint generic in a bad light (again, complete bullshit as I included both vambo's and generic's insults in their correct order (namely, with generic slinging mud first).

That was a statement, not a concurrence.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Truth Zone: Are We a "Hate" Site or a Free Speech Site? 12 Jan 2014 02:29 #15

  • Generic
  • Generic's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Fresh Member
  • Posts: 290
  • Likes received: 451
The "truth" is that everyone else has more sense than I do to continue this nonsense and indulge it any further!
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Truth Zone: Are We a "Hate" Site or a Free Speech Site? 12 Jan 2014 02:33 #16

  • jonb
  • jonb's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Senior Member
  • Posts: 1730
  • Likes received: 1951
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
User(s) who Liked this post: Generic

Truth Zone: Are We a "Hate" Site or a Free Speech Site? 12 Jan 2014 02:35 #17

  • Generic
  • Generic's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Fresh Member
  • Posts: 290
  • Likes received: 451
:killinme:

Oh how I wish I'd thought of that.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Truth Zone: Are We a "Hate" Site or a Free Speech Site? 12 Jan 2014 02:39 #18

  • cowboy
  • cowboy's Avatar
  • Offline
  • User is blocked
  • Posts: 106
  • Likes received: 175
Yes, you are writing nonsense. What is your point?
Generic wrote:
The "truth" is that everyone else has more sense than I do to continue this nonsense and indulge it any further!
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Truth Zone: Are We a "Hate" Site or a Free Speech Site? 12 Jan 2014 02:57 #19

  • jonb
  • jonb's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Senior Member
  • Posts: 1730
  • Likes received: 1951
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Truth Zone: Are We a "Hate" Site or a Free Speech Site? 12 Jan 2014 03:54 #20

  • cowboy
  • cowboy's Avatar
  • Offline
  • User is blocked
  • Posts: 106
  • Likes received: 175
I see which post you are referencing now: #609 in the thread linked above. Yes, I do agree that everyone who slung mud should have been moderated: yourself, generic, and vambo.

Sadly, only vambo (and later myself after I defended him/her) were moderated.

Actually I received several moderation warnings: from diamondgeezer and pheony -- strangely after I requested to go inactive. They claimed (FALSELY) that I had somehow "selectively edited" the posts I referenced. An incredibly bizarre claim.

There is free speech on this forum, but there is also pressure to conform to a party line. The moderation makes that very clear.
Hexhammer wrote:
TZ is not an any kind of a hate forum... Not in my knowledge, if it would be, I'd be out of here in a heartbeat.

Its no surprise Vambo got soon labelled and called by names and what else. The situation about TPV/DIF is rather volatile, now that the latest surge of craziness has started and awaken the beast called bitterness and anger about how we have been treated by DIF. In this climate of people typing posts full of fire and brimstone, it's no wonder that somebody supportive to TPV will easily get a hail of shit towards him, even if his arguments are valid and posts decent.

I'm sure that neither Jonb or Generic have any need to flail uncalled for insults all over the place just for the heck of it. Damn, I was near of going all out raving to Vambo, I even said something which he could have seen as offensive. I got pissed off at him, but not because he supports the TPV, of likes its idea, no, it was when he went all haywire. And I suspected him to be some not-so-nice person from DIF, socked up to stir shit up in here. I hope I'm mistaken.

Anyway, TZ definitely is a place for free speech and good time discussing and debating stuff. If people go way over the top, I'm sure the mods will do their job. The reason why Vambo was moderated after his rant was probably that even the mods thought that this guy's here to cause trouble. I think, considering the circumstances, it was the right decision to do.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
Moderators: novum, rodin, Flare
Powered by Kunena Forum

Annual Server Target

Whether its 50 cents or five dollars, your donations are appreciated and help keep this community site running so we can all continue to enjoy using it. Secure transactions via paypal.
This target is to meet our server cost for one year, June 2020 - May 2021, in USD.
$ 340 - Target
( £ 255 GBP )
donation thermometer
donation thermometer
$ 70 - Raised
( £ 53 GBP )
donation thermometer
21%
Most Recent Donation $50 USD
28th August 2020

No one is obliged to donate, please only donate what you can afford. Even the smallest amount helps. Being an active member is a positive contribution. Thank You.