Entering this or any forum etc carries with it the implicit rules of the person creating the forum , your choice (like all of ours) is to stay and abide or leave and seek elsewhere where we can express our opinions in a manner we find acceptable .

BM

Jenifer (Zarknorph) said:

Attack the argument, not the person. 

You've attacked RGoss (and me).

Jenifer (Zarknorph) said:

No hijacking 

Doesn't mean anything the way you've applied it. Talking about the Middle East or terrorism - but demand everyone ignore the elephant in the room.

Jenifer (Zarknorph) said:

I have the right to set these rules on my forum, as it is a private enterprise.

Stating it just makes you look like a control-freak.

But we know you're not a control-freak, don't we?

RGoss99 said:

Your use of "ttwunts","trolls" (in ways not found in any dictionary), and treatment of Berry´s posts are exaples of abuses, and abusive of power.

Must have decided that's what Zarknorph wanted to do.

Collected some pretty outrageous and disgusting people to play those games with. 

That would be a valid point if Jenifer preposted explecit rules and followed them herself and was consistant in her judgement. 

RGoss99 said:

That would be a valid point if Jenifer preposted explecit rules and followed them herself and was consistant in her judgement. 

So inconsistent is Zarknorph that she lashes out at others for misogyny - even while cultivating people like Harold who are obvious women-haters. (However, he had to be banned when his misogyny got overpoweringly nasty and personal!)

Then posts her own misogyny:

MEDDLY -> I'm afraid to ask but is that a combination of twat and cu#ts? 

Zarknorph-> Yes it is. One is stupid, the other is cruel. Sometimes a person can be both.

Agreed, what follows is sort of off topic, but while I have you on the line, I have another point to make. 

In a society where the leaders corrupt the language for their own needs, eventually the corrupted terms become the accepted norm, even though their meaning is perverted.

Think of the communists use of "democratic" an "republic" for entities which are neither. 

By definition a forum is a free, open, unstructured discussion, an example of freedom of speech. Take Hyde Park Corner for example the speakers, in theory, are independent people expressing their thoughts without reservations. Of course the U.K. has laws and I am sure that some speakers break them. If there is police presence, there is no problem with that person being arrested, because this would be based on an independent rule of law followed by the cop, who is not a member of the forum. In a forum, it would remain such even if Jennifer declared hereself the consor, monitor, hieheidyen, whatever. But in assuming that rule, she should cease to participate in the duscussion. In this case where Jennifer claims the title, but still participates and invodes her power to control other speakers, this ceases to qualify as a forum, it becomes more of a pep rally for a particular point of view disguised as a forum. In today´s world, this fault is obvious in politics. Trump´s press conferences are not conferences, they are choreographed meeting between the president and selected members of the press, not to provide facts for the public, but for the president, using the symbols of democracy, to promote his particular agenda. In supposed debates during presidential campaigns, these are not real debates because their very structure prevents closure. As an example of the opposite, take those in the Oxford Union. An independent moderator makes the rules and enforces them, he does not negotate them before hand with the debators. and even though the closure might not reflect external reality, there is closure. As a differenc in the American presidential example. If Hillary makes a statement, there is no requrement that Trump responds to it. Basicly Trump (sometimes without interrupting) is simply waiting and preparing what he is about to say, not necessarily even listening to Hillary, resulting in a statement with no connection, e.g. no closure, to the previous. There is an old expression given a new meaning. It starts with "but what about ....". In other words the speaker does not have a valid response, so he inserts a usually irrelevant and possible fact.

My favorite Trump example is "what about Obama wire tapping his camapign".

First of all the president does not authorize wire tapps, the department of justice does - no evidence of a connection in this case.

Second while a wire tap was placed in Trump tower, which Trump does not own, there is no evidence that the tap was on a phone in a unit under the control of Trump, his company, or the Republican party.

Fact: the wire tap made, to a part of the tower owned by someone independent of Trump, evidence was collected, the guy arrested, tried and convicted. Nothing to do with politics, or Obama. But because Trump´s name is on the building, the unthinking Trump supporters are left with the impression that Obama does not play far and used his office for illegal political purposes.

Another example: Clinton brokered possibly one of the best deals between Israel and Palestine that could have solved some of the current problems. Arafat gets blamed for not going along. There is no evidence that he was against the deal, only that as the Republicans were in the process of impeaching Clinton the supporter of the deal, Arafat had no sense of security in acceptance, if Clinton fell.

RGoss99 said:

where Jennifer claims the title, but still participates and invodes her power to control other speakers, this ceases to qualify as a forum, it becomes more of a pep rally for a particular point of view disguised as a forum. 

?Indeed. Forums are supposed to be in the power of a Wizop who never participates (except sometimes rambling on about something non-contentious). They give flags to Sysops, most of whom they should have met in person, and invigilates when the Sysops fall out. (As the always do).

Zarknorph is simply taking a horse and cart through the system.

RGoss99 said:

Fact: the wire tap made, to a part of the tower owned by someone independent of Trump, evidence was collected, the guy arrested, tried and convicted. Nothing to do with politics, or Obama. But because Trump´s name is on the building, the unthinking Trump supporters are left with the impression that Obama does not play far and used his office for illegal political purposes. 

?Stupid and dangerous. Any leader encouraging that kind of thing is totally unfit - in nearly all cases, they should be stamping it out.

RGoss99 said:

 Another example: Clinton brokered possibly one of the best deals between Israel and Palestine that could have solved some of the current problems. Arafat gets blamed for not going along. There is no evidence that he was against the deal, only that as the Republicans were in the process of impeaching Clinton the supporter of the deal, Arafat had no sense of security in acceptance, if Clinton fell.

You've been taken in - there was no deal on offer. The only maps we've seen are those drawn by the Palestinians showing they had to accept the West Bank being cut in three with broad swathes of the best land in between being seized by settlers. 

But the Israelis never agreed even to that map, giving them $billions worth of more land.

Arafat, a puppet of the Israelis, had given away almost everything (resources, control, airwaves) already in 1993 at Oslo - Clinton should have held a gun to the heads of the Israelis and demanded they deliver at least on those very minimum promises.

Clinton, threatened with the fate of JFK (think about it) caved completely - and months before the "negotiation" had finished the Isreaelis set about slaughtering thousands of Palestinians until there was some retaliation (almost 6 months later) where upon they started killing tens and then thousands of innocents.

As to the Arafat-Clinton comments, I would have to see some evidence. 

However what you haven´t negated is that the Clinton administrtion said they wanted a settlement, and it could have happened if Israel and Palestine did not read the Republican impeachment side show as the end of Clinton.

Rabin was Assassinated , Clinton would become embroiled in eventual sexual frivolity , Arafat continued with his terrorism and when finally at camp David the vague chance of peace was feasible Ehud Barak was at the end of his very weak tenure and was voted out of office .

Every President wants a peace agreement , the single most intractable conflict this century would be something any man or woman in office would dream of .

History however is fickle so are the Jews and the Arabs and neither side has yet picked their man or woman to lead them to peace

BM

Clinton´s sexual immaturity was irrelevant, just an excuse for the sexually frustrated Republicans to destabalize the government.