Is Mark Thomas Untrustworthy?

[David WJ Sherlock]

Mark Thomas is not an advocate of real "free speach" I placed a thread about 9/11 on his forum. It has been moved to a section called the "Looniverse".

http://www.markthomasinfo.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2575&#56508

[andyb]

Mark Thomas actually has very little to do with the forum. They can be a bit feisty in there hardly surprising with the likes of Zark and Ally doing more damage than good.

[David WJ Sherlock]

[TonyGosling]

Are we in the business of bullying people into agreeing with us? No mister Sherlock we are not! We use persuasion because we respect people's right to be wrong. Blaming anyone for not being 911 Truthers is a sure fire way to make sure they will never change their mind. You need to adopt our more sophisticated approach.

There is a massive psycological element to the official 9/11 story and MT knows his entire career could be blown if he goes fgor 911 truth and gets it wrong.

He's almost certainly got shills whispering in his ear too feeding him lies about this movement.

If you want people like MT to come on board slagging them off works against what you say that you want! Use more reasoned language and MT might listen.

Sort it out and fins a really bad person to slag off if you have to.

[David WJ Sherlock]

[spiv]

I read Tony's comments with interest, and a certain amount of agreement. We have a similar thing elsewhere on this forum regarding Republican candidate Ron Paul. These people are in a very difficult position regarding the truth about 911, and I quite understand their position. What they may consider and believe privately, they are unable to say publicly.

I know that one of my clients is very suspicious of the American Government and their official explanation of 911. However, he will not come out publicly with his comments because he has some large contracts with US firms, and doesn't want to jeopardize these in any way.

[David WJ Sherlock]

[Cruise4]

There is a certain logic in taking a cautious approach in pursuit of a pulpit, for full exposure when attained, methinks.

Levels, unfortunately, are a reality at this stage.

[kc]

[kc]

BTW, little tiny bit of advice from me to you - if you want to convince people your point is valid, I'd avoid making a second post that calls the moderators "fools"

[David WJ Sherlock]

[kc]

I was referring to your second post on the Mark Thomas Forum, the one that says

[David WJ Sherlock]

[kc]

Wow! Dedicate a life to fighting the divide and rule tactics of the NWO then tell me I need to pick a side of a fence....

I think you need to finish your opening sentance too, how do you think I was using Eddie Izzard? I was using him to show that if Mark Thomas was also establishment, surely he'd be experiencing the same levels of success. as such, your use of

[David WJ Sherlock]

[andyb]

Dave,

I don't think KC will do that. It was done to a poster on that forum many months ago after they were particularly abusive and aggresive, and were warned this would happen. Unfortunately 9/11 stuff goes in the Looniverse but that is how it is and breaking the forum rules will annoy the regulars on there. I know you mean well

[David WJ Sherlock]

[kc]

I'm curious as to your definition of "threat".

Are you referring to me strongly advising you to read the thread "MTF Vs 9/11 Truth: Painful to Watch"? If you'd bothered, you'd find that's because that one single thread gets rid of most of the nonsense you're likely to spout. Ergo saving you time.

If you're referring to me advising you to loose your password because members of the forum retaliate against a foul abusive and threatening poster then:

a ) Don't be foul, abusive and threatening.

b) The information found was gathered by the l33t t3kno h4cking skills of Googling the offensive persons username to see where else he's posted. You can try suing google, let me know if you go for it, I'll place a bet on who wins.


So lets balance up the posts here.

On the one hand, you've slandered Mark Thomas by calling him a "flake", stating "he's not to be trusted", "he works for state TV"and by stating he's "a moral coward".

You've slandered the site moderators by calling the fools.

You've threatened me with your solicitor and the police.

On the other hand, I've pointed you to a thread that'll save you time and advised you that rude and abusive behaviour is not tolerated on that forum.


Now, if you want to get all legal then you go for it mate. Considering the number of highly actionable statements you've made against a reasonably wealthy comedian with serious barristers on speed dial, I'd think it was a particularly foolhardy course of action to follow (especially since your solicitor needs internet pages faxed to him, can he not charge an extra 50p and download them from his local internet cafe?)

Funny how self fullfilling prephecies work isnt it? Tony Gosling accuses you of bullying tactics, half a page later you're throwing the police and solicitors at me for the heinous crime of advising you not to be rude to people.

BTW, make a note of the police time you take up making a statement about my evil machinations and desperate threats - should someone be beaten, murdered or robbed in that time, I hope you have an easier time sleeping that night than I would.

Final point: I've yet to call you anything insulting at all. So far you've insulted Mark Thomas and the MT Site mods and accused me of threatening your children.

Hows the weather on the moral high ground?

[David WJ Sherlock]

[kc]

[kc]

PM from Mr Sherlock

[David WJ Sherlock]

[kc]

sorry, doesnt work like that. It doesnt matter what you caveat it with, the law states "any act causing the victim to apprehend an immediate application of force upon her"

Now, your caveat is that you wont do this because you are a law abiding citizen, therefore if there is a chance you can get away with it and not be quantified as breaking the law, you will assault me.

Closing Argument from the defence:

Your Honour, should the members of this forum be present in a room together, Mr Sherlock would have no fear of Mr KC as he has not recieved a threat of physical violence against him. However, as Mr KC has now recieved several threats of violence against him, Mr KC would have reason to fear Mr Sherlock.

I dont care about ebing faashionable, but I believe I have amply answered your post.

[John White]

[kc]

TBF John I could easily have ignored it so its as much my fault as anyone elses. I think Mr Sherlocks an over reactive pillock, but I also really respect him for meeting with his MP and trying to put his point over.

I fully realise no one member of this movement speaks for the whole, and AndyB's doing a pretty decent job of flying the flag over there. I've had run ins with people like Ally etc and it dont take long to realise he's as much a pain to you as he is to me :) I've had chats with enough of you privately to realise your not all bad ;)

I think we can both agree with the fact the comission was a whitewash, but I believe for different reasons. I've spent time in American government, educational and industry sectors and believe the comission is the greatest back covering excersise in history. I honestly believe the discrepencies in the report would be greatly reduced if departments weren't lying about their response time.

For me, the fundemental argument is that you have to either believe the American Government was intelligent enough to manipulate a breathtakingly complex confluence of events, an historically unique co-ordination of people and materials, an ethical abhorrence of biblical proportions and a post event psychological manipulation of the most technologically advanced civilisation in the world....or you have to belive the American government was stupid enough to allow 000000000.1% of its population to get on planes whilst carrying knives.


What I like is that even though we disagree so fundementally, we're talking about it :)

[John White]

[kc]

[John White]

[Dogsmilk]

I've spoken to teenagers even in this country who were of the belief Saddam was behind 911. Ok, they weren't the kinda kids to be found flicking through the Guardian and would likely only get a GCSE if they brought in one studying running shoes, but the thought is out there.

And it seems clear to me Afghanistan was only invaded because they wanted to invade it. An invasion on the back of 911 was wholly unjustfied. the Taliban offered to extradite Bin Ladin if evidence of his guilt were provided (not unreasonable). As Chomsky pointed out, it's like US attacking the US because of IRA backing from the state.

I think it is unfortunate that trutherdom and other 'alternative' viewpoints are so polarised. It is sad that on one side are sneers against 'conspitiloons' and 'tin foil hatters' and on the other a frustrated outpouring against those who cannot 'see the truth'. Reaching its zenith with the 'if you don't believe in NPT, you're by definition working for the government' mentality. The likes of Larry O'Hara and Ally on their respective teams do not help matters.
At the end of the day, I think the notion that 911 has served as a massive opportunity for justifying all kinds of nefarious foreign policy shenannigans and attacks on civil liberties is something that many can agree on. And that the commission wasn't a totally open and impartial affair. Also, I would find it surprising if those on the MTF themselves believe we currently face 'the greatest threat since WWII'. If we do, the blitz must have been a doddle.
One would hope there are areas that some agreement can be reached on.
Whatever 'the truth' about 911, it would be daft to expect everyone to make it their 'cause'. Mark Thomas eats meat and I could give him a whole bunch of arguments as to why I think eating meat is cruel and unnecessary; I'd be a bit silly if that meant I dismissed all his sterling work on the arms trade and decided he was a w2nker on that basis. My parents eat meat, but I'm not disowning them any time soon.
We should disagree, but it doesn't help anyone if we shout at each othe because we do, surely?

While I was writing this, I popped into the back yard for a fag. Some music was playing somewhere; just what is it with all this nonsense dance music with pinky and perky vocals? Can anyone explain?

[kc]