Skeptic Project

"There's too much bitching on these forums..."

We're on page 13 of a thread and no closer to getting any straight answers. People can only ask the same questions so many times before some bitching comes with them.

Hmm, I just did a quick research centering around Brenton's claim that the conspiracy elements are limited to "Zeitgeist I" and "that's not the movement."

Brenton prefers to draw attention to "Zeitgeist Addendum" which he claims is the more accurate depiction of whatever it is these people pretend to advocate. I see on Zeitgeist's own website (http://thezeitgeistmovement.com/wiki/index.php?title=Peter_Joseph#Zeitgeist:_Addendum) that Addendum has been viewed 10,000,000 times.

From what I can tell, Zeitgeist I has been viewed 50,000,000 times just on Google Video. That means that Zeitgeist I is approximately 5 times more popular and more well-known than Zeitgeist Addendum. Isn't that curious?

Also, isn't it curious that Zeitgeist Addendum, on Mercola's own website, is billed as "as a continuation of the first film." There is no repudiation of the first film, no indication that "it's not the movement," no distancing the movement from Zeitgest I at all. In fact it's the opposite--deliberate identification with the concepts of the first film.

Even the FAQ on Mercola's site (http://zeitgeistmovie.com/q&a.htm) does absolutely nothing to separate the two films. Once again a continuation is asserted and the popularity of the first film is proudly trumpeted--there's that 50,000,000 views figure again for Zeitgeist I.

So it's rather interesting that a movie that Brenton claims does not represent the movement is far and away the most popular piece of advertising related to that movement, seen at least 5 times more often than the movie he claims is more representative. Furthermore, I find no support for the assertion that Mercola has "backed away" from the conspiracy elements.

I'd like to hear Brenton's take on this, and also like to know, if the movement is gearing up for a huge big-budget blockbuster that's going to outstrip James Cameron's "Titanic" in popularity and cultural impact, how they expect to pull this off, given the statistics that show that viewership of Zeitgeist-related movies drops off by a factor of five when you stop talking about conspiracies.

yeah matt, thats why I usually leave them live in their fantasy land.
Make your points and posts and ignore their attempts to draw you into a banal discussion about minor details.

In the end no matter what you say or prove to them is unimportant, nothing can change the fact they believe in a fantasy, and they're certainly not willing to accept it.

So there you go, Brentons always going to think he is right and you are wrong, he is always going to argue his cults stance, and he is always going to ignore questions and points that show his cult up, his role is to promote and advertise, hes been conditioned to believe this is going to save the world, he is like a Jehovahs witness trying to recruit more members and he will persistently knock on your door till you tell him to f**k off.

Sad thing is he is one of hundreds.

@Ed:

The public moderation forum tells a different story.

So I think I'm being fair.

Ed yes they have, plenty of users, here is one example I am personally familiar with.

The user Michi was banned for the following link provided they made a statement [intended as a discussion], but it was questioning the movement, this person was labelled a troll and banned for a made up reason and had her post deleted initially [michi had issues with her authorising her account so made another to be able to post in the first place, then a while later her initial authorisation came through].

I have spoken to the person and know them personally, what peter says and tanktop says is intresting, pay close attention to tanktops replies in the moderator thread :

original post

http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_kunena&Itemid=99999&func=view&catid=231&id=212592

moderators post about the topic

http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_kunena&Itemid=99999&func=view&catid=60&id=212700

@anticultist:

The reason given was multiple accounts, it seems they weren't going to bother giving them the benefit of doubt. Yes it seems over the top in this case, but if this was normal I wouldn't still be there.

You said plenty of people had been banned for "questioning the movement", who else do you have? People "question the movement" all the time and were never banned or warned, its the behaviour that got them moderation attention. Likewise many people were banned or warned for other things, "questing the movement" is not the only reason they do that.

Come on ed, this is not a case of you say they havent and then we have to provide evidence to say they have. Thats pitiful

I have been in that movement since it started. Day one

When they initiated moderators after months of the movement running, lots of users got banned systematically. If you want a list from me thats asking a little too much.

Michi made an account, recieved no authorisation.
Made another recieved the authorisation.
Made a post, had it instantly deleted and her account banned.
Recieved the initial authorisation hours later, reposted the thread in misc, chatted politely for 5 posts, had her account banned.
It was then questioned, and tanktop said 'they will ban anyone they wish, views against the movement are merely toleratd and they will ban who ever they want for questioning'
says it right there in the moderators section.

Feel free to continue this idea that they dont ban people for questioning the movement if you want, but I see admin saying otherwise on their own forum all the time.

@Matt:

Moderation there does have its issues of course, a bigtime truther called Thunder was in charge of the Misc forum for a while and started being a complete ass about my discussions about 911 and was allowed to post insulting things that normal members would have been banned for. Various other mods were upset in private and in public about him and eventually he was removed as a moderator for some antics in the voice chat, where he was also moderator (he went against Tanktop, but was the last straw)

I was also debating with someone in the "9/11 New Information" thread that was banned called Jason, who then posted to the Public Moderation board who called me out to be banned. "Request to Ban Ed", read the subject.
http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_kunena&Itemid=99999&func=view&catid=60&id=160527

He created numerous sock puppets. There was a brief disagreement between the mods (Branman) probably not shown here so much as if I really had "lied" like Jason claimed, but tanktop banned him for multiple accounts. Bear in mind *HE* was the truther while *I* was not and yet I have not even been warned.

A guy called Gavin Palmer posted in the moderation section asking "what can be done about" me and my "ignorance":
http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_kunena&Itemid=99999&func=view&catid=60&id=176336

Everyone seems to think he is a little nuts anyway but we see Thunder tripping over himself to post something negative about me yet despite everything in that thread I was not even warned! Various people agreed with me as well. This is probably the best example of what I'm talking about.

This thread:
http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_kunena&Itemid=99999&func=view&catid=60&id=164233

Is about me complaining that Thunder (when he was a moderator) had locked the 9/11 New Information thread. tanktop didn't agree that Thunder had not "answered my question" in the end (see end of the thread) but I just don't think he wanted to deal with the conflict and drama... As it was no action was brought to me and the thread was unlocked and is still unlocked and Thunder is no longer a moderator of the Misc forum.

Point I think I'm trying to make is that if what you were saying were true then I would have been banned a long time ago.

I have said Peter is believing lies and spreading lies. I have said he will destroy the goal of the Venus Project. I actually went to another forum (JREF) and bitched about how annoying some of them were. I have complained about the moderation. I have questioned Fresco's competency in the same manor I have done here.

As a frequent, dare I say famous poster among many there that have frequented the board for long enough, why am I not banned and why haven't I been warned?

Perhaps because you dont address details that actually discredit them, you just post vague posts that dont pinpoint matters ?

I know who you are Ed, I have seen all your posts on there since the early days. You and another guy from the JREF group [who was a moderator in the zm]used to discuss and argue against the 911 subject regularly. That only discredits a section of the movie.

If you were to discuss more sensitive matters you would be deleted asap, no doubt about it.

Their new rules above I have shown you are pretty much them saying we dont want you if you dont agree with us, we are not an open forum, and if you are with us you are welcome, if we interpret the rules this way we can ban you, if we interpret the rules another way we can ban you.

As a long time member who played the agree and disagree character I found out first hand what they liked and disliked, and what they did about your posts and accounts.

@anticultist:

"Perhaps because you dont address details that actually discredit them, you just post vague posts that dont pinpoint matters ?"

-------

You know I almost find this insulting! hahaha!

Just what do you class as "questioning the movement" then anticultist? Its a bit disingenuous to say that people have been banned for questioning the movement and then when we get down to it, you start saying that this means something very specific you have yet to define. Clearly I did question the movement, Peter, Zeitgeist and Fresco repeatedly and quite severely numerous times in different ways.

Perhaps then you would like to rephrase. :)

@Matt:

Its not just a person a personal anecdote. Its like some banned truther called Vinniem on the JREF claimed they find any reason to ban truthers. Yet if that were true you would not be able to find posters like Bill Smith who has been there for years. Even Heiwa was allowed to post for a really really long time.

The point is, if you say that people are banned for questioning the movement then it has to apply to me as well since I am one of the most vocal critics. Therefore I should also be banned. You have not shown me one proper example of someone being banned simply for questioning the movement, apart from one person who had multiple accounts which is a bannable offence on various forums such as the JREF who has also banned skeptics. If it happens "all the time" I would have at least been warned or you'd be able to show me that. The user Roy Jones for example I believe is still a poster there, he is very antagonistic and may have been suspended for a brief time but was allowed back. They also say no ban is permanent so long as you apologise for the way you acted and agree not to do it again.

If questioning the movement was a bannable offence you'd think they wouldn't have MY DEBUNKING VIDEOs in the Zeitgeist: The Movie wiki under "ERRORS". Isn't that interesting?
http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/wiki/index.php?title=Zeitgeist:_The_Movie#Errors

I'm sorry, but you are trying to make an issue out of something that really isn't there (yet). You can't tell Gavin that people are banned for questioning the movement when they clearly are not. You are free to think you'd be banned for it tell me what it is and tell me how you'd go about it, I could probably tell you a better way of getting across the same thing.

The problem you talk about could be one in the future and I'll be right here agreeing with you if someone did not deserve to be banned and was not allowed to post whatever it was. However, that time has not come yet as far as I can see.

"You don't go in there calling them a cult and that they are all stupid. Apparently I am better at communicating my points to them than you. Since I have been one of the most vocal critics on there for over a year, I think my situation proves you wrong."

and this is not insulting ?

Considering you have absolutely no idea who i was on the forum.

I had many different accounts on there over the year + gone by.

I created a complete agreeing character who was all into the movement, then I created a final character who outright disagreed and said so.

Which do you think got into trouble the most ?
And might I add the disagreeable character was threatened with banning and being watched from the top level admins and mods.

I am well aware of how it works there ed.

Your experience and opinion on the matter is no more valuable than mine.

I also had a famous character in their movement, in fact one of the most respected members they ever had, talk about them lapping up people who agree with them.

Actually no... I don't want to waste another minute talking about this with you, your 'opinion' is no more impressive than anyone elses here tell you the truth.

@anticultist:

You have biased blinkers. If you go into the JREF and even start to sound anything like a truther many there will act extremely hostile to you. If you go there and agree with them it almost doesn't matter what you say.

The point being that if you are in a group you will be treated better when you are agreeing with everything they are saying than when you don't agree with them. You blend into the background when you do that, if you disagree you will stand out. The fact that you were treated better when you were agreeing with them I say, so what? What does that prove?

Were you banned? What posts were you banned for?

You claimed people were banned for questioning the movement all the time, so where has that happened? Why wasn't I banned, or even warned? What is your definition of "questioning the movement?

I don't need to exaggerate how bad truthers or Creationists are, either.

"Matt, the idea of a public moderation forum makes moderation more transparent than one without it."

If there wasn't a moderation problem, there'd be no need for "transparency."

I mean really, its a stupid message board. I have never heard anyone needing moderation transparency on a damn message board.

Matt, the point is how is a moderation discussion section evidence the moderation is bad? If they ruled with the iron fist as you make out, they wouldn't have one. Their opinion is god, no excuses, don't question the moderation or we will ban you. The way you describe the forum just doesn't fit.