Nother LCF psychotic

boloboffin said:
Rawkarma, it is none of your business what jackchit teaches his children.
Click to expand...

He made that post (if it was JC) on a public forum, and thus I am not prying into his business.

boloboffin said:
Yes, they deserve better than to be force-fed 9/11 woo, but knowing that their mother didn't want to have anything to do with it, they may yet purge it back up.
Click to expand...

The question of whether or not he is teaching his kids 9/11 woo is not what I was commenting on; I was commenting on his belief that God killed his wife so he can continue living in la la land. This, if true, is extremely irrational behavior.

boloboffin said:
To be honest, I don't even see any evidence of a malicious intent on his part - after all, he does believe that tripe is true, doesn't he?
Click to expand...

I was refering again to his belief that God removed his wife from not only his life, but from his kids lives so he can spread the word to the world unhindered. I was also saying that the posts made by people here, voicing their concerns and that his kids would be better off with someone that is not extremely unbalanced, is not callous and had no malicious intent.

boloboffin said:
You don't know his life. You do not know his life. Yeah, he could be a sadistic SOB who's torturing his kids right now, but he could also just be a guy with a jones for 9/11 truth who's busy nursing a couple of sick kids through the measles.
Click to expand...

And nor do you know his life, but again, I made my comments in reply to his on a public forum. I know as much as you do, and yet you seem to be giving JC alil too much credit in regard to his character in light of what, if true, he said.

boloboffin said:
We must be able to combat irrationality without demonizing people who think differently than us.
Click to expand...

I was just merely commenting on what he said. So, you think that my comments about him saying God is killing people for him so he can "continue unhindered" is thinking just alil differently and that if commented on, by me, I am somehow demonizing him?
 
Last edited:
Speaking purely hypothetically, from the assumed position that his posts re: his wife/kids etc... are serious... as TAM rightly pointed out, they demonstrate very clear symptoms of psychotic tendancies. Coupled with his other posts, this supports at least a suspicion of severe and potentially dangerous mental illness. In this purely hypothetical scenario it is not only acceptable for government officials to "pry into his personal life" it is their duty and obligation to do so.

Now...

Is there any actual evidence that these posts are serious? No, not really. Is it at all likely that the entire thing is actually a load of BS? Yes, given the track record of this group, it's very likely.

Thus does this warrant any actual action? I don't think so.

Hence why I began my previous post with the disclaimer "if this is true". If it is, he's a psychopath, his children are in danger, they need to be taken off him. I figure about a 10% chance of it being true.

-Gumboot
 
Something worth considering...

In his account he says his wife left him and took the kids. To me that suggests she was awarded custody, which at least leaves the suggestion that court doesn't consider him fit to look after them.

Frankly, given how paranoid and dillusional CTers are, I'm amazed they haven't accused him of knocking off his wife himself.

-Gumboot
 
boloboffin said:
I'll be the party pooper.

Jackchit needs to swap an s for the c, but interference in this guy's life is just as callous. He gets to teach his kids what he wants! He gets to be happy about his wife's death if he wants! He didn't cause his wife's death, and people teach their kids stupid crap every day. We don't run around yanking kids out of homes because they're being taught that God created the world in six days, do we?

Get a grip.
Click to expand...

Agreed and you expressed what I was thinking as I read the thread. JC is not someone I would want teaching anything to my kids but it is not considred abusive to teach beliefs, even if they are a bit off the wall. Do we start taking away all the kids of moon-landings skeptics, Kennedy conspiracists...?

Lurker
 
Rawkarma said:
You are also negating the fact that if this is a man that is consumed in a world of imaginary conspiracies, then he is likely to be unemployed, or have a poor and broken work record; using some form of substance abuse and in general poor health.
Click to expand...
What fact? All you have presented here are IF statements. That is a pretty broad brush you wield there.

For me, when you have kids, they should be your priority and the most important concern; 9/11 or any alleged conspiracy does not trump your kids for balanced individuals.
Click to expand...
Your opinion is noted but even if he is consumed by 911 you assume the kids suffer. I wonder if they are taken away and put in foster care if their lives would actually be better or worse. I have no knowledge of their situation but you seem to automatically assume it is terrible. On what evidence do you make that assumption other than an IF statement of your own imagination?

In a just world, which we clearly don't live in, noone that puts that chit before his kids deserve, let alone should, have custody of them.
Click to expand...

Really? Now I agree that the 911 conspiracy is just plain bonkers. But from his point of view it is a cause worth fighting for. We send kids off to fight wars all the time in order to preserve that which we feel is right and just. Jackchit is behaving just like the rest of us in that regard.

ETA: I should actually change the analogy to say that fathers go off to war themseves all the time in order to fight for things they believe in which shortchanges the attention their kids can receive.
They [his kids] deserve far better.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but that is because we deem his 911 struggle without merit.

Lurker
 
Last edited:
gumboot said:
Speaking purely hypothetically, from the assumed position that his posts re: his wife/kids etc... are serious... as TAM rightly pointed out, they demonstrate very clear symptoms of psychotic tendancies. Coupled with his other posts, this supports at least a suspicion of severe and potentially dangerous mental illness. In this purely hypothetical scenario it is not only acceptable for government officials to "pry into his personal life" it is their duty and obligation to do so.

Now...

Is there any actual evidence that these posts are serious? No, not really. Is it at all likely that the entire thing is actually a load of BS? Yes, given the track record of this group, it's very likely.

Thus does this warrant any actual action? I don't think so.

Hence why I began my previous post with the disclaimer "if this is true". If it is, he's a psychopath, his children are in danger, they need to be taken off him. I figure about a 10% chance of it being true.

-Gumboot
Click to expand...

If the name he has given is in fact his real name, it will take two shakes of a lambs tail for the proper authorities to ascertain whether or not what he has posted is true (re having children and a dead ex-wife). If he lived in Victoria (Australia), I would have probably been able to find out whether it was true with the very limited access I had to secure details at my last job. NOTE: I wouldn't have done this, as it is a violation of personal privacy (at a basic social level) and government policy (at a legal level). My point is, for people whose job it is to investigate matters such as these, it would be very, very simple for them to figure out whether or not there was a matter for them to investigate further.

And so I chime in with my relevant two-cents. Contact the relevant authority (social services in England?) and give them the details. Give them his name, what he has posted, and the details or information about previous incidents (a mention of the MRGS site, and the Beckham case).

From there, they will make the call.

If they dismiss it - fine. They have more experience in sorting these types of issues into the important and the not that we do. (Unless someone here works in social services?)

If they investigate and find nothing is wrong - fine again. They are the experts, with more information on the case the we have - they make the call.

But if they investigate and find that there is indeed an issue - that the children may need to be taken away from him, and that he indeed requires psychiatric care...imagine if this is the outcome that would result and we don't bring it to the attention of the authorities. Those children, if they survive the ordeal, will have suffered massively from being in his care.

It is our duty to report this given the possible effects of not reporting it. The worst that can happen if we are wrong and report this is that he is found to be a suitable parent after an investigation. The worst that can happen if we are correct and don't report it is dead children and a suicide.

So please, someone - report this to the authorities, and then let them handle it from there. One or two followups may be needed (MAY be needed), but by doing this we are placing the decision in the hands of those who should be making it.

My two-cents.
 
Lurker said:
What fact? All you have presented here are IF statements. That is a pretty broad brush you wield there.
Click to expand...

You misrepresented what I said and cherry picked that word. What I said was: "You are also negating the fact that if this is a man that is consumed in a world of imaginary conspiracies" and paranoia can often be the result of, or can be eased with some form of substance: alcoholism etc. You also missed the word "likely" and I think it is likely (again, just my own opinion) that a man that is obsessed with conspiracies to the point when it's the driving force in his life -- so much so that he believes God is removing lives from his path so he can continue his crusade unhindered -- he is not mentally healthy. Moreover, is it likely, in my opinion, that through living a destructive compulsive life, someone of this mental state will find it difficult to keep steady employment... if he has any. Again just my opinion.

Lurker said:
Your opinion is noted but even if he is consumed by 911 you assume the kids suffer. I wonder if they are taken away and put in foster care if their lives would actually be better or worse. I have no knowledge of their situation but you seem to automatically assume it is terrible. On what evidence do you make that assumption other than an IF statement of your own imagination?
Click to expand...

Again, you misunderstood completely what I said. I said that anyone that can beleive that God killed his ex wife to advance his conspiracy work (after she removed the children and herself from an environment with him no less) is extremely unbalanced and unfit to be a parent. He is saying, in so many words, that God wants him to find this truth, even willing to kill people that get in his way. Thats a hellofa delusion wouldn't you say?

Lurker said:
Really? Now I agree that the 911 conspiracy is just plain bonkers. But from his point of view it is a cause worth fighting for. We send kids off to fight wars all the time in order to preserve that which we feel is right and just. Jackchit is behaving just like the rest of us in that regard.
Click to expand...

Again, you misunderstood what I was saying. I said this: "From his repugnant words on nineeleven.co.uk he believes God is removing obstacles (lives) from his path so he can carry on his crusade." Its not only a cause worth fighting for, from his words, it is a cause so monumental, that God is helping remove anything of a hindrance: like an ex wife.

Lurker said:
ETA: I should actually change the analogy to say that fathers go off to war themseves all the time in order to fight for things they believe in which shortchanges the attention their kids can receive.
Click to expand...

JC has not gone off to war; he is fighting this fight as you put it from his own home. So, your comment has no relevance whatsoever. He is not sacrificing himself, or putting himself in harms way. He is in his home, not on the front line and miles away from his children.

ETA: I should add that this is all IF. If this is true, then I think an individual like this provides an inappropriate environment for kids.

It could all be aload of BS. My OP was on the bases that what was said by JC was true.
 
Last edited:
IVXX:
(Terrorcell @ Mar 20 2007, 11:04 AM)
(IVXX @ Mar 20 2007, 03:24 PM)
(mynameis @ Mar 19 2007, 07:03 PM)
Originally Posted by Gravy Yesterday, 06:35 PM:

He's joking, right? He doesn't know that we've have access to their "secret" room almost since it started, and that nothing interesting happens there?

I think he should take a poll to see if his account should be deleted.
Click to expand...
And here I thought Mark Roberts was a mature fellow. :lol:
Click to expand...
He's right though, nothing happens in the secret room. I dont even have the password anymore, dont think I've looked in there in months....lol
Click to expand...

You don't have the password cause the Read Room no longer exist lol!!
Click to expand...

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=5764&st=0&#last

The mind boggles. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
 
I guess some guys over there realize that the
game is over and that's the reason for the latest
psyhological outburts... :boggled:
 
And on the other side of the coin that we have been discussing in other threads, the above quotes are some of the crap we see that makes us have so LITTLE TOLERANCE for the CT Wooists that come here.

TAM:)
 
Rawkarma said:
He made that post (if it was JC) on a public forum, and thus I am not prying into his business.

...And nor do you know his life, but again, I made my comments in reply to his on a public forum. I know as much as you do, and yet you seem to be giving JC alil too much credit in regard to his character in light of what, if true, he said.
Click to expand...

I'm giving him the credit I would give anyone, and that I hope people would give me. And you are prying into his business by trying to get his children taken away from him based on what he's teaching them.

That is my take on the matter. If you had evidence of more abuse or if I had, it would be different.
 
boloboffin said:
I'm giving him the credit I would give anyone, and that I hope people would give me.
Click to expand...

Well, maybe before JC goes (and again, remember that this is all IF it's really JC and really true) writing that crap on a public forum for all to see, he should consider that it is not the best way to endear yourself.

And you are prying into his business by trying to get his children taken away from him based on what he's teaching them.
Click to expand...
He made that post of a public forum, and thus im in no praying into his business. I said that: "If this is true, then I think an individual like this provides an inappropriate environment for kids."

You disagree. So we will have to agree to differ on this.

However, show me where I said im gona take his kids away from him? It's rhetorical, as I didn't:

I said: "Somone needs to remove those kids ASAP." I did not say I am going to, nor have I enlisted the help of any 3rd party to get his kids removed. I said that if it is true, then yea, imo those kids need a new environment.

Those kids are better of with a father that lives in the real word and doesn't have his head filled with conspiracy nonsense and irrational belief that God is helping him on his quest for truth by killing people.

And to be honest, I think I've said enough on this.

I sincerely hope that JC was talking aload of BS. But if not, then my OP I stand by.
 
I have to apologise for not contacting anyone in Social Services about this yet (Silly Busy day), but what I will do tomorrow is print all this data off and send it to them. Their job is to decide whether to intervene or not based on certain criteria, i.e. (based on a case from last week): is the YP ("Young person") displaying signs of assault? Are they still living at the same address as the plaintiff? Are they still in regular contact with the plaintiff? Are they aged under 18?" Answer no to all the previous means no action. Answer yes to any might mean intervention. The touchstone in all these instances is the Victoria Climbie case, where no professionals bothered to exchange information with each other, to fatal restult. Now, we err on the side of caution. There might not be any problem at all, but if there is -

I also have to apologise for making this sound enormously melodramatic. It's probably nothing!
 
Interesting question...

Have any Debunkers had their friendships or relationships hurt by being involved in 9/11 research?

I can categorically say no. I do this mainly when I'm home bored and not inspired to write.

My partner has seen a number of the videos and she came to a swift conclusion that they were a bunch of idiots. It's not something she's really interested in, and when she's around it's not something I'm really interested in either... ;) so no problem there.

9/11 Has only ever come up once amongst my group of friends, and after pointing out the errors in one particular point my friends accepted it and the matter has never been worth raising again.

Of course I think part of the motivator for 9/11 CTers is Iraq. We aren't in Iraq, and our country was thoroughly opposed to it, so it's less of an issue here. Our involvement in Afghanistan is very low-key in the media, and people seem relatively supportive of it.

So this debunking has never been an issue for me. Anyone else?

-Gumboot
 
Almost all of my friends are in the Debunking camp or simply don't pay attention. I do have one friend who is a "truther" as I have stated before. He is a good guy, and his heart is in the right place. I just think he is misguided and gullible...but he might say the same of me.

TAM:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom