Corruption in Alberta, Canada, 'Mafia' or someone else...

[Cunt]

I am going to stop following this thread. (I am still available by all those other private means) Please get help for yourself, BrettA. If there were issues about organized crime you have addressed them adequately by making this public. Now please try for some help for yourself.

[Jason]

Thank you Seth. I have just expressed concern in the mods forum that people are getting sucked in - in an inappropriate manner. We don't do censorship here but I would like off my own bat (this is not from mod discussion) to request that members follow Seth's suggestion and encourage Brett to seek help without engaging in discussion directly about the issues that are bothering him.

We all support you Brett and feel concern, but the issues you are bringing to the forum are about what is inside your head. You should seek help, from whatever source is most easily available.

+1

Best of luck Brett (George). I hope you get back to photographing beautiful nekkid women again soon.

[Thinking Aloud]

LOL... Funnier and funnier. My thread's been deleted 2ce on RatSkep now and I'm no longer permitted to read the forum.

It's possible that if the staff there moved the thread to a hidden staff-only subforum (for instance if someone was concerned about your personal info being publicly accessible they may have moved it out of general view) you'd get a "you are not authorised to read this forum" message if you're trying to get to the thread directly from its URL. Is that what you're seeing, or is it that you can't get onto RatSkep at all?

I checked with a staff member at RatSkep, who confirmed this is the case. Apparently some of your early posts to that thread contained your own personal information (which is against RatSkep policy) and were edited by staff accordingly; the whole thread was removed from the visible area of the forum when you reposted your personal information in it again. So no conspiracy there - just the staff removing personal content as per their rules.

As far as I'm aware, RS don't delete threads, just move them out of sight to a staff-only forum, which would explain the message you had. If I try to read a forum on Ratz to which I don't have access I get the following:

Screen Shot 2012-09-30 at 09.26.28.jpg

[BrettA]

LOL... Funnier and funnier. My thread's been deleted 2ce on RatSkep now and I'm no longer permitted to read the forum.

It's possible that if the staff there moved the thread to a hidden staff-only subforum (for instance if someone was concerned about your personal info being publicly accessible they may have moved it out of general view) you'd get a "you are not authorised to read this forum" message if you're trying to get to the thread directly from its URL. Is that what you're seeing, or is it that you can't get onto RatSkep at all?

I checked with a staff member at RatSkep, who confirmed this is the case. Apparently some of your early posts to that thread contained your own personal information (which is against RatSkep policy) and were edited by staff accordingly; the whole thread was removed from the visible area of the forum when you reposted your personal information in it again. So no conspiracy there - just the staff removing personal content as per their rules.

As far as I'm aware, RS don't delete threads, just move them out of sight to a staff-only forum, which would explain the message you had. If I try to read a forum on Ratz to which I don't have access I get the following:

Screen Shot 2012-09-30 at 09.26.28.jpg

Hmmm... This rather conflicts with this morning's Twoth / Penrose (Mod) email stating:

"The moderators are not 'hiding' the thread Brett, we have removed it for the benefit and welfare of the membership, rationalskepticism.org, and yourself.", no?

[Seth]

LOL... Funnier and funnier. My thread's been deleted 2ce on RatSkep now and I'm no longer permitted to read the forum.

It's possible that if the staff there moved the thread to a hidden staff-only subforum (for instance if someone was concerned about your personal info being publicly accessible they may have moved it out of general view) you'd get a "you are not authorised to read this forum" message if you're trying to get to the thread directly from its URL. Is that what you're seeing, or is it that you can't get onto RatSkep at all?

I checked with a staff member at RatSkep, who confirmed this is the case. Apparently some of your early posts to that thread contained your own personal information (which is against RatSkep policy) and were edited by staff accordingly; the whole thread was removed from the visible area of the forum when you reposted your personal information in it again. So no conspiracy there - just the staff removing personal content as per their rules.

As far as I'm aware, RS don't delete threads, just move them out of sight to a staff-only forum, which would explain the message you had. If I try to read a forum on Ratz to which I don't have access I get the following:

Screen Shot 2012-09-30 at 09.26.28.jpg

Hmmm... This rather conflicts with this morning's Twoth / Penrose (Mod) email stating:

"The moderators are not 'hiding' the thread Brett, we have removed it for the benefit and welfare of the membership, rationalskepticism.org, and yourself.", no?

Well, there's your answer. No grand conspiracy, just an individual decision by a bunch of panty-waist fuckwits.

[Bella Fortuna]

[BrettA]

Hmmm... This rather conflicts with this morning's Twoth / Penrose (Mod) email stating:

"The moderators are not 'hiding' the thread Brett, we have removed it for the benefit and welfare of the membership, rationalskepticism.org, and yourself.", no?

Well, there's your answer. No grand conspiracy, just an individual decision by a bunch of panty-waist fuckwits.

Well, I was kind of thinking that a site like RatSkep - or Ratz for that matter - was well outside of any "grand conspiracy" (your words of course). Indeed, I even doubt they even have the resources needed to set up false gates at airports - I sure hope I'm not wrong there. And that's by no means all of what's involved, so no "answer" there at all from my POV.

[BrettA]

I am going to stop following this thread. (I am still available by all those other private means) Please get help for yourself, BrettA. If there were issues about organized crime you have addressed them adequately by making this public. Now please try for some help for yourself.

Gee, I was wondering if Tigger's lounge is even seem by Googlebot, but either way, I'm far away from your thinking that raising them on Ratz is making them public in any remotely reasonable way. Shit, I even hit up strangers to get things to the RCMP so they';ll eventually be public... and lots more. - B.

[FBM]

Brett, it's against the rules to share PM's. I moved that post to Spam and Trash. Please refrain from sharing PM's or the information shared therein with others. Thank you.

[BrettA]

Brett, it's against the rules to share PM's. I moved that post to Spam and Trash. Please refrain from sharing PM's or the information shared therein with others. Thank you.

No probs and my apologies, but I'd twice (3 x?) mentioned I wanted this where bots could get at it - nothing else was working :-).

[FBM]

Brett, it's against the rules to share PM's. I moved that post to Spam and Trash. Please refrain from sharing PM's or the information shared therein with others. Thank you.

No probs and my apologies, but I'd twice (3 x?) mentioned I wanted this where bots could get at it - nothing else was working :-).

Mea culpa. I'm a mere lackey, and I wasn't raised right.

[Santa_Claus]

The thing about organised crime is that it's surprisingly disorganised.

[BrettA]

The thing about organised crime is that it's surprisingly disorganised.

Oh, on that I'll agree 100%! Not only amazingly disorganised, but astoundingly poorly trained, thoroughly disgusting, reprehensible to a degree I'd have never imagined and abjectly cowardly.

The do however have the resources to do things that likely only large governments can do. Did I note their contemptibly high level - low level? - of gross cowardice? Gross!

(All this of course applies to the little piggies not directly in organised crime who but aid them through their own public corruption. Indeed, I can see why they resort to crime - other than for monetary gain and fun, that is - they simply could not manage to make it in a normal civilized society where a shred of decency, ethics and care is expected. Even the 'swine analogy' raises these clowns to unfair levels and is a true putdown to good pigs everywhere. Sadly there's not an apropos word that I know low enough for these cretins.)

[BrettA]

Oh, fuuuuuuuuuck. I was way, way too kind to these little turds with words like "cowards" and "piggies". Now they're trying to go through my 80-something in-laws. Anyone supporting these fucks - as the police seem clear happens - better be pretty fucking clear that one your usefulness is over*, you're as fucked as anyone you're helping fuck now. It ain't like these shits have even the slightest sense of ethics after all.

I bet they used to just looooove pulling wings off flies, but are likely having way more fun now :-).

* My expectation there is once they've got the planet anywhere around you wrapped up... a decade or two, I'd guess for anyone reading this.

[BrettA]

I can't help but notice that you are using the opinions of the 2 doctors that you claim to be Mafia stooges as a reason not to seek a further medical opinion. In fact, you have done this in 2 posts to my knowledge.

Either they are legit, their diagnoses were correct and they had good reason to keep you under observaion (as well as good reason to later declare you fit and well and discharge you.)
Or they are in the pay of your enemies and NOTHING that they say can be accepted as fact.

You can't have it both ways, Brett.

I'd missed this earlier but came across it on a Google search, so please explain your seemingly fallacious claim that I ever used: "the opinions of the 2 doctors that you claim to be Mafia stooges as a reason not to seek a further medical opinion".

I did say: "things changed dramatically and after a several tests and interviews with psychiatrists and residents - one lasting 90+ minutes - I was moved out of High-Obs to the Unit proper and then fully released with "clean papers" - no follow-up and no meds… all within 20 hours", but how anyone could get "2 doctors" out of that is beyond me unless they were trying to misrepresent. So please point me to what you are referring to, XC.

Also, I can't believe I would ever claim anything about lol "Mafia stooges" since I doubt the phrase would ever occur to me... but who knows.