Yes I defended Devan Evans' blogpost criticizing some players over at the CS forums, because in my opinion the critique is perfectly justified. His contribution showed that some folks weren't as squeaky clean as they pretended to be. Like Evans I come to the conclusion that some people made a mess of things themselves and should look inward instead of blaming the Zeitgeist forum moderators, Peter Joseph or the movement itself. It's that simple.
Quick recap of some of the people I (and Devan Evans) addressed. Nanos, seems like a fairly decent bloke from what I have gathered yet couldn't stop criticizing the movement on a regular basis. Most striking of all, from my perspective, the moment he got banned on the ZG forum he pops up over the CS forum and lets face it, that place is already known to harbor fierce critics. In a way some people would look on that as another justification.
Thanks to Ed W. it's obvious now that he isn't Ed B - another guy who had a beef with the Zeitgeist movement. I'm Ed V. so I think we can all agree that it is a little bit confusing at times. So Ed W., relax. I did leave the connection unverified and open to questioning.
'Anti cultist,' another fierce critic, armchair sociologist and hypocrite in my book. Complains on his blog that groups (like Zeitgeist) are in fact a cult yet also clearly states that people band together for survival. Complains that the Zeitgeist forums took another approach while he was fully aware of the endeavors of 'anti-members' out to create chaos, did not focus on that or the fact that it drove some moderators to tears. Complains that the behavior of many Zeitgeist members and supporters leaves much to be desired yet a quick glance over at the CS forums will show you that he spews the most foulest shit himself.
1. foolish, unintelligent, or silly; stupid: It is surprising that supposedly intelligent people can make such asinine statements.
2. of or like an ass: asinine obstinacy; asinine features.
Really? I'm being asinine for pointing out what I perceive to be fallacies? When I see a topic like this one over at the CS forums called 'Jacque Fresco: Deadbeat Dad,' I don't get the impression that you're doing objective (background) research. Seeing such a topic where some folks make some shocking comments give me the impression that it is simply character assassination.
Those folks are way beyond the point of objective analysis. You've reached the point where people (Zeitgeist supporters) view you as a debunking collective and rightly so. I raise the question; 'how did you get there?,' because some people pretend to be some kind of sociologist yet the introspective angle is hardly if not at all present. It's seemingly always easier to blame someone else. . .
But now that the pleasantries are over, I'll see if I can counter some 'main points.' And who knows, maybe I have some demands of my own. Quid pro quo, right?