Sunday, 13 November 2011

Banned from Big Dan's Little Fascist Blog - Again

So confident of their "Troofiness" are Big Dan and his side-kick-parrot, Plunger, that they can't stand the least criticism. When asked to stand up claims about the dancing Israelis and UMS being MOSSAD (claims made by their Fascist sources but which Dan, Plunger and 911 Troof repeat ad nauseum as FACT) they blathered various vague and inconsequential rubbish about Jews - even citing 1954 and such like. All the usual rubbish, but nothing to substantiate the claims of their fascist sources - AmericanFreePress and Chris Bollyn.

Big Dan's is yet another little fascist, conspiracy hole that purports to criticise fascism whilst promoting Fascist sources, Fascist views, Fascist news.

Big Dan's Little Fascist Blog links to former AFP writer Chris Bollyn under the heading, "Fighting Fascism". It includes a listing for Willis Carto's American Free Press under the heading "NEWS" and Mike Rivero's WhatReallyHappened appears under a heading of "THE BEST NEWS".

Big Dan defends his use of the Fascist Press on the grounds it is "more honest" than mainstream. Dan offered Bollyn's book on 911 (which scapegoats Jews, obviously) as evidence.

Anyway, after proving Bollyn, Big Dan and Plunger to be liars making claims based on nothing, they banned me, and deleted my comments. Again. The usual response of the Troofy wing of the Fascist party.



For some previous on 'Big Dan's Little Fascist Blog' - here.

Highlights include recommendation to read Hitler's Last Testament, so as to get the real lowdown on Jooos. Other sources include various Carto organs, Benjamin Freedman, Father Coughlin, William Luther Pierce....you know, the usual leftwing, liberal and anti-fascist stuff, right? Sure. Far-right dude! Errr, I mean "Far out!"

36 comments:

Real Truth Online said...

But YOU ban and censor people, so why the fuck do you cry and bitch about OTHERS doing it to you????

Got an answer???

Real Truth Online said...

Looks like you got a strong case of "Alex Jones-itis"

the_last_name_left said...

No, Larry - you are the only person I have banned - and that's not because of the content of what you've said, but rather your extreme rudeness - and your repeating the same post 60 times.

FACT.

And my "bans" are so harsh that you're here today spouting your rubbish - just as you have been the last 3 years.

That proves the inadequacy of your charge. How are you here posting this lame bullshit if you're so banned? How is my blog full of your bullshit if you're banned all the time?

the_last_name_left said...

Here's Larry justifying his censorship of me in our very first interaction:

L: "I never DENIED I deleted your comment. I DENIED I CENSORED you. Two VERY different things. When you fail to abide by my EASY rules of my blog, I have the right to do what I want. I allow free speech, but free speech doesnt give you the right to disobey my rules how I see fit."
=============

Hypocrite.

Anyone interested can look here for the facts:
http://the-last-blog-left.blogspot.com/2009/08/example-ohghgfnbgfdskbhgfdjbvgfjb.html

and here's why Larry has been banned from here previously (he has tourettes):

http://the-last-blog-left.blogspot.com/2009/08/larry-architect-tourettes.html

the_last_name_left said...

And anyway Larry - are you meaning to defend people using the fascist Willis Carto as a source?

And the banning of people whom criticise the use of lying piece-of-shit Fascists??

Is that what you're saying?

You removed your links to Willis Carto .... well done.

But now you're failing to recognise the relevance of the criticism against others whom continue to use Carto.

If that's the case, why did you remove your links to Willis Carto's AFP?

Real Truth Online said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Real Truth Online said...

"Here's Larry justifying his censorship of me in our very first interaction:

L: "I never DENIED I deleted your comment. I DENIED I CENSORED you. Two VERY different things. When you fail to abide by my EASY rules of my blog, I have the right to do what I want. I allow free speech, but free speech doesnt give you the right to disobey my rules how I see fit."
=============

Hypocrite."

Not at all. I give a disclaimer on my post box saying what circumstances i will delete comments. You do not give one---meaning all is fair game unless you give a disclaimer. Not hypocritical at all.

the_last_name_left said...

haha - oh, ok then.

the_last_name_left said...

Larry - the topic here is Big Dan's Little Fascist Blog. You have not contributed a thing to the topic. Keep going in that vein and you will deleted.

Consider this yet another warning for you. OK.

Follow my simple rules, and you can post - as you know. But if you don't - you will get deleted.


----

As regards your censoring of me, it didn't happen at all as you portray now - the following was me writing about it back in Aug/July 09, after you deleted and censored my civil and relevant comments:

----
When I visited Larry Simons' website and simply pointed out he'd done absolutely nothing to substantiate his claim that Poplawski held "opposing views" to those of Alex Jones et al, he became insulting and foul-mouthed. Then he deleted my comments.

Larry's deletions of my civil and relevant comments have proven Larry to be a hypocrite as his own website purports to champion "freespeech". His blog castigates others for having deleted or restricted his foul-mouthed trolling of their blogs, yet Larry doesn't hesitate to censor comments at his own blog, even if they are civil and relevant - something Larry cannot claim for his own comments elsewhere. Check his comments on this blog for example: he has managed to contribute nothing, except insulting ad hominem.

In my experience this is so typical of Troofers: whilst they bleat about censorship they don't hesitate to engage in censorship themselves
========

Real Truth Online said...

But yet you KEEP COMING BACK to my blog when I cuss you out every day there! And you claim you DONT LIKE my language and yet you keep returning to a site that YOU DONT HAVE TO GO TO when I cuss you out there??? OBVIOUSLY my language is NOT the issue!

Real Truth Online said...

Tell me shithead, if my language is sooooo hard to read and it offends you so much, why do you keep coming back to MY blog???? You have the option to stay away from it, yet you KEEP COMING BACK.

Why is that??

the_last_name_left said...

I shan't be going back anymore, Larry.

You've not just jumped the shark but shot over it in an Apollo capsule made out of old toilet rolls.

Jesus.

Larry rockets over the shark

Here's a slice of Larry's wisdom (regarding 911 fires):

"Smoke is not hot."

Wow. I always thought that eventually and occasionally you'd have to respond to fact and logic.

I was wrong. Dead wrong.

socrates said...

Hi TLNL, don't waste your time with Larry, imho.

Hey, that thing I went through ended on Monday. I wrote up a new entry. Then I wrote up a repost of one of my 21 deleted entries.

In the comments for that, we had a pretty good give and take.

The Big Dan crowd was even mentioned.

The problem is I can't simply copy and paste the saved copies. I have to retake screen shots, manually put in codes for bold, italics, links, etc.. The beauty though is that I saw this coming before it happened, and I not only saved all the entries but also the comments. I even added our avatars to the reposted comments. You were the Moose guy back then, that tv personality or comic or someone.

Basically my blogging gonads were reattached on Monday.

the_last_name_left said...

hey. congrats on the case!!!

Real Truth Online said...

"Here's a slice of Larry's wisdom (regarding 911 fires):

"Smoke is not hot.""

Actually I didnt say that, anonymous did on my blog. I just agreed with it, but you keep IGNORING my questions about why firefighters don't burn alive when they run through smoke-filled buildings and why the WTC jumpers had the option to jump from the smoke if the smoke can reach 1,000 degrees [why wouldn't the extreme heat of the smoke have killed them BEFORE they jumped?].

You REFUSE to answer these questions, but opt to do what any 2nd grader would do, name-call and ask OTHERS to do YOUR investigation FOR YOU.

I ask LOGICAL and VALID questions based on info that YOU gave and what's your response?

"You're crazy", "you're a kook"

EXCELLENT response! What's more crazy than NOT being able to refute and answer the questions of someone you claim is crazy???

Huh??

Real Truth Online said...

"I shan't be going back anymore"-----not only are you a complete QUEER for using the word "shan't" but it's not true. You'll be back at my site. It's just a question of when.

Real Truth Online said...

I'm assuming you actually posted the link to the thread in which you continually IGNORE my valid, logical questions because you know the only person that goes to your stupid blog [for reasons other than to rip you a new asshole] is Socrates, and he's probably laying in bed next to you responding to your posts on his laptop in between giving you blowjobs. LOL.

the_last_name_left said...

L: "I didnt say that.....I just agreed with it"
------------

TADA!

If you want answers to your ridiculous questions - you can either re-read what I have already written, or write to FireEngineering.com - the authors of the article I quoted. They're the experts.....not me. I can't claim to know that they're right - nor can I speak on their behalf - but they *are* the experts. If you don't believe what they say - take it up with them. I believe them - I have no reason not to - they're the experts.

Your ridiculous posturing on this is typical - but extreme. You believe you know more about fire, smoke and firefighting than FireEngineering.com! The arrogance......

Real Truth Online said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
socrates said...

Hey TLNL- Thanks!!!!!

So Larry thinks you're queer. He doesn't realise that in Europe queer means odd and it's like being called a non-conformist, which is a compliment.

You should start writing about cigarettes but call them fags. Use the word crack meaning fun. I guess if you're having fun toying with the twi, more power to you. Ye dost carreth on blokey minus the crikey.

socrates said...

twi = twit

the_last_name_left said...

$100 eh? by default. lol.

yay!!! It's good news. He's made himself look like pretty bad.

Speaking of which......Larry - I've answered your questions, you just haven't realised it. You continually make the most ridiculous stupid assumptions and proceed from there. That's your problem. FireEngineering.com answer all your questions, if only you could bother to read what's there rather than making it up in your head.

Real Truth Online said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Real Truth Online said...

"Speaking of which......Larry - I've answered your questions, you just haven't realised it."

Really?? WHERE? WHEN???

Oh, is THAT why you DELETE my comments? Because you HAVE answered them???

Point me to the link where you answered them! Where's the proof you answered them???

Isn't it rib-tickling that on a thread on your story of being BANNED, you DELETE comments???

Real Truth Online said...

TLNL, did you NOT say smoke can reach up to 1,000 degrees????

Are you DENYING you said this???

You CAN'T deny it, because you said it.

So, here are my questions that you have FAILED to answer:

1. Why don't firefighters instantly die when running through 1,000 degree smoke?

2. Why didn't the WTC jumpers die in the 1,000 degree smoke before they had made their decision to jump?

You have NEVER answered these.

Real Truth Online said...

Socrates, are you saying that TLNL is too dumb to know that in America queer also means homosexual? He just insulted you, TLNL.

the_last_name_left said...

1. Why don't firefighters instantly die when running through 1,000 degree smoke?
=======

I'm sure they would die. Which is why they don't do it, I presume.

-
2. Why didn't the WTC jumpers die in the 1,000 degree smoke before they had made their decision to jump?
=======

I don't think it takes much empathy to understand there must be a considerable danger behind someone to send them forwards and out of a WTC window 100 stories up.

Or maybe they just all suddenly became wildly suicidal? Maybe it was a pact, you think? A cult perhaps?

Simple fact is you claimed black smoke in fires means a cool fire.....whereas FireEngineering.com directly refute that and say the blacker the smoke, the hotter the fire.

Indeed - look at burning oil tankers or storage places: the amount of highly energetic thick black smoke is astonishing. Nobody would say it wasn't hot.

911 Troof has been claiming black smoke means a cool fire all along. It's a lie. One can hardly blame people for being fooled when they've been lied to. But when they know they've been lied to and it doesn't change anything, well.....la de dah.

Real Truth Online said...

"1. Why don't firefighters instantly die when running through 1,000 degree smoke?
=======

I'm sure they would die. Which is why they don't do it, I presume."

LOL, how would they know which fires to avoid and which ones to go running through to get to the fire??? LOL!!!! I'm pissing my pants!! THIS is the "answer" I waited so long for????? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO!!!!!!!

"2. Why didn't the WTC jumpers die in the 1,000 degree smoke before they had made their decision to jump?
=======

I don't think it takes much empathy to understand there must be a considerable danger behind someone to send them forwards and out of a WTC window 100 stories up."

Yeah, the danger was NOT WANTING TO BREATH THE SMOKE, BECAUSE SMOKE ALONE CAN CAUSE DEATH---AND IT'S NOT BECAUSE OF TEMPERATURE OF SMOKE, IT'S THE SMOKE ITSELF, YOU FUCKING MORON.

They jumped because they felt if they were out of the smoke and into fresh air, despite being that high up they "might" have some chance of survival---but I think all in all they knew they would die, they just didnt want to die from suffocating to death.

"Or maybe they just all suddenly became wildly suicidal? Maybe it was a pact, you think? A cult perhaps?"

That's pretty fucking offensive to the family members of these victims don't you think? And we as truthers get blamed for "disrespecting" the family members when we simply speak about the cover up---although many victims' families believe what we do also. And here is a fucking faggot like you saying maybe they killed themselves ON PURPOSE??? PRETTY FUCKING OFFENSIVE ASSHOLE!

Even though my questions were ADDRESSED, I still wouldn't call them ANSWERS. Once again, you AVOID actually ANSWERING questions with "maybes" and "what if's". That is NOT answering them.

the_last_name_left said...

L: how would they know which fires to avoid and which ones to go running through to get to the fire???
==========

The FireEngineering.com article is called 'THE ART OF READING SMOKE'

There's a clue in the title, Sherlock. But just to make sure, here's a bit of it -

"One of the “basics” gaining headway is the ability to “read smoke” to help predict fire behavior within a structure. The ability to read smoke has been around for many decades-the fire officers handling America’s fire epidemic in the 1970s became quite proficient at the skill. Unfortunately, these sound tacticians felt that the ability to read smoke was based on experience and intuitiveness and couldn’t necessarily be taught except for repeated practice at actual fires. Further, the skills these fire officers developed in reading smoke don’t readily apply to today’s fire. Low-mass synthetics and the consumer trend toward “big box” purchasing have led to a more volatile fire environment. To make matters worse, we are responding to fewer fires: Experience is arguably diminished as teacher. To get back to the basics, we need to teach fire officers how to rapidly interpret smoke issuing from a building so that appropriate tactical choices can be made. For example, the first-due officer who can rapidly read smoke can make better decisions about aggressive fire attack or search and rescue priorities. Although far from complete, this article will capture the essence of reading smoke and offer some tried and tested interpretations to help fire officers make better rapid decisions on the fireground."
-------


L : "the danger was NOT WANTING TO BREATH THE SMOKE, BECAUSE SMOKE ALONE CAN CAUSE DEATH---AND IT'S NOT BECAUSE OF TEMPERATURE OF SMOKE, IT'S THE SMOKE ITSELF, YOU FUCKING MORON."
----

Sure breathing smoke is one issue. But being burned is another. You don't know why they jumped - you're making assumptions again - as you always do - and treating your assumption as fact - as you always do.

FireEngineering.com very clearly say that thick, energetic black smoke can be over 1000F and should be treated as fire because it does all the damage fire does.

Here's the quote (yet again). Try reading it this time?)

"....the more black the smoke, the hotter the smoke.

“Black fire” is a good phrase to describe smoke that is high-volume, turbulent velocity, ultradense, and black. Black fire is a sure sign of impending autoignition and flashover. In actuality, the phrase “black fire” is accurate-the smoke itself is doing all the destruction that flames would cause-charring, heat damage to steel, content destruction, and victim death. Black fire can reach temperatures of more than 1,000°F! Treat black fire just as actual flames...."

and

"Practically applied, thick smoke will spread a fire event (like flashover) farther than less dense smoke. We already know that turbulent smoke is a flashover warning sign, yet thick, laminar-flowing smoke can ignite because of the continuity of the fuel bed to a flaming source. One other point regarding smoke density: Thick, black smoke within a compartment reduces the chance of life sustainability because of smoke toxicity. A few breaths of thick, black smoke will render a victim unconscious and cause death within minutes. Further, the firefighter crawling through zero-visibility smoke is actually crawling through ignitable fuel. Modern fire tests are showing that smoke clouds can ignite at lower temperatures than fires of even 10 years ago.3 We can thank plastics and low-mass materials for making our job more dangerous."
-------------

You could have just read it yourself, but obviously that's too much to ask of a real fire-expert such as yourself.

the_last_name_left said...

L: you AVOID actually ANSWERING questions with "maybes" and "what if's". That is NOT answering them.
========

LOL. I know, you're used to dogmatism. [shrug]

L: here is a fucking faggot like you saying maybe they killed themselves ON PURPOSE??? PRETTY FUCKING OFFENSIVE ASSHOLE!
------


Language Timothy! Are you really so stupid you didn't understand my point? Oh, nevermind.....

socrates said...

Oh man, what a nutjob. The language is outrageous. It's like he's exhibiting mental illness in public.

Yes, TLNL, it was a victory. I was a lawyer for three hours. I kicked ass.

This could potentially become a key story in the topic of 1st amendment rights for bloggers.

I should be back to health by Monday for a fresh start to the week. It took a lot of driving with no sleep to pull that off. It was perhaps the performance of my life.

Real Truth Online said...

Socrates: Oh man, what a nutjob. The language is outrageous. It's like he's exhibiting mental illness in public.

Yeah, what a nutjob I am! Being outraged that your little fuckstick friend claimed the WTC jumpers killed themselves on purpose, and that maybe they were part of a cult----but yet HE isn't a nutjob----IS he??

the_last_name_left said...

@S: y, cool to be part of case law. :D haha. you might make part of law degrees for the next 40 years. haha. Revenge, huh? lol

Serves the git right, imo.

@L: I was mocking you Larry, you twerp.

You said "how come the jumpers weren't killed before they jumped" - suggesting that because they made it out of the windows the smoke couldn't have been hot. We don't know whether they jumped because of smoke inhalation, smoke at/near 1000F (black fire) or fire itself- or some combination.

I would suggest likely it was heat.....if it's so hot you have to move away.....that would get you out the window. I don't that relatively cool smoke would do it. But maybe it would.

Anyway - you don't know - stop pretending you do.

The point is that the all the WTC (towers and 7) exhibited thick, highly energetic smoke.

If they hadn't Troofers (including yourself) wouldn't ever have needed to lie that black smoke equals a cooler fire.

The point is there was plenty of thick black smoke. FireEngineering.com say "the blacker the smoke, the hotter the fire".

Are you claiming FireEngineering.com are liars? That they're incompetent? That they're putting peoples' lives at risk by giving out false information to fire professionals and rescue services? Are you?

Or are you going to admit YOU WERE WRONG?

Whatever - everyone can see you were wrong. Whether you admit is neither here nor there - though it'd be to your credit if you could even once admit you were wrong. But you can't - and that's to your eternal discredit.

socrates said...

Did I miss something, TLNL? I've never seen you write that you are homosexual. Not that it would matter. So Larry is just showing how un-American and bigoted he is. He's a hater.

the_last_name_left said...

Well, indeed. If I was homosexual i really would be insulted. If he thought I was actually homosexual probably he wouldn't say it.....but.....like that makes it any better?

I find it interesting the ways people use insult - it says a lot about someone, more than they usually like to reveal.

At some online argument over OWS people were berating the police for breaking up the camps - claiming it was silencing dissent. Amongst it all I was told several times to "shutup" (or worse) - by supporters of OWS! Christ - totalitarian mindset, or what? Jesus! I'm suspicious of lefties embracing Vangardism, let alone these kooks. And at least lefties know the criticism of vangardism - these people don't. Well, they ain't letting on if they do.

I want to be proven wrong - I want OWS to crap all over my concerns and my 'conservatism' and prove it completely misplaced. I hope the world has changed and I just haven't noticed.....but I'm not yet persuaded. :D

All this 99% stuff makes me increasingly cross. As if the 99% haven't been voting for all the things that have happened the last 30 years or more?

Alternative parties in USA stood - and each got less than 1% of the vote in 2010. Now we're supposed to believe people didn't get what they voted for? Well, sure - we all voted for Jam Today, I suppose - and few of us get it. What's new?

But 1% voted for alternatives to the main parties and yet the rhetoric atm is that elections are a sham, rigged, theatre, blah blah blah. What do people want? They want the Dems or Repubs to say what alternative parties are saying, and then they'll vote for it? Or they want alternatives to say what the Repubs and Dems do, and then they'll vote for the alternatives? Either way - people have the option right now to vote for alternatives, and they just don't.

In the Uk atm there's always this undercurrent about EU that "we should have a say - we need a referendum". But that forgets that parties who wanted to withdraw from Europe have been crucified at the polls for 40 years, not least at the last election just 18 months ago!! And yes, just 18 months ago the country voted to elect the Tories who had campaigned on a ticket of austerity. Now people are complaining they have austerity!!! And that the democratic system is fucked!!! But hold on, people!!?? You voted!!! Jesus. lol

socrates said...

But think about this.

The last choice for President was between Obama and McCain. Leftier than thou's like myself never get a chance at the big dance.

There are side issues that take research and reflection.

I get what you're saying.

I just finally see the internet as pure idiocy.

People think they are participating in a democracy simply by making posts. But they never realise they are echoing ideas like puppets. If people are going to act like bullies in dialogue, it'd be nice if they actually came up with some good stuff.