Unified Statement on behalf of the Non-Conformist Community & the Red Pill Roundtable

https://www.waccobb.net/forums/wacco...4_11-28-16.png

America now honors one of its greatest non-conformists who withstood great condemnation and was ruthlessly silenced before the truth he fearlessly spoke was widely acknowledged, and the creator and supporters of what was the only protected space for non-violent free speech at wacco, the Red Pill Roundtable, are very saddened by what its recent silencing represents.


To the Wacco Community and Barry,

Supporters of the Red Pill Roundtable (RPR) are gathering in unity to bring to the community's attention numerous ways in which protected non-violent free speech, community diversity and respect for privacy are not being supported at wacco, and how these unsupportive practices are both being condoned and practiced by it's moderator Barry who has repeatedly called this faction of the community 'loonies and nutjobs' yet declares his forum motto to be a 'Connected Conscious Community'.

Did you even know RPR existed? Maybe not because Barry refused to put it in the digest and few knew they had to 'opt-in' to get any of it's postings.

A little background... Alex, an original wacco member and 3-year co-moderator asked Barry to let her create the 'Red Pill Roundtable' as a protected category for the non-conformist members who saw things differently than Barry and those who shared his mainstream opinions, to discuss non-mainstream topics. A condition was that it be kept completely free of the members who always ridiculed the topics without ever first trying to understand the reasons the people posting found convincing before responding, and/or used other condescending, disrespectful behaviors that Barry not only tolerated but always thanked.

The Red Pill Roundtable category was finally launched March 20, 2015, though Alex's purpose for RPR was to create a supportive space to seek answers to disturbing questions, while Barry's purpose was to have a place to isolate and confine conspiracy theorists.

"Let's get going on the red pill. I'm losing patience for the kind of stuff below in the regular categories...."
-Barry to Alex about a post suggesting exaggerated media panic about Ebola

The Red Pill Category never gained traction from the feeling of pointlessness to post where no one one was looking, but it did no harm, and achieved showing how respectful true open-minded discussion could be. Suddenly without any respect or consideration for those who cared, on March 19, 2016 Barry suddenly silenced and eliminated both 10-year member Alex and the entire Red Pill Roundtable Category.

Email Spying: Additionally, this past year we also learned that Barry has been intercepting, spying on and not forwarding some members' private emails. This means no one at wacco can ever know Barry is not spying on them too - and it's spying on both the sender and receiver. These are the same shadow side tactics appearing right in our faces that RPR was so dedicated to exposing in the macrocosm.

https://www.waccobb.net/forums/wacco...4_11-29-13.png

In unity we are expressing our great disappointment at how disrespectfully the non-conformists in this community have long been treated at wacco and for the censoring and privacy intrusions taken against us. Many other non-conformists noticed the same patterns and left because of it, and we suspect participation in RPR would have been much greater had it not been hidden.

Regardless of how small we are, it is a significant and disturbing act to silence any non-conformists raising valid questions. We suspect that Martin would have agreed.

Alex to Barry 3-19-16:[I] My RPR moderating tools suddenly disappeared from one minute to the next. Are you really breaking our agreement and rudely making this unnecessary, destructive and dictatorial move?

Barry to Alex 3-19-16 Yes I am

The supporters of the Red Pill Roundtable sincerely thank all it's participants, supporters and potential supporters who never even knew it was there for anything big or small you ever do to stand for truth despite any inconveniences.

We invite any other advocates of non-violent, protected free speech,tolerance for community diversity and reliable privacy to add your name in support of this statement and/or share any wacco experiences of your own regarding these topics.

In Unity,
Shandi
Comodin
Conservationalist
Alex, RPR Creator and Moderator

It's a sad day in community when speech that asks for accountability is censored. I hope there is a possibility for reassessment and resolution instead. We can all learn how to shift things from the microcosm to affect the macrocosm. There is an opportunity for growth and insight when all know what is occurring.

Please check the FEEDBACK category, since this is where Barry has moved it because it's "feedback" about Wacco. If you have any "feedback" on this post, please comment there, or start a new post with your own statement. Thank you for supporting free speech, even when it's hidden.

Shandi—

I'm confused about elements of your post. You said it was censored, but I received about four copies of it.

More to the point: I couldn't quite discern the nature of the Red Pill history. I gather that some participants wanted an arena to discuss their ideas that was free from the criticisms received from the general Waccotalk posts. But at the same time, once that was in place, there seems to be concern about being cut off and marginalized. But I don't understand how you could want to be free from the discussion that inevitably swirls about controversial topics and prominent in a discussion forum. Did you want to be automatically included in my downloads but insulated from any disagreements I might have? How would that work?

If you desired an exclusive group, I'd suggest setting up a Yahoogroups thing where you can gather like-minded people or exclude them, as you will. But Wacco is set up as a discussion forum. For myself, I was happy not to receive so many "conspiracy" posts because the great majority seemed to be simply referrals to other websites, without a lot of critical sorting. And since I didn't subscribe to the Red Pill forum, I don't know what form your research discussions took. But certainly I support the free exercise of discussion so long as it's taken into account that one person's "critique" is another person's "attack," that "irony" can be read as "sarcasm," and that anyone who doesn't have a fairly thick skin should probably avoid discussion forums generally. Wacco is about the mildest place I know, despite a few wild-haired berserkers. Academics are infinitely more vicious in controversies than anything that happens here.

But in any case, I'm just asking how a section of a discussion forum can be free & open & widely distributed, yet confined to those who agree?

-Conrad

You posted this reply to my re-posting of the original post. I am not the moderator of The Red Pill, but I did choose it for my post a while back, because I liked what it was about, but Barry immediately wanted to move my post to the main part of the site, and did insult the people who created it. He eventually took my posting off Wacco.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by theindependenteye:

Shandi—

I'm confused about elements of your post. You said it was censored, but I received about four copies of it....

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by theindependenteye:

Shandi—

I'm confused about elements of your post. You said it was censored, but I received about four copies of it.

---

Thank you for your questions and comments. When it was immediately deleted from the General Community and moved to the nearly never used Feedback category we thought it was an act of censoring and deleting from the digest so we reposted it. We still think it's an act of censoring especially since pointing out that private emails are being read and confiscated is of interest to every member, not just feedback to the moderator.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by theindependenteye:

More to the point: I couldn't quite discern the nature of the Red Pill history. I gather that some participants wanted an arena to discuss their ideas that was free from the criticisms received from the general Waccotalk posts. But at the same time, once that was in place, there seems to be concern about being cut off and marginalized. But I don't understand how you could want to be free from the discussion that inevitably swirls about controversial topics and prominent in a discussion forum....

---

Thank you again. Yes, it seems that the reasoning behind it's creation was never really understood by many. You may not have experienced the years of frustration the non-conformist community has had trying to stay on topic, and even Barry has acknowledged this. A very simplistic explanation ...a post wanting to discuss some some specific data on vaccines would be instantly countered with 'Snopes says vacccines are safe, case closed'. And no amount of trying to explain would get a certain group of people to stop saying 'case closed' in return without even trying to understand our point. So we wanted to have a place to discuss topics without this unproductive pattern.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by theindependenteye:

...But in any case, I'm just asking how a section of a discussion forum can be free & open & widely distributed, yet confined to those who agree?

-Conrad

---

We understand that it appears that way from the outside, but it couldn't be further from the truth. The only thing the non-conformist or 'RPR' Community all agreed about was that there were valid questions to discuss. After that, there were big differences of opinion.

But if you had read any of it you would have seen a completely different standard of conduct. We really listened to each other, would never ridicule each other and conversations stayed on track in a respectful, productive way. You would have seen the huge difference compared to the main forum.

Thank you again. You voiced questions and misunderstandings that I think a lot of people had.

Hey Barry, what's all this about deleting the Red Pill Roundtable? Banning Alex? I mean, come on. I thought this was supposed to be open discussion. Looks more as if you have a very censorious agenda. Please tell us all that this is not so. Or, if it is, please explain your actions. That would be minimally respectful, and the least you could do if you are genuinely concerned with an open forum.

I must say that I did not know the RPR existed. So while I cannot comment on what I do not know, or have read about, I will support the principle freedom of speech. I hope this matter can be resolved in a way that allows for compromise and finding mutual respect for a renegotiated balance in needs, values, morals, ethics, including healthy boundaries for both sides to create a win-win.

What draws me to Waccobb.net is that I can connect with many people to share the frustrations of the world and locate kindred spirits. Life is hard and joyful, and lots more in between. We need one another to witness that we exist on many levels of thought and action. All of us are uniquely different, talented and qualified to have our respective forums give great contribution to one another. I don't know RPR, but even if I disagreed with it, it's kind of like a television channel; I don't have to watch it, but I know its there if I want to.

Waccobb is a GREAT place, and hats off to Barry for crating and moderating it this far to such success. The true test for this popularity is that the RPR Community is truly upset to have lost a forum it has called home.

Is this matter irreconcilable? Jennifer

Thank you Sandy,

I think I'm getting an idea of the concept. Is there an area with the RPR is now located, so I may have a read to try to understand what has happened with respect to it being removed or relocated?

Sincerely, Jennifer

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Shandi:

Thank you for your questions and comments. ...

---

Jennifer, You won't be able to access the posts from the RPR category in Feedback. The only thing that's there is our "Unified Statement...." As far as I know Barry has destroyed any evidence of posts that were there. I also just noticed that the "number" of views and gratitude for our post has disappeared. Kinda reminds me of "book burning" back in the day.

I do hope that Barry comes forward with his reasons for these censoring actions.

It wasn't intentional to post while Barry's on vacation. And, it seems he's still on Wacco quite a bit. It just happened that RPR was deleted and Alex banned, only shortly before he left. It took awhile to develop a statement that reflected the experiences of the signers. It went back and forth until a consensus of mutuality was obtained, so it wasn't just an arbitrary decision.

If you haven't experienced "private emails" being read by Barry, or his condoning ridicule or name calling, in addition to other things that I don't see as part of a "conscious" bulletin board, then you would find that Barry is fair. It is sad when we find out that someone we trust has done some untrustworthy actions.

I see this in the same way I see HSUS. So many people, including yourself, trust Wayne Purcell, in spite of evidence to the contrary.

Barry is very capable of speaking to this issue, but instead has chosen to try to hide it, in (corrected category)
"Help Desk and Feedback". where no discussion has ever been posted, and no one would subscribe to this. What does this indicate? Open and honest? or otherwise?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by sealwatcher:

Whether or not it's irreconcilable, it's unfortunate that it comes up now when Barry has gone on a vacation. Was that intentional? Couldn't it have waited (or been brought up sooner) for his return? Speaking for myself, I've usually found Barry fair to all of us so this surprises and rather saddens me.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by sealwatcher:

Before I read the RPR post just now,.....Now with Marty's post, I wonder: Barry, are you guilty of poor judgment? Have you censored and silenced, not for cause, but for your own preferences?.......

---

Far more than preference, we provided clear examples of extreme prejudice and disdain that were not rare. After years of it and then the sudden silencing of the only protected space from both the ridiculers and Barry's judgement that RPR represented, we finally had to say something.

The act of quickly trying to hide our statement in an obscure category is especially revealing in light of the private email spying we were also very tired of and wanted to warn the community about.

hey, waidamminnit -- maybe you'll dismiss my comments as prejudiced, because I was specifically asked to stay off RPR, because you guys set it up just so you could have a 'safe place' where you can have a echo chamber. Which is fine, but expecting Barry to provide that service seems unreasonable. He's shown that he prefers to directly deal with contributors that he feels cross over the line (that he draws, understandably) between adding to the discussion and being destructive or overly insulting. I don't see why he should be expected to act as a quasi-public agency. If you do insist on a group for like-minded people, a subscription-only website seems more appropriate anyway. I don't expect WaccoBB to host a private area for my personal interests. I'm not sure why, when you explicitly withdrew your topics from public discussion and made them a private section, you'd expect the free service to continue. If, as several people allude to, it also entailed receiving personal attacks and demands, he'd have to be a masochist to have continued providing the space.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Shandi:

Far more than preference, we provided clear examples of extreme prejudice and disdain that were not rare. After years of it and then the sudden silencing of the only protected space from both the ridiculers and Barry's judgement that RPR represented, we finally had to say something....

---

Typical of you to twist the situation, of who uses bully/put-down language by adding derogatory insults like 'echo chamber', deciding who is contributor... to the way you see things, and makes it ok to read or hijack private emails. Does he read yours?

Have you ever had anyone threaten you physically from the general board? I have and so have many who have left Wacco. Barry wasn't expected, but agreed to allow the RPR, even asked Alex when she was going to get it separated, and then pulled it when he was confronted about the 'private emails not being that at all...Waccogate? (lol) There are others who have a private section. Getting the facts clear is important.

I wonder if this will be posted, or if I will be allowed to stay on, because I disagreed with you and him. Squelching dissent or disagreement that is outside mainstream is being demonstrated at many levels these days. And if Barry does let this be, appreciations.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

hey, waidamminnit -- maybe you'll dismiss my comments as prejudiced, because I was specifically asked to stay off RPR, because you guys set it up just so you could have a 'safe place' where you can have a echo chamber. Which is fine, but expecting Barry to provide that service seems unreasonable. He's shown that he prefers to directly deal with contributors that he feels cross over the line (that he draws, understandably) between adding to the discussion and being destructive or overly insulting. I don't see why he should be expected to act as a quasi-public agency. If you do insist on a group for like-minded people, a subscription-only website seems more appropriate anyway. I don't expect WaccoBB to host a private area for my personal interests. I'm not sure why, when you explicitly withdrew your topics from public discussion and made them a private section, you'd expect the free service to continue. If, as several people allude to, it also entailed receiving personal attacks and demands, he'd have to be a masochist to have continued providing the space.

---

'twist the situation' == 'have a different perspective'
and I suppose the definitions of bullying and insults have to be left in the eye of the beholder, but showing a lack of respect for some ideas, or showing mild derision for others, seems to me to be an essential part of communication. Kumbaya, everyone.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by sharingwisdom:

Typical of you to twist the situation, of who uses bully/put-down language by adding derogatory insults like 'echo chamber',

---

Some people communicate using these principles, others don't:

"Violent" vs "Nonviolent" Communication

If "violent" means acting in ways that result in harm, then much of how we communicate — with moralistic judgments, evaluations, criticisms, demands, coercion, or labels of "right" versus "wrong" — could indeed be called violent.
Unaware of the impact, we judge, label, criticize, command, demand, threaten, blame, accuse and ridicule. Speaking and thinking in these ways often leads to inner wounds, which in turn often evolve into depression, anger or physical violence.
Sadly, many of the world's cultures teach these "violent" methods of communication as normal and useful, so many of us find our communication efforts painful and distressed, but we don't know why.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

'twist the situation' == 'have a different perspective'
and I suppose the definitions of bullying and insults have to be left in the eye of the beholder, but showing a lack of respect for some ideas, or showing mild derision for others, seems to me to be an essential part of communication. Kumbaya, everyone.

---

I suppose I've made it abundently clear by the way I write - but I find the goal of seeking purely supportive discussions that don't do anything more than offer gentle challenges along with reassurances of everyone's mutual respect to be charming but in the end wrong-headed.

And actually, the vitriol expressed toward safe-to-hate groups like the 1%, or developers, or Republicans, or big-bank supporters, or whatever, by those who also seem most offended by what you're calling violent language is pretty extreme. And the charge 'moralistic' to me is used here in exactly the reverse sense: it's a willingness to apply an extremely moralistic view to the rest of the world that leads to such demonization of the opponents. Just because it's not right-wing/religious-fundamentalist doesn't mean it's not an essentially moralistic approach to seeing the issues.

There's actually incredibly little ad-hominem directed toward those who I'd consider more vulnerable targets such as the redpill gang. See, I said gang. I bet that sounds like a dismissive and derogatory way to refer to them. But it's evocative, far less aggressive than the language used in many posts regarding local politicians, for example.

But I again reiterate if you really need such a safe place to discuss your issues, where only approved targets/stereotypes are attacked or derided, then a semi-public forum is too unfettered an environment for (the generic) you. People can't avoid inner wounds or depression by removing even the most mild conflicts from the world. That's a world of baby ducks, not people who have not only different interests but motivation to shape the world toward one they prefer.

And to return to the concept of 'respect', discussions work best when people respect each other's capability to engage as competent spokespeople for the ideas they present, but that by no means extends to pretending respect for ideas that aren't worthy of it. Infantilizing one's opponents by refusing to challenge their ideas is far less respectful in the end.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Shandi:

Some people communicate using these principles, others don't:

"Violent" vs "Nonviolent" Communication
...

---

What a great post, no critique intended. Wacco.be is berry's world, misspelling intended. Be careful what we write, it's our permanent record of thought which currant and future people will understand us by. Ie, there is no safe place on the web, to believe so is stupid and disproven. How honest can you be in code and response, that is the game, lose and you will be banned, with plenty of other places to play, at least for now vitually. National security bots are crawling the Web constantly looking for potential trouble, preserve your options! Why not?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

I suppose I've made it abundently clear by the way I write - but I find the goal of seeking purely supportive discussions that don't do anything more than offer gentle challenges along with reassurances of everyone's mutual respect to be charming but in the end wrong-headed.

And actually, the vitriol expressed toward safe-to-hate groups like the 1%, or developers, or Republicans, or big-bank supporters, or whatever, by those who also seem most offended by what you're calling violent language is pretty extreme. And the charge 'moralistic' to me is used here in exactly the reverse sense: it's a willingness to apply an extremely moralistic view to the rest of the world that leads to such demonization of the opponents. Just because it's not right-wing/religious-fundamentalist doesn't mean it's not an essentially moralistic approach to seeing the issues.

There's actually incredibly little ad-hominem directed toward those who I'd consider more vulnerable targets such as the redpill gang. See, I said gang. I bet that sounds like a dismissive and derogatory way to refer to them. But it's evocative, far less aggressive than the language used in many posts regarding local politicians, for example.

But I again reiterate if you really need such a safe place to discuss your issues, where only approved targets/stereotypes are attacked or derided, then a semi-public forum is too unfettered an environment for (the generic) you. People can't avoid inner wounds or depression by removing even the most mild conflicts from the world. That's a world of baby ducks, not people who have not only different interests but motivation to shape the world toward one they prefer.

And to return to the concept of 'respect', discussions work best when people respect each other's capability to engage as competent spokespeople for the ideas they present, but that by no means extends to pretending respect for ideas that aren't worthy of it. Infantilizing one's opponents by refusing to challenge their ideas is far less respectful in the end.

---

This notice is to all wacco members, that you can no longer feel secure about sending "private email" through wacco. (This is not "Feedback")

A few of us have discovered repeated instances over the last year of Barry intercepting private emails before forwarding. How would you feel if you found out that Barry is "reviewing" all the private emails that you send? This is also a privacy betrayal of your recipients. We're concerned that the broken trust means that no one can ever really know for sure .

I'm re-stating this issue because the first collective mention of it was quickly removed and put in the least read category "Help Desk and Feedback" to obscure it, and Barry has not responded to numerous additional references since.

https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showt...102#post201102

It's a disheartening blow to our sense of security and trust and we felt a duty to inform because the General Community certainly has a right to know.

The Story of the Red Pill Category

There’s been a long history of conspiracy theory oriented posts on WaccoBB. It’s made for some interesting discussions over the years. There’s a long list of “conspiracy theories” that turn out to be true (Project MKUltra is one of the more interesting ones) and there have been plenty that are clearly fantasies ( Climate Change, Birthers, etc. ), and there’s some that are still up for discussion (JFK, 911).

While some conspiracy theories do have relevance to our community, many do not. Further, a posted conspiracy theory that is challenged can be interesting and may yield a deeper understanding of the topic where the reader can make their own judgements. But a posted conspiracy theory that is not contested/researched is not that interesting, and when those posts start coming at increased rate they start feeling inappropriate and dilutes the value of WaccoBB.

As I have posted before, WaccoBB is not a place for free speech. Not all speech is welcome. It is intended for discussion and information dissemination within progressive community of the North Bay, with “progressive” being the operative word.

As founder and moderator I zealously nurture and protect this focus. While I generally allow people to self-select to be a part of the community, sometimes people join who clearly don’t belong. If they are respectful and well-spoken I’ll let them stay awhile, as their different perspective can add interest and some worthy critique of our principles. However, often in time, it becomes clear that they are a net detraction (typically because of the volume of their postings) to our community and I ask them to leave.

While I was a bit uncomfortable with the growing level of conspiracy theorist postings, most of which were often uncontested since they were so far out, I was going to let it ride. Then Arthunter started posting one or more such posts every day and not that much later Alex approached me with the idea of the Red Pill Category which would be just for conspiracy theorists. She didn’t want to hear from the people who "hadn't taken the pill". In effect, they would be censored from posting there.

I thought I’d give it a try and see how it turned out.

Since the whole point of the category is that it was just for people “who had taken the Red Pill” it made sense to me that it would be an opt-in category, i.e. it would not be included in people’s digest by default since they were not welcome to comment. I thought this would be good in that allowed the people who were interested to receive the information without spamming the people who weren’t.

I allowed Alex to post an introduction and invitation in General Community and I ran banners for it for weeks.

https://i.imgur.com/B1AD2DN.gif

It didn’t get a lot of traction. Arthunter refused to use the category, since she wanted the wider visibility and welcomed any replies, but allowed me to delete her posts as I saw fit. She also agree to only post to one thread which would allow people to unsubscribe once from that thread.

Then the problems started happening. If I either moved a thread into the category (because it was a conspiracy theory) or out the category (because it deserved wider visibility) I got a nastygram. I’m still the moderator and I reserve the right to organize the board as I see fit.

The last straw for me was when I got a nastygram for clicking “gratitude” on a post. It blew my mind. If they want to run their own site, then they should run their own site. I’m not interested in hosting it for them, especially when I get rude emails.

This all happened while I was on the road. I hadn’t decided what exactly I was going to do or say just yet, but I was going to do or say something. So just to keep things from getting out of control I removed Alex’s moderation privileges until I could deal with it. She quickly realized this and sent me the following note, that I will post here (since Alex already posted my private email) with my replies:

>> My RPR moderating tools suddenly disappeared from one minute to the next.
Are you really breaking our agreement and rudely making this unnecessary, destructive and dictatorial move?

Yes I am

>>If so, then please dump the category along with me.

Dumped!

Fare well,
Barry

What can I say, she made me an offer I couldn’t refuse! :) I “our agreement” was that I would give it try.

And I think it was the right call. There’s not reason that the Red Pill Roundtable should exist in a walled off community within WaccoBB.

So there’s the story of the Red Pill Roundtable.

Email Spying

I do not monitor people's private emails sent through wacco. However, there is some sort of bug that happens about once every month or two, through a sequence of events that I haven’t been able to reproduce, where I get sent a private email meant for another member.

I hate when this happens! I feel embarrassed that the system is not operating correctly and I have to (sheepishly) pass along the email to the intended party. I would love to fix this, but haven’t had the time to figure it out and it’s a pretty minor bug in the scheme of thing. There has never been anything of remote interest to me and I’m not interested. I am not spying.

Notice how this is a case in point where Red Pill people see a conspiracy behind anything they don’t understand.

Censoring

I did not censor the above “Unified Statement” that started this thread. I moved it to the appropriate category (it is Feedback about WaccoBB) and it was included in people’s digests by default.

I suppose you could say I censored Alex by banning her. Besides her request that I ban her, I feel it is appropriate given the rising level of anger and intolerance/disrespect that she has exhibited in both her public posts and private emails.

Again notice that whole idea behind the Red Pill Category was based on the idea is that people who didn’t agree with them couldn’t post there even though Alex's desire (which I refused) was that all the post would be sent to everybody, in effect censoring 99% of the community.

Moving Forward

I think that the Red Pill Roundtable was a worthy experiment and it's clear to me that it is not appropriate to be hosted on WaccoBB.

If they setup their own site, such as a YahooGroup, I’m ok with a monthly post about some RPR topic with a link to the group and I’ll close the thread so there can be no replies.

This, along with other uses of the site, has made me consider what’s the best way to balance the different uses of the site and what’s the best way to adjust the visibility of some posts that don’t deserve wide visibility but still may be of value to some users. I plan to post more about that in the future.

Barry

I was asked to join this "United Statement" and I decided not to do that, not because of any disrespect or disliking for the participants, but because I never liked the idea of the Red Pill category and the accusations of spying against Barry seemed ridiculous to me. I am watching as gossip, not fact, takes over our world and I'm sick of people being discredited without the chance to defend themselves ... but enough about that ....

I never liked the idea of the Red Pill category not only because of it's "hidden quality" but also because I'm concerned about anything which divides and labels members of our community. Though there are extremes, most people in this community are somewhere in the middle when it comes to information and beliefs, and I thought that the Red Pill category was unnecessarily alienating, though the intentions of the founders were good ...

I have been on Wacco for a very long time and I have not seen much in the way of censorship ... all kinds of things have been brought up and debated ... many of my own posts have been severely questioned ... at first I felt attacked by this and then I felt grateful for it because this led me to better research and the finding of more acceptable sources .... this is valuable ...

When Barry approached me about containing all of my posts in one thread I thought that it was a brilliant idea even though I realized that people could opt out of the receiving of my information if they so desired ... I'm fine with that and it seemed very fair and a great solution to any concerns that I was posting too much or dominating certain categories, something that I wouldn't want to do ...

This willingness to go the extra mile to keep everyone happy makes Barry a great moderator, in my opinion .... This is not an easy position to be in and we all owe him a debt of gratitude for his efforts ....

LOL!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

The Story of the Red Pill Category

The last straw for me was when I got a nastygram for clicking “gratitude” on a post. It blew my mind...I’m not interested in hosting it for them, especially when I get rude emails.

---

The truth hurts!

Quote:

---

Notice how this is a case in point where Red Pill people see a conspiracy behind anything they don’t understand.

---

With the Red Pill Roundtable, the Red Pill is NOT what is meant in the movie, The Matrix. Instead, the Red Pill Roundtable is like drinking the Kool-Aid people drank in Jonestown, Guyana. And there are 'Jim Jones' parallels as well.

The conspiracy theories that angered me the most, by far, were the ones about the Sandy Hook Shooting. They assert two different, contradictory theories:

1. That the US government orchestrated the shootings of the children in order to create a pretext for outlawing guns.
OR
2. That the US government organized actors to act as parents of children that were not murdered or did not even exist in the first place--in other words, that the shooting was a hoax (also for the purpose of creating a pretext to outlaw guns).

Furthermore, the conspiracy theorists could not make up their minds on which one they believe it is. It's as if they wanted BOTH theories to be true at the same time despite the fact that they are, obviously, mutually exclusive!

When people on the Wacco List defended these preposterous claims, I became furious. I am still angry about it now.