HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Science » Skepticism, Science & Pseudoscience (Group) » This message was self-del...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 03:33 PM

This message was self-deleted by its author

This message was self-deleted by its author (red dog 1) on Fri Mar 8, 2013, 01:00 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

14 replies, 1593 views

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to red dog 1 (Original post)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 05:11 PM

1. I suppose I was

I do know that surveillance cars were around with men snapping my photo back in the 60s. I'd spot them and Vogue for them. The truth was I didn't give a damn about it and they knew it. I wasn't intimidated.

I also read part of the crap they wrote and it read like a novel, so much gossip and completely erroneous information, people just weren't into telling men with black loafers and white socks much that was useful in bad neighborhoods in Boston and they'd make things up.

I was such a small fish back in the day that I was glad to have them all wasting their time on me.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warpy (Reply #1)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 09:21 PM

2. Unfortunately, being a small fish makes no difference to these criminals

If they're told to target you, they will do it, and they will do it every single day, 365 days a year.

Do you have any idea why you were targeted?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to red dog 1 (Reply #2)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 10:14 PM

3. I was an SDS pain in the ass

I think most of us were targeted in one way or another. I was just more photogenic.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warpy (Reply #3)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 10:39 PM

4. That would explain it.

Back in the '60s?.....From what you've described, including the black loafers, my guess was that was Cointelpro....those guys were FBI....This was decades before what we have today.....Low-level thugs, stalking, harassing & torturing whoever they've been assigned to "target"..in other words, gang stalkers.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to red dog 1 (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 08:19 PM

5. "directed energy weapons" and "forcible RFID implants"? Give us a break

That's from the first 'Examiner' article.

From 'multistalkkervictims.org':

"** directed energy weapons ("DEWs")
** non-lethal weapons
** mind control (the through-wall electronics can affect the mind)
** voice to skull (U.S. Army designation "V2K")"

From the 3rd Examiner link:

"Secretly forced brain implants: Ex-SS, FBI contractor defends targets and Secretly forced brain implants Pt IV: Intel expert on the doctors, children, military research"
"Chuck Norris reports "Obama's US Assassination Program," citing Obama regime security officials, that the next stage is to criminalize dissent and criticism of the government"

From the final link:

"The reader will be offered the report by one of Levin's republican sources close to the U.S. Secret Service who volunteered that a criminal Congressional conspiracy and cover-up took place between Senator John McCain and President George H.W. Bush. McCain allegedly agreed to use an unwitting scapegoat to blame for the deaths of American and Canadian citizens following a regional power blackout caused by then President George H.W. Bush's issuance of a clandestine order to test an aerial EMP weapon from a refitted military A-6 E Intruder jet-bomber over New York City. The covert military action deploying the use of an electronic warfare device, subsequently killed a number of American and Canadian citizens being used as involuntary human test animals. Many of the victims were reportedly killed when their hospital life support systems failed en masse. "

This is paranoid nonsense, and often right wing paranoid nonsense. Don't bring this crap to the Skeptics Group again.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #5)


Response to red dog 1 (Reply #6)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 05:20 AM

7. Why have you linked to so many sources that do subscribe to the mind control stuff?

It's not as if it's just one instance. It's central to Deborah Dupree's claims, which you praise, and it features heavily in your other 2 sources as well. If you don't believe all the fantastical claims of the technology, why didn't you link to one source that didn't feature it? We can't read the ones that you did give us without getting hip deep in the bullshit they peddle. They would be unsuitable for the General Discussion forum; they're particularly unsuitable for the Skeptics group.

As far as your accusations about me goes:

I am not aware of ever having being called a "banned disrupter". So, as far as I know, you have made that up, and it is not true.

I have never been banned from DU, nor from hosting or moderating on the site (I have done both).

My screen name comes from here, which was derived from Celia Molestrangler - a couple of made-up comedy names. A vole is a rodent, so Uncle Joe was just pointing out the parts of my screen name.

No, I owe you no apology; but feel free to apologise to me for the untrue "banned disrupter" accusation you produced from nowhere. More importantly, you should delete the links to the mind control/RFID implants/seeing through walls rubbish, if you're now disowning it all.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #7)


Response to red dog 1 (Reply #8)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 03:39 PM

9. That thread clearly shows that the 'banned disruptor' wasn't me

You, of course, leave out the reply to #162 ("I clicked on your link and post #32 is not from muriel?"). You also leave out the clear problem with the link that Leontius had given - while Leontius thought it linked to the "Young People Today Have No Idea What Easter Is Really About" thread, darkstar3 had said to Leontius "You realize you linked to this thread, right?". trotsky said "You mean the post from the banned disruptor?" - and it's clear that meant #32 in the thread that trotsky post that in - #32 had been posted by mistertrickster on Apr 7th, and was banned by Skinner on April 10th. That's why trotsky said "I clicked on your link and post #32 is not from muriel?". You can ask him, if you want to be sure.

No, I've never been banned; I was unaware of that mix-up (it happened 2 days after my posts in the thread, so I'm not surprised). Even if I had noticed it, I wouldn't have needed to reply to him - it is (a) obvious that the 'banned' remark is about mistertrickster and (b) I know trotsky would not accuse me of being banned.

So, you're happy with you links being shot through with unbelievable crap about mind control, seeing through walls, testing of EMP weapons that killed people in cities that was completely covered up, and accusations that Obama is secretly killing people in the USA. You could have linked to sensible articles, but you're sticking with the lunatic crap instead, because you think that makes your case better.

"Couldn't you have stated your objections to my thread without resorting to name-calling and character assassination?"

I did. I criticised the content of the links, not you. I quoted them, and called them '(right wing) paranoid nonsense' and 'crap'. I didn't call you any names. I didn't go after your character. You, however, replied by talking about me - an implication of being a 'banned disrupter', though you got that from a thread you hadn't bothered reading properly. You claimed I was being 'rude, disrespectful and slanderous' towards you. I wasn't - I criticised what you had linked to. Again, you hadn't bothered reading.

"Do you always have to be so mean-spirited?"

I'm mean-spirited to people like Dupree, who write complete bollocks. I'm mean-spirited towards Chuck Norris, who is approvingly quoted in your link for the "Obama is secretly killing Americans in the USA before taking total control" crap. That is the kind of thing a DUer should never be linking to, unless it's to denounce it.

"Are you unable to have polite, respectful dialogue with those who disagree with you?"

Oh, that's rich, from the person who decided to going digging in the archives to find something to attack me with, when I had just criticised some idiotic articles you linked to.

"If my thread is not appropriate to the "Skeptics Group', why couldn't you merely say so, without all the mean, nasty personal attacks?"

I haven't made any personal attacks. I told you the material you link to is not suitable for this Group.

"Are you even capable of being respectful to those who disagree with you?"

Again, that's rich, from the person who came up with "your slanderous, untruthful personal attack on me" when I hadn't said anything at all about you, slanderous or not. I'll say this; I don't respect you, after your links, your preference for them over something rational that talks about this form of stalking, and your accusations of me when I point out the idiocy of that material.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #9)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 05:45 PM

10. "The thread clearly shows the "banned disrupter" wasn't me"?

"You, of course, leave out the reply to #162 ("I clicked on your link and post #32 is not from muriel"?)...

..this reply to Leontius is from trotsky, and he is obviously confusing post #32 from "Young People Today Have No Idea What Easter is About" ..with post #32 from "You Have To Admit Easter is Confusing"

Reply #32 from "You Have To Admit Easter is Rather Confusing" IS from mistertrickster and not from you

Also from "You Have to Admit Easter is Rather Confusing" are the following replies:

#70 (Leontius) "This has been shown as not a reliable bit of information on another thread"

#72 (skepticscott) "To which of course you provide no link"

#94 (Leontius) "HERE" and he provides the following link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/121818084

which is a link to "Young People Today Have No Idea What Easter is All About"
and reply #32 is, indeed, from YOU

In reply #32, YOU wrote: ."Unfortunately, nearly everything that page says about Eostre is made up recently"


So don't blame me for trotsky's error...Blame him!


Continuing on ("You Have To Admit Easter is Rather Confusing")

#100 (Leontius) "I found post #32 in that thread quite good at pointing out the bs"

#102 (Leontius) "The link works fine for me..links right to yesterday's thread about easter not this one"

#160 (trotsky) "You mean the post from the banned disrupter?..Oh I see"

#162 (Leontius) "Muriel Volestrangler is a banned disrupter? I did not know that."

#164 (trotsky) "I clicked on your link and post #32 is not from Muriel?"


The thread clearly shows that the "banned disrupter" WAS you,
at least according to trotsky.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to red dog 1 (Reply #10)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 06:02 PM

11. I am not spewing any venom. I have explained the thread to you.

You can ask trotsky yourself what he meant. I am certain the person he was calling the banned disruptor was mistertrickster (who, after all, had just been banned before trotsky made that post). I, clearly, had not been banned. I'm still here. Trotsky was talking about the thread trotsky was posting in, because that link was acting strangely for other DUers (as darkstar3's remarks show), and so others, like darkstar3 and trotsky, didn't know they were meant to be looking at a different thread. Notice it is preceded by '
When Leontius talked about post #32, the only post #32 trotsky knew about was in in the same thread. Leontius was the person who linked me and 'banned disruptor', because Leontius was looking at the other thread, and then read the 'banned disruptor' remark, and said that he/she did not know I had been banned (I, of course, had not). trotsky say post #32 is not from me - because trotsky is still looking at the thread he is posting in.

I am not 'blaming you'; I am pointing out that, since you didn't read reply #164, you didn't see that trotsky had made clear he was not referring to me.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #11)

Fri Mar 8, 2013, 03:10 PM

14. Well handled, m_v.

Sorry I didn't see this thread earlier or I would have jumped in.

I believe what that whole situation was, I had been referring to post 32 in that current thread, whereas the other poster was referring to post 32 in the Easter thread, which was yours.

So no, I was most certainly not referring to you. The day they ban you is the day I leave DU, because then I'll know this place has gone completely bonkers.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to red dog 1 (Reply #8)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 07:14 PM

12. Post 32 on that thread was by mistertrickster, who was indeed banned a few days afterwards

Not by Muriel Volestrangler at all.

Muriel is a well-respected member of DU, and has never been a disruptor or 'banned' from anything; and I think you owe him an apology!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to red dog 1 (Original post)

Thu Mar 7, 2013, 06:29 PM

13. I watched a video posted on You Tube by a woman who claimed

She was being "Gang Stalked". She came off as a complete lunatic. I think "Gang Stalking" is just some more Woo-Woo. Liked we needed another one.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink