FTM Online censorship

WARNING You MUST read the disclaimer before viewing this website. If you have not read the disclaimer, you MUST click here NOW or Close your browser NOW. Forbidden Truth insights into censorship and fear of Forbidden Truth as seen on Internet "debate" forums
Hello. Welcome to My page about the various online debate forums. Here I will reveal several aspects of Forbidden Truth relating to these online discussion forums, and we will see My online debate activities. 1. How although there is no conspiracy or command structure used or needed, we will see online censorship of the Forbidden Truth on behalf of society. These societal censors are granted the ridiculous title of "moderator", where in fact these societal whores should be known with disdain and scorn as online censors. The "mods" are actually societal whores/agents - they are actually a direct representative of society itself who see it as their personal mission to attack, censor and ban anyone who reveals Truth. Their job is to censor anyone who posts Truth, ridicule the Truth, allow abuse and threats to be made against any Seer who posts, and find any petty excuse to ban and silence the Seer. There is no "free speech" on these internet forums, despite claims to the contrary. The whole purpose of the "mod" is to prevent free speech. I will explain exactly what happens, with examples and analysis. Real screen shots and saved texts will be used from real debate forums. 2. I will show an example of My argument, why My arguments win, and provide full justification and analysis. Then we will look at the abuse, trolling and harassment campaigns that are allowed although they are against the "rules". These are because of fear and terror of Truth. Then, we can see WHY I keep getting banned from the various forums, and gain insight into just how widespread and universal rejection and terror of Forbidden Truth is within all mainstream members of all societies, even when they are posting anonymously. 3. The more popular and the more members a forum has, the more it censors, bans Seers of Forbidden Truths, the more abusive the posts and the greater the terror and rejection of Truth will be. Some of the most inferior forums are 1 : USMessageboards followed by 2 : PoliticalForum with USMessageboards by far the most inferior of all. What are "debate forums" ? According to the general use of the term , "debate forums" are online interactive webpages that use a "post" message system to allow for a free, civil and open political debate between individual members. Is this a Truth-based and fair assessment? No, it most certainly is not. Debate forums are actually interactive online webpages that use a "post" message system to offer lonely, broken citizen-slaves the outlet of having someone to talk to, under a limited and fascistly decreed bandwidth of discussion that accurately reflect the values of society that is enforced via fascist censors. These debate forums are largely patronized by self-hating human beings that want to simply have someone to talk to and have absolutely no interest what-so-ever in uncovering any of the Forbidden Truths of life.
Forum activities update for Jan, 2011 : I had posted on a legal forum called "Aussie Legal" in order to present information about My current court case and how the search was illegal and unfair. I presented the facts accurately and made an intelligable post. Lets check out what happened (Note the negative and rude undertones to most of the replies) :

I was actually banned for posting such perfectly appropriate material. Observe closely how Aussie Legal reacted to My honest and reasonable question and subsequent posts. Notice how the moderator "Jaazzz" lost every point to Me as seen in the third post from the bottom, and stopped My thread for no legitimate reason. He did so simply because he saw this website, feared the Truth, and hated Me and began to persecute.
Forum activities update for Nov, 2010 : I am currently debating on "US Politics Online" forum. The main debate is abortion. On of My purposes is to demonstrate how even someone who obviously reads philosophy is proven wrong, the denial of failure and Truth is such a powerful force that he cannot admit his mistake no matter how many times he is made a fool of. I afmit he is petty and cannot admit fault due to his ego. I also think that the most primary fear is to face Truth regarding abortion and the insane and genocidal condition of society and thus humanity. Click here to see the debate, and go back up to 10 pages or so and you can see how this man will deny his error indefinately. Absolutely pathetic. Forum activities update for Jan, 2010 : My various online debate activities have resulted in a glorious victory for Me, this website and the Forbidden Truth. Forums including debatepolitics.com, political forum, Volconvo, and most recently "political hotwire" have all resulted in fear, irrational abuse, trolling of My person, bannings due to terror of Forbidden Truth, and inability to answer My posts honestly and intellectually. A very insightful encounter was on political hotwire. I joined "political hotwire" and was banned because I revealed the Forbidden Truth. How long did it take to ban Me? Only a matter of hours! Yes hours! I was effectively denied service due to the content of My posts. I was very careful with this particular experiment to not break any forum rules. I "offended" members by mearly suggesting that abortion is a socially sponsored murder act, designed to release cathartic rage. Was any rational rebuttal even attempted? No! Just ban the Seer, flee from the Forbidden Truth like cowards was the result. In fact, any fan of this site can find My posts under "Seer Travis Truman" at www.politicalhotwire.com. Another forum banned Me before My first post! This forum had to have received some form of communication or read My posts and then decided to blacklist Me because they had heard I discuss "certain issues". See how they fear and hate the Truth. I am currently revealing Forbidden Truth here at "democracy forums". Note that this is not to try and "convince" anyone of anything. It is to both highlight My Superiority and show how Truth-hating and irrational human beings are. Minor update : Another ban. See? They cannot handle the Forbidden Truth. It frightens their pathetic broken minds to their very core. They dont want to debate anything unless it is in their comfort zone of societal lies. They perversely ask themselves "which lie is best?". They want to debate one lie vs another lie, not a lie vs Forbidden Truth. They really want to have the various lie-based messages of their societies reinforced, they want to be lied to while pretending to have meaningful discussions. Absolutely pathological and pathetic. In fact, I was just banned from "puretalkforum.com" for absolutely no reason to do with My activities there. The mods asked Me for My website URL, after reading one of My posts, and once they saw this website, they banned Me from the site. Another victory for the Truth, and another example of the fear and hostility that nearly all humans have for Seers of Forbidden Truth. One thing I noticed is that all the threads I posted on at some of the aforementioned sites slowly lost all other posts, except for flame posts and idiotic and shallow posts. Invariably, the threads I created where I would reveal a core Forbidden Truth in detail would all receive no real response. Those threads where I went to effort to detail core Forbidden Truth responses would often slowly decline. After I am banned, a sudden increase in activity on these threads commences, usually mentioning Me specifically and making baseless and false "refutations" to My posts. Why is this? Because they know they cannot beat Me in any of the discussions, and although they deny the Truth is there for them to see, and they cannot bear Truth. They need to remove Me first, pretend they have won, then bury the posts under garbage. Pathetic! Recent and total victory over the entire "UK debate forums"....with interesting insights into online censorship by citizen-slave inferiors acting on behalf of society due to terror and hate of Truth. England is one of the most ultra-deceased societies ever to exist, with australia close behind, yet it is interesting to note the subtle differences in the way that the brainwashing in england results in slightly different approaches to arguments to desperately try in vein and defend societies lies. In fact, My banning today (Feb 18th, 2010) was followed by a deletion of certain threads shortly after where pages of abuse, threats and flaming were posted. This delights Me so much, I am so happy that My Truths had such a dramatic effect and that the "mods" there sunk so low and lost any dregs of integrity they might have still had in running such a forum. You can access this diseased forum at www.ukdebate.co.uk/forum where My posts are all made as Seer Travis Truman.
	Attempt to refute dictionary definition brainwashing : http://www.ukdebate.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=11571.30 This is actually a shot from the best attempt that was mustered at the forum to shoot down My dictionaries essay.
Now that I have shown some of the evidence that I possess over the legitimacy of My claims regarding what was said on this debate forum, lets look at the exact exchange (My words in black and added at this website due to the ban, hers in colour, her quotes of Me in green) : « Reply #33 on: Today at 11:51:22 » (Today is Thursday the 18th of Feb - Fri 19th Feb there was a possible cross over at midnight) - Please note that the OP is exactly the same as the dictionary word-definition brainwashing lecture found here at ForbiddenTruthMedia. Note that to refute the Truths revealed in the dictionaries section requires that an example of an act of murder that can : 1. Be shown to be an actual murder act. 2. Proves the use of the word "unlawful" describes an actual property of a murder action, and thus is part of the description of what is being defined, rather than just the illegitimate arbitrary selective operator that it is. It is not whether the word unlawful or the law is being adhered to, the challenge is to the validility of the law and use of the word unlawful itself. <sigh> "OK Travis the Truthful... you want your opening article challanged, rather than indulging in a freer form of debate ? So be it. " Here we see a ridiculous suggestion that challenging My opening article is some form of new "free" debate, when the debates at UKForums are not free and open. There is no such legitimate tactic as not challenging the opponents position in a debate when you disagree with it, especially in the principal. Therefore, all oppositions to any of My posts are "challenges", in the respect that they attempt to do so, not in respect that they actually provide a challenge. "Challenge" will be used in the former sense from now on, unless specified. "In my opinion, your argument falls down over your defintion - or presentation - of "unlawful". viz... " 1. Note that is only in "her opinion" and not in the validility or actual Truth of the matter that she raised her challenge. 2. She claims here that My definition, or presentation, (does she decide which?) makes My argument fall down, even though I never invented the definition of the word unlawful. Quote by ships-cat of Seer Travis Truman's post on UKDebateForums : he key word here is "unlawful". Unlawful has no legitimate nor fixed definition, and is arbitrary and capricious. Further, "unlawful" does not describe any objective property or thing related to what is being attempted to be described. It adds nothing legitimate. It leaves the definition open to selective dictates via legal authority. So the definition is not fixed and defined, it is in flux. Therefore, the "definition" remains undefined - so it is not a legitimate definition of anything real. Firstly, the word 'lawful' DOES have a legitimate, fixed definition. It means "operating within the bounds of, or in accordance with, the Law". Amazing. The judgments of law are not fixed in nature. Laws change from state to state, from time to time and are not always applied the same way. They are arbitrary judgments, such as in the Mick Gatto "murder" trial it was judged not to be murder. Another jury might have found otherwise. That is hardly a fixed definition. What we see here is a circular justification attempt. It just begs the question. Her definition of "unlawful" contains nothing we did not already know about the word "unlawful". Just as 12x12 is another way of saying 144, she has just rearraned the convention of what she said. If "unlawful" meant that "where the person was known to be brain-dead as a result of an attack", we would have a relevent, albeit unneccesary, descriptor describing a part of what an actual murder is. But the actual definition of "unlawful" does not have anything to do with describing what a murder actually is. Her definition does not describe a single thing to do with the intent, nor the actions involved in a murder act. Why is this important? Because the original Truth revealed by Me was due to the fact that the word "unlawful" in the defnition of murder did not describe anything that was related to the murder itself. As such, it is entirely appropriate for use as an adjective, and it DOES describe an objective property to the object being described, within the context of the society in which the object exists, or is being observed/described. He we see a total derangement. 1. An adjective, as we know, is a word that decribes an action, and "unlawful" is not an action. She is perhaps thinking that the murder act itself is an action, but she was speaking about "unlawful" as the word that was the adjective, not murder. 2. "Unlawful" is not an objective property of the act of murder. Objective means that it exists outside of human perception and judgment, as a external, fixed and concrete reality. An example would be that the Earth is round is an objective property(roundness being the property). In other words, objectivity is not subject to the subjectivity of the beholder. 3. She tries to appeal to the fact this it has a meaning or use "within the context of society in which the object exists", but "unlawful" is not an object. Nor does simply suggesting that authority says that something is correct make her argumetn correct. Retarded level of debate on behalf of My opponent here. Most advanced societies have due process in the interpretation and implementation of laws, often separated (or at least at arms length) from the ruling elite/government, and usually with extensive judicial review systems. Hence there are no "selective d ictates by legal authority", implying a capricious legal system, but rather a measured and steady process of review. I will not go into the diseased view she has on the legal process here, as she has no idea of the practicle and real aspects of the legal system. She uses circular justification again here. Just because the law maybe (I am not suggesting it is) evenly and consistently applied, does not mean that the laws themselves are not arbitrary. The law is arbitrary, it is just made up. In no way does the manner in which law is interpreted make any change to the fact that "unlawful" is nothing to do with any of the properties/acts/intents etc that define what murder is. The actual suggestion of what is unlawful itself is simply dictated by society via authority. It never came from an objevtice observation or anything with a basis in Truth. Now, you suggested that the term 'unlawful' was a redundancy in the definition of Murder as... Quote Seer Travis Truman : The unlawful killing of a human being, with malice and intent Lets try removing the word 'unlawful' and see how it works out... "The killing of a human being, with malice and intent" Here she used a dictionary definition and removes the word unlawful in a simular way as I do in My essay on dictionaries. Fair. This means that all of the soldiers in all of the wars are guilty of murder, even if their actions are entirely defensive. The Royal Air Force killed a very large number of german fighter and bomber pilots over the skies of the UK in 1941. Are they murderers ? Certainly they intended to shoot the enemy down, and many would have felt malicious towards the oncoming bombers. But murderers ? Appeal to consequence fallacy of logic. Here she says "Even though I have no legitimate fault in his logic or essay, we just CANT accept it because otherwise X would be true and X is terrible and unthinkable to me". No, it is still True. We must face Truth and accept it no matter if we like or loathe the outcomes. 1. Self-defence murders are simply justified murder acts. Even if we were wanting to disagree that self defence was not murder, the definition should still not contain the word "unlawful", but have an addition like this : "The unnecesary killing of a human being with malice and intent" or "The killing of a human being with malice and intent that is not in ones personal defence." "Unlawful" is still not required. 2. She admits that soldiers kill human beings and they did so with deliberation and malcious intent. Her second mistake here is that she presumes that the soldiers themselves are responsible if it is murder, in order to make it look unfair on the soldiers. If the leaders are responsible for the soldiers, the murder label can be applied to the acts themselves, and the leaders can bear responsibility and not the soldiers, as the soldiers can argue that it was neccesary because they had orders and were in a defence situation. Still, the arbitrary word "unlawful" is not needed to do these things. How about the German aircrew shot down and captured ? If THEY where murderers (for killing british pilots, with malice and intent), why where they not treated as criminals, rather than prisoners of war ? The reason, of course, that societal leaders did not label soldiers "criminals" is the same reason it arbitrarily inserted the "unlawful" word in the murder definition - it simply suited them. Since soldiers were murdering as the leaders wanted, it simply did not want to demonise and chastise them as criminals. Just because the government does not call something murder, does not mean they are right and honest in doing so. The answer is - crazy though it seems - is that wars have "laws" that are recognised by both sides. (indeed, many are formalised into signed accords or conventions). Here she follows her previous mistakes down the toilet and into the sewer. I refuted her answers. Just because there are laws such as the "Geneva Convention", does not mean that the word "unlawful" should be in the definition of murder, nor does it mean that laws are a objetive part of murder acts - they are not. They are arbitrary judgements of murder acts. The society that makes the laws is the same society using that false definition of murder. They are essentially the same thing, because the word murder contains the word unlawful. However, since this definition has no legitimacy, and that is the dispute, her argument is both circular justification and appeal to authority logical fallacy. We could also argue that "war crimes" are often brought against societal leaders due to genocide, and to have genocide you must have numerous acts of murder. Again we see a fallacy - a contradiction fallacy. She would have to call these murders by two labels, which are only different due to subjective ideas or arbitrary judgements. Again, we have the masked man fallacy. So in this situation, the definition "killing a human being with malice and intent" is insufficient, and does not address cases where killing is sanctioned under law. Hence the term "Murder" becomes ambiguous and imprecise. It just boggles My mind sometimes how stupid human beings are. My definition was clearly sufficent. What can be more ambiguous and imprecise than suggesting that some exact same things are two different things? She essentionally is arguing that unlawful should be included in murder simply because some murders are "sanctioned under law". But they are only sanctioned under the law if the word unlawful appears in the definition. She never gave any explanation as to what it is about these murder events that makes them different. She just states the law declares them different, even though there is no difference. Precision is only restored - within a given social context - by the re-inclusion of the term 'unlawful'. Precision was not restored - she just wants to make her preference of what murders are acceptable to her/society a part of the actual definition of what they actually are. This was already mention in the masked man fallacy in the dictionaries essay, a fallacy we see she failed to even address, let alone solve. Now, to address your further illustration as to why you deem the word "unlawful" to be redundant, you stated: Quote of Seer Travis Truman : We could say "justified murder", we could say "needless murder" in order to exactly specify what we want to mean. Justified by whom ? needless by what standard ? These terms are FAR more ambiguous (arbitrary, even) than the term "unlawful". By seeking to replace the term "unlawful", you have rendered the 'definition' less - not more - objective and descriptive. No, because we need not include these terms, I just used them as examples of what could be added. This is the same point as was made in the war quote above, which I solved. To try and justify and faulty descriptor such as "unlawful" by simply attempting to fault other possible words that could be in a definition is insane. That is no better than saying that 2+2=5 because 3+3<>7. That would just mean that the word "unlawful" and the other words were not suitable to be in the definiton of murder. No legitimate reason is ever given as to why the word "unlawful" is related to the description of the act of murder, or the mindset of those intending it. "Unlawful" is about the preferences of third parties not involved in the murder itself who wish to allow some murders and not others. Besides, to say unlawful just begs the question as to what the justified and needless properties would be as law. As any sane, rational and objective thinker can see, she has failed in her case. She pre-presumes her conclusion that wars are not murder acts by presuming her definition of murder is correct. She then uses one to justify the other. Circular reasoning. Not only that, but her explanation does not fit the known facts. If war is not murder, how did all those people get deliberately killed? Of course wars are murders. She simply wants to believe that war is not murder, as her society says so and it makes her feel more comfortable. She then claims that war is not murder, even though war is murder, on a large scale. She neglects the individual is being murdered, which is really what she needed to address. She then shows how the word unlawful excludes murders done during war as murder, and it does do that. However, since wars do involve the deliberate and malicious killing of human beings (and she admitted such) her premise that war does not contain murders fails.




The fear-fuelled campaign of trolling and harassment against Me, and My eventual banning from UK Debate forums, after several members literally resorted in emotion-driven begging for Me to be banned, even though there was no justification for asking Me to be banned. Also observe that the other members who insisted on making abusive, off-topic and harassing posts were not infracted nor were their posts removed. We actually see here a small-scale analogy to how societies and various institutions (such as the justice system) operate to target individuals. Here are some links to subjects that show what I am referring to : http://www.ukdebate.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=11496.new#new http://www.ukdebate.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=11496.120 This is the parental license topic I started on UK Debate forums at http://www.ukdebate.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=11574.0 and it is a good example of the fact that all they could do is make off-topic remarks, call to ban Me, silly comments, and personal attacks - albeit the attacks here are pretty minor. I would also like to point out that over 10 pages of more serious abuse, threats and name-calling was made on the abortion thread, and that there were posts made between the mods and members that called for an ongoing flaming and trolling campaign of abuse against Me. When I was banned, that thread and topic was deleted and no longer exists on the forum. Anyone with saves or cache data from this thread can EMail it to Me and we can discuss any reward. These pages would be useful in My analysis. However, the mod ranger121 does reference it in a email message to Me, where such posts referenced no longer appears on the forum as of the day I was banned. Note that ranger121 is a mod.
I am very amused to see the cowardly actions of the UK Debate forum mods. I know the motivation is their terror of simple Truth, and each and every insult, each and every lie, each and every inequtiable banning has the effect of pleasing Me, as it proves My Superiority. The member papsmurf especially lets his guard down and lets the cat right out of the bag. He is virtually begging the mods to ban Me, and states that he considers My messages of Truth being blocked as a matter of urgency and that it is "ruining the forum" for him. Look how upset he is. Notice that he does not ever make comment against the endless abuse, trolling, off-topic drivel being posted by other members who are the ones responsbile for abusing the forum. It is only ever Seer Travis Truman that he has problems with, just as all the other members did to varying degrees.