REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

How to register at Cluesforum / General administrative topics / and things that every member must read

Re: REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

Unread postby anonjedi2 on Thu Feb 26, 2015 4:56 pm

Indeed, there were more than one of those instances.


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUmr9dFbf2c
anonjedi2
Member
 
Posts: 721
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 5:50 am

Re: REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

Unread postby brianv on Thu Feb 26, 2015 7:26 pm

TruthMediaRevolution wrote:
Maat wrote:TruthMediaRevolution,

Like Hoi, I shall remain “hopeful” but “skeptical” until I see more convincing evidence of the kind of comprehension one would reasonably expect from anyone professing familiarity with the 9/11 hoax and its gatekeeping operatives, which Simon and this forum have meticulously exposed for the last 6 years.

I must say, using “truther” disinfo terms like “no-plane theory” does not exactly inspire confidence (for reasons I’ve explained here before: viewtopic.php?p=2370679#p2370679)

As for the “missiles/projectiles” meme, I would ask anyone who really grasps Media complicity, fakery and what PsyOp means to simply remember where and from whom that was first heard on 9/11/2001! Was “missi…er, plane” stuttered by the Media puppets on TV just an accidental or Freudian “slip”?


Well you see. This is exactly the problem. I get the feeling that some of you have no patience for anyone with questions and willing to learn. This is still taboo IMO for this very reason. You guys need to be more open and patient. I'm trying to help bridge the gap. I'm on your side. I have lost friendships and have had a great deal of stress simply because I believe TransAsia featured CGI combined with a drill. You have no idea what I've been through the past 2 weeks or so. I've come here so we can help each other. You have no reason to be "skeptical" of me, I promise you that.

And thank you for the post reference. I see your point and agree with this term falling under dis-info terminology.


Yes, after 14 years, one's patience does become a bit thin with those who can't even be bothered to look at the evidence and further proclaim themselves to be leading lights in some "truth movement" or other.
brianv
Member
 
Posts: 3959
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 10:19 pm

Re: REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

Unread postby Libero on Thu Feb 26, 2015 9:22 pm

If the speculation is that the official video footage shown is all fake, and further speculation would lead one to accept that military grade smokescreens were used and the towers were taken down by conventional means and not struck by an airplane, has it been conclusively demonstrated that although a plane may not have been used during the event as a weapon per se, perhaps one could have simply "buzzed the tower" as additional effect for the locals? And if a witness may have seen or heard a plane, must their testimony automatically always be discounted?


Ha, ha...Great Balls o' Fire!



full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdHBsWXaHN8

Blue Angels Flyby


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYFC10LesDc
Last edited by Libero on Fri Feb 27, 2015 12:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
Libero
Member
 
Posts: 333
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 8:21 pm

Re: REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

Unread postby TruthMediaRevolution on Thu Feb 26, 2015 9:53 pm

brianv wrote:
Yes, after 14 years, one's patience does become a bit thin with those who can't even be bothered to look at the evidence and further proclaim themselves to be leading lights in some "truth movement" or other.


Are you kidding me? Your rudeness is sickening. We were all fooled at one point by many aspects of 9/11. So you're judging me for having different view on 9/11 all these years, as thousands of other event skeptics have? Screw you buddy.
TruthMediaRevolution
Member
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2015 3:58 am

Re: REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

Unread postby brianv on Thu Feb 26, 2015 10:12 pm

TruthMediaRevolution wrote:
brianv wrote:
Yes, after 14 years, one's patience does become a bit thin with those who can't even be bothered to look at the evidence and further proclaim themselves to be leading lights in some "truth movement" or other.


Are you kidding me? Your rudeness is sickening. We were all fooled at one point by many aspects of 9/11. So you're judging me for having different view on 9/11 all these years, as thousands of other event skeptics have? Screw you buddy.


I wasn't particularly trying to be rude, possibly mild exasperation. I don't think Simon would have allowed "rude" either. What next? Phil Jayhan registering here and inviting Simon on a chat show! Dig?

Can I just ask, who is the "we" you speak of ? Or are you using the royal perogative? Coz I, for one, wasn't fooled at all!

Stick around! If you really want to know what its' all about, you're in the right place. Even I learn stuff here.
brianv
Member
 
Posts: 3959
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 10:19 pm

Re: REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

Unread postby TruthMediaRevolution on Thu Feb 26, 2015 10:29 pm

Observer wrote:You need to visit http://www.SEPTEMBERCLUES.info and read each page. After September Clues showed evidence of CGI planes, the team here then showed evidence of CGI buildings CGI witnesses and CGI victims.


Btw, I don't know your stance on TransAsia.. But regardless, I mentioned people mocking/downplaying the use of CGI.. Check this out.. Pretty disgusting. This used to be my former colleague. I am truly ashamed.

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYmFX1j390o
TruthMediaRevolution
Member
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2015 3:58 am

Re: REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

Unread postby fbenario on Fri Feb 27, 2015 1:18 am

Taken from various of its responses over the last 24 hours:

TruthMediaRevolution wrote:Geez, take it easy.
...
Your condescension is sickening.
...
Are you kidding me? Your rudeness is sickening.

Defensive much? Overly sensitive and touchy?

I would suggest that it is not appropriate for you, as a new member, to express dissatisfaction with our 'welcome' to you.

By now it should be obvious that your beginning here would have gone quite a bit more smoothly if you'd refrained from posting silly theories for which you have no evidence.
fbenario
Member
 
Posts: 2216
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

Unread postby anonjedi2 on Fri Feb 27, 2015 3:13 am

TruthMediaRevolution wrote:

Are you kidding me? Your rudeness is sickening. We were all fooled at one point by many aspects of 9/11. So you're judging me for having different view on 9/11 all these years, as thousands of other event skeptics have? Screw you buddy.


You are not off to a very good start here. You have to understand that most of the people who contribute on this website are diligent researchers, critical thinkers and some of the most ardent skeptics you will find anywhere. Simon and Hoi gave you a warm welcome and I am sure that the rest of us are happy to do the same, but you have to understand that it's difficult for us to quickly accept someone who has taken a lead role in online research (via your youtube channel), when that person still doesn't understand that no planes were used.

I suggest you spend a few months catching up on this website. More reading, less posting, until you fully understand the nature of things and why it's a ridiculous assertion to assume that airplanes were used. I didn't think brianv was exceptionally rude to you, but as a new member ... to come on here and say "Screw you buddy" to a longstanding, well respected member and admin of the forum is cause for an eyebrow or two to be raised. Again, you're not off to a good start, but I am guessing the members on here are more than willing to give you the benefit of the doubt for now. I'd suggest a little humility, for starters.

I spent several years reading this website before I even created an account. In the beginning, I thought most of the posters on here were paranoid. I had a lot to learn, and did so, diligently and gradually. I now realize how naive I was to think that there was paranoia. I just didn't understand the depths of the concept of gatekeeping and controlled opposition at the time. I hope you will consider at least showing a little bit of respect to the members here. That, coupled with serious research of your own will go a long way.
anonjedi2
Member
 
Posts: 721
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 5:50 am

Re: REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

Unread postby Observer on Fri Feb 27, 2015 3:52 am

TruthMediaRevolution wrote:


So TruthMediaRevolution, brother, please openly admit now, of the 101 minute movie that was televised, which parts are you still holding on to as being "actual footage"?

(Feel free to insert answer here, with either links and times or merely a brief verbal description of the parts which you think are "actual footage".)

The http://www.SEPTEMBERCLUES.info evidence, when witnessed by any logical observer, leads one to check the official files to make sure that these are indeed the images that were presented on that day, and then once that extra check has been done, the only logical thing left to admit is, "Wow, why didn't I notice these points myself, I stupidly assumed for many years that the 9-11 footage was real, turns out it was CGI because it is filled with depiction mistakes, I should have noticed these depiction mistakes myself from the very first moment I saw them. These depictions are NOT congruent with actual authentic footage recordings of reality. These images are CGI creations."

So, TruthMediaRevolution70kSubs, which parts of that CGI movie are you still holding on to as being actual footage? Seriously. "Inquiring minds want to know."

See, I'm observing that this is obviously an attempt to pull Simon into a debate about YOUR theory, which I will honestly paraphrase here, please let me know if this is pretty close to your current stance:

"Of the footage from that day, I am currently taking the huge-for-me step of merely acknowledging the possibility of SOME images having been slightly ALTERED, like for example a superimposed plane image being superimposed over actual building footage, because I watched the "nose out" part of September clues, so I'm basically up to speed with all of the subsequent discoveries of fakery here, and thus I acknowledge the existence of fakery-theory..."

"...but somehow I still want to hold on to this needlessly-risk-increasing-planes-really-hit theory, so how about this guys, maybe they CGI'd in a plane, just to cover up the fact that: they actually did the planes-really-hit thing!"

"And thus, to prove my THEORY that planes hit, I am indirectly hinting that SOME of the footage can be used as evidence, like uh, whenever the footage purports to show a witness who says something backing up my plane theory, those moments of the movie are real."

"So yeah, although I don't want to come out and say it clearly at first, the only parts of the footage which I think are fake are the parts when people say they didn't see (or, ahem, didn't HEAR the deafening 500 decibel roar of) and the parts where the plane images are added in to hide the real planes hitting the towers. So those parts are the ONLY parts I can admit to be fake. The rest is authentic footage, I think. Those are real building images, right guys? Even though the north side is depicted wrong... oops. But still, those must be real building images. Because I still believe in the jumper images."

"And oh yeah, since I'm trying to pull people into a wasteful debate about my hybrid theory (this theory about physical-hard-planes-hitting-the-towers-somehow-still-being-essential-to-fooling-the-TV-movie-viewing-masses-and-the-live-smoke-viewing-close-to-Manhattan-masses, let's call it: "TruthMediaRevolution's slight fakery admittance while still holding onto the old Jayhan military planes-hitting-the-towers requirement" theory ) I'm also gonna' be subconsciously reinforcing the whole "so many people died in the World Trade Center on that day" message."

"I of course am not going to come out and admit honesty whether or not I believe people were in the WTC (I have 70,000 subscribers, so I'm not going to lose 90% of them by coming out and saying people weren't in the WTC.)"

"I'm not going to comment on or even think about the absolute lack of evidence of any real victims (in both the social security death index and the proven forged family photos.)"

"I'm simply saying, Hey Simon, I acknowledge some of the authentic footage we saw that day was slightly altered a little, so I'm on your side man, I want your theories to not be laughed at anymore by my friends, here's an example video of that, hahaha, but anyway..."

"...at the same time, even though I have supposedly already LOOKED at all of the http://www.SEPTEMBERCLUES.info pages filled with side-by-side evidence of CGI building matrixes being used, I STILL claim that SOME of the footage is real authentic footage..."

"...but I'm not gonna' come out and admit WHICH parts I think are authentic, because it's much safer for me to play the sitting-on-the-fence game, of inviting Simon onto my show and having the vast majority of my 70,000 subscribers ridicule him and Hoi, while I politely push the old "planes-required" theory by continuing to sit on the fence."

Bottom line, TruthMediaRevolution, YOU'VE got a theory, which is that planes hit the towers AND that people were inside the towers.

This vital second point the part you are being coy about: please admit immediately that you claim people were inside the towers.

And before any time wasting debate, please present your evidence, a paragraph description will suffice:

#1 - What evidence do YOU have that planes hit the towers?

(We sure hope your evidence for this first part of your theory, does not come from that collection of proven CGI images which you still claim is "footage".)

#2 - What evidence do YOU have that people were in the towers?

(We sure hope your evidence for this second unspoken part of your theory, does not come from that collection of proven CGI images which you still claim is "footage".)

See you've got this all ass-backwards pal. It is not Simon's job to come negate your theories, or even to come push his own.

Simon doesn't really push theories. He and Brian and Hoi and the long time crew here stay quite theory-free most of the time, by sticking to the facts:

"Hey, these official images of 'wings not breaking off' AND 'towers suddenly belatedly violently turning to dust' that were televised on that day (and later supplemented with 'additional new amateur releases') are NOT authentic images or videos of footage. Here's the evidence that the 'footage' is NOT authentic."

"And hey, going even further, these official detailed images of 'the 3 meter victims jumping out of the windows' are also NOT authentic images or videos of footage. Here's the evidence that the 'footage' is NOT authentic."

"And hey, going even all the way into the heart of the fraud, these official detailed images of 'the victims' themselves are also NOT authentic images. Here's the evidence that the 'victim images' are NOT authentic."

So Simon (and the other long-time contributors here) have already proven (with links to visual evidence for any neutral observer to judge clearly) their shocking yet simple claims: the images which society assumes to be "footage" are not authentic recordings of what happened. Period.

This whole situation here is like the movie Ocean's Eleven, in which the thieves broadcast into the guards' monitor room, a movie which the thieves created in advance: a movie with a fake depiction of a real vault.

Except in the movie, once somebody pointed out that there was a mistake in the thieves' movie, that the depiction of the vault was flawed, the viewers quickly admitted the embarrassing fact that they were fooled by fake images on the monitor.

That's the difference between that movie and this situation here. In the Ocean's Eleven movie, once the depiction mistake was noticed, nobody continued to hold on to their initial-mistaken-assumption that the footage was authentic.

Here we are, in 2015, and a TruthMediaRevolution brother with 70,000 subscribers, has supposedly already seen Simon's huge collection of depiction mistakes (depiction mistakes which have totally proven the "footage" was NOT authentic), and yet still is holding on to the old initial-mistaken-assumption that the footage is authentic.

Simon has kept his claim simple: the footage is NOT authentic.

Your claims, TruthMediaRevolution, about the involvement of planes and the existence of victims, is much harder to prove:

What evidence are YOU going to present, to prove the "footage" (specifically your favorite "true" parts of the "footage") as being "authentic footage"?

What evidence are YOU going to present, to prove the "victims" (specifically your favorite "true" examples of the "victims") as being "authentic victims"?
Last edited by Observer on Fri Feb 27, 2015 7:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
Observer
Banned
 
Posts: 167
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 12:47 am
Location: Interwebs

Re: REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

Unread postby anonjedi2 on Fri Feb 27, 2015 6:12 am

^^^ Observer, you are making a lot of assumptions and putting words into his mouth, I don't think all of that is necessary or productive. There's really no need to speak for others on this forum or jump into Spanish Inquisition style flame war. That sort of thing may even lead to you looking suspicious. :D

Still, I do think our new member should reconsider his approach.
anonjedi2
Member
 
Posts: 721
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 5:50 am

Re: REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

Unread postby TruthMediaRevolution on Fri Feb 27, 2015 6:36 am

Observer wrote:


First of all. I want to apologize for getting a a little defensive, but I didn't expect the condescension and everything.

All I said was I have always thought "why isn't it possible projectiles/drones" were used. That was my ONLY question. It was a question. But what I KNOW.. and MY only claim is that the footage, all the footage etc has bee faked. I HAVE been stating that and KNOW that. Again, I'm on Simon's side with that. I don't know how it could be much more clearer. This isn't about a debate.. NO WAY! I am not interested in a debate let me clarify right now. Again, I agree with Simon's work about the footage. I want to give him and his forum a chance to share this information and I already stated that is my main goal here. And also to expose TransAsia as well.

I can see you guys don't mess around. And you know what - I love that. Again, apologies for the defensiveness, I see where you guys are coming from.

On that note. I want to show you guys, and also Simon something. I made this promo and I want to show you that I truly want to "diffuse" (thanks Simon) this information and give Simon the floor to my audience. Again, the time has come!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tlnb0eqNy4

Btw this video is under "sneak peak mode" (unlisted) and only those with a link can view it. Hope you guys like it. Anyway. Back to reading the forum.. lol.
TruthMediaRevolution
Member
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2015 3:58 am

Re: REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

Unread postby anonjedi2 on Fri Feb 27, 2015 6:52 am

I have been looking over everything and will continue to brush up the rest of the weekend....

I am aware of much of the work. I have been looking over everything this past week.


I'll just say one more time that I think you really need to spend some more time on the research. This research is extensive and thorough. It takes months and years to read through all of this stuff (not just 9/11 but everything). It takes time for the picture to come into focus. It's not something you can just "look over" in a week or "brush up" on over the weekend. It's great that you want to have Simon and Hoi on your show and to help spread the word. It would be even better if you took the time to prepare so that when you interview them, you don't come off sounding like an amateur and wasting their time. It's great that you have 70,000 Youtube subscribers. You owe it to them to do your homework. It will make for a better interview and you'll show your audience that you're ahead of the curve. You might start by sending your listeners to this website so that they can do some research for themselves (and not rely on you to give it to them). I hope none of this sounds too harsh, because I do welcome you to the forum. Your eagerness is admirable and maybe we need more of that in some ways, but I suggest you just settle down a bit and get to reading!
anonjedi2
Member
 
Posts: 721
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 5:50 am

Re: REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

Unread postby TruthMediaRevolution on Fri Feb 27, 2015 7:01 am

anonjedi2 wrote:
I have been looking over everything and will continue to brush up the rest of the weekend....

I am aware of much of the work. I have been looking over everything this past week.


I'll just say one more time that I think you really need to spend some more time on the research. This research is extensive and thorough. It takes months and years to read through all of this stuff (not just 9/11 but everything). It takes time for the picture to come into focus. It's not something you can just "look over" in a week or "brush up" on over the weekend. It's great that you want to have Simon and Hoi on your show and to help spread the word. It would be even better if you took the time to prepare so that when you interview them, you don't come off sounding like an amateur and wasting their time. It's great that you have 70,000 Youtube subscribers. You owe it to them to do your homework. It will make for a better interview and you'll show your audience that you're ahead of the curve. You might start by sending your listeners to this website so that they can do some research for themselves (and not rely on you to give it to them). I hope none of this sounds too harsh, because I do welcome you to the forum. Your eagerness is admirable and maybe we need more of that in some ways, but I suggest you just settle down a bit and get to reading!


I understand that. Thanks for the help! Here's the thing, we don't have months or years for me to read over everything! I'm gonna be honest, I have only been to this forum several times in the past few years, and haven't read it extensively. For some odd reason, I shied away from focusing on the media fakery aspect of 9/11, of the vicsim aspect, so I didn't spend much time extensively researching it. I have researched it some, but not enough. As I have always focused on the "demolition"/money trail aspect and of 9/11. But as I said before, in light of this TransAsia event, it just hit me like a ton of bricks that I am completely on the wrong path here, and this aspect and truth of 9/11 being "taboo" in movement needs to be put to an end. I want to help accomplish this.

As I said, this is time sensitive. I'll brush up more as much as I can, but we need to do sooner the better! Time is of the essence! Believe me, I will not even come off that way. I know all the footage is fake, about the vicsims, CGI people, etc.

Can you watch the link I posted above and tell me what you think? I was thinking about uploading the promo and leaving the link to the forum there. That should be good. Thanks again.
TruthMediaRevolution
Member
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2015 3:58 am

Re: REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

Unread postby hoi.polloi on Fri Feb 27, 2015 7:25 am

TruthMediaRevolution wrote:As I said, this is time sensitive. I'll brush up more as much as I can, but we need to do sooner the better! Time is of the essence! Believe me, I will not even come off that way. I know all the footage is fake, about the vicsims, CGI people, etc.

Can you watch the link I posted above and tell me what you think? Thanks again.


I can comment. It's nice. It's interesting. Thank you for your enthusiasm and for making it.

But why is time of the essence? What is the urgency?

You must understand that we have been basically sitting here in our little forum for five+ years, as wave after wave of shills came at us trying to find some way if any way to stop people from patiently reading the most irrefutable information on grand media fakery, compiled right here.

They have tried, among other things:

  • flooding the forum with fake witnesses (who obviously don't back up their claims)
  • flooding the forum with plain insulting people
  • registering people who use absolute gibberish or enthusiastic nonsense to add useless or confusing comments
  • seeding the forum with people who gain admin status, then turn on Simon and attack him using ad hominem attacks
  • sending people in person to befriend Simon and then try to besmirch all the evidence based on grandiose conspiracies that Simon is the epicenter of all the world's hoaxing and simulation technology — that he is multiple people, or doesn't even exist
  • people claiming to be fans and "helping diffuse the research" only to ask us to swallow far too much about their personal little "anecdotes" or personal media; often times, that media is filled with familiar content — i.e.; very sloppy, simulated "friends" — like, "oh, look, I myself or my buddy happens to resemble a fake victim from the 9/11 software, so that's alright!"
  • plain old bots
  • useless "contributors" that just vaguely defend the official story and media-driven hype of our world
  • whiners, complainers and Religious fruitcakes
  • fake family members trying to get the site taken down due to flimsy "copyright" claims
... and we could go on.

What you have dealt with in the last two weeks, and I really mean no offense when I say this, is probably not a lot compared to what Simon and the administration here have put up with for years. At least, as far as the big smear campaign constantly going on to make the evidence sink in a mire of controversy and useless drama goes, we have had our share of it. We will probably continue to, as well. Also, you should know that none of us has had our lives in the least truly "threatened" over this matter, except by idiotic people making violent hate speech against us or the other investigators, sometimes wishing us "dead" but in the way a playground (or Internet) bully articulates themselves.

So please don't fear and don't feel the need to do anything rash. If you could make your show more clearly about CGI and media fakery techniques, and less about the urgency of spreading one particular brand of truth, it would be really great and, I think, boost our confidence in your motivations. I guess, what I'm trying to suggest is, relax man! It's okay. We can ride the wave of public enthusiasm about this topic without resorting to techniques of radio pundits. We can actually spend several shows patiently explaining all the different threads of CluesForum, and helping people understand and digest what we have uncovered. It's your show, and you do what you want, but that could perhaps better spread the meaning of the research. Have you listened to Ab's show at Fakeologist.com? He does a good job of patiently reading and expanding on fakery topics that interest him. He and his fans are actually pretty good researchers themselves sometimes. And that is really what we need more of.

I want to accept Simon's invitation to come on even a single show about Simon's startling research, but as others have tried to articulate, it really is not about any one particular person. It is about the evidence, that is now comprised of dozens of independent and unrelated researchers' amazing revelations since viewing Simon's groundbreaking (to use a tired but accurate stereotype) September Clues videos. And, as it turns out, Simon is not the first in a history of somewhat ignored but vital scientific message bearers. This stuff has been going on since World War II, The Great War before that, and probably centuries before that. Simon is just a cool speaker on the subject (for a number of reasons, in my opinion) and a true expert in what he has focused on. I suppose we could all get that way if we just focused on researching a particular topic.

The more clear we make this, the better the public will be served a really useful message they can use to strengthen their senses.

The more we play into the false urgency, panic and "media hype" that has actually become a large part of the problem with media today, the more we let go of a valuable opportunity to give some small "breathing space" on the vast Internet to allow people to truly and seriously ponder the funny (and very interesting) world we live in.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5054
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

Unread postby simonshack on Fri Feb 27, 2015 11:05 am

TruthMediaRevolution wrote:
simonshack wrote:
I gladly accept your invitation, dear TMR. Hopefully Hoi will be able to join us too - on a future podcast of yours. Let us know.


Simon, that is great news and I appreciate you accepting. If you think Hoi will be a good addition, then by all means! I will be arranging this for Sunday or Monday night, at 9pm EST. Hopefully you are available during these time slots. Monday would be preferable. Sunday is second option. The podcast will run 1-2 hours.

I believe the podcast will be titled something along the lines: "9/11 to TransAsia: Media Fakery Exposed - Podcast Special Ft. Simon Shack of Sept. Clues"

EDIT: Apologies, Monday is preferable, let me know what works best.


Dear TMR,

From Sunday onwards I'll have a couple of guests visiting me from abroad - so it's best we schedule this for some other time (since 9EST means 3am for me...). Besides, I agree with Hoi that we really don't need to rush this - it would be better for everyone, including your listeners of course, that we all take some time getting to know each other better, reciprocally - in the interest of offering the best possible show to your audience. In the meanwhile, feel free to call me for a private chat on Skype (skype username 'simon.shack') whenever you see me online.
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6650
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

PreviousNext

Return to HOW TO REGISTER at CLUESFORUM - and other tips

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests