• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Questions for Truthers

RedIbis said:
I know I'm not in the majority of "Truthers". I can spell, I use the shift key, and I don't care to know what "pwned" is.

<snip>

As it is now, the discussions are no longer productive, and to repeat my basic point, a culture of condescension and disrespect for a position has been allowed to flourish, which appears to me to be counter to true critical thinking and discourse.
Click to expand...

Oh the irony! I think it's pretty clear to anyone who has read some of your more reasonable posts that you are not an unintelligent nor uneducated person (nor humorless), and can communicate in a clear and
reasonable way.

But to disavow "pwnage?" Please. Half your posts are nothing but one-upmanship in the form of suggestive questions and vague innuendo. Witness the derailment of the "Legitimate Questions" thread; Do you really wish to present an argument as to the fate of Flight 93 as an open question as to the facts of 9/11?

On the other hand, during the resultant split-off thread (I think. I can't find it now), you raise a question regarding Todd Beamer's exact words and then ... never quite followup with a clear question or opening statement for discussion - or start a new thread (which would be the proper thing to do as such a discussion would have nothing to do with the fate of 93, nor is it a "legitimate" question about the "Official Theory").

So Red, Step up to the plate and start the discussions you claim you want. Stop hopping about from thread to thread and acting like a troll, otherwise you really are one of those you claim not to be.
 
RedIbis said:
Tam and Chill,
I won't argue the fact that there are disruptive posters who troll and rile up the resident posters, but as I've explained before as we're not children any longer, we are totally responsible for our own reactions, so I don't buy into this idea that the sub-forum is being destroyed by trollish twoofies.

Instead, I think that the problem is that the Inside Job theory is considered defeated, a foregone conclusion, woo woo conspiracy nonsense perpetuated by Truthers, Twoofies, woo woo nutbars, etc. As soon as labeling starts, as innocuous as you think it is, sincere debate cannot occur. I'm not, and refuse to be, lumped in with people who deny the Holocaust or consider the entire US gov't evil. Labeling conflates your opponents' positions. As soon as there is a rigid adherence to belief, skepticism has ceased.

I know I'm not in the majority of "Truthers". I can spell, I use the shift key, and I don't care to know what "pwned" is. So a discussion with the two of you, members whom I consider among the most friendly, civil and objective is a bit pointless.

In short, I'm interested to see how this goes. Obviously, this topic generates a great deal of interest and emotion. The 9/11 debate is not over, nor will it be over any time soon. I'm just curious to see if one of the best forums on the web will host this difficult discussion or not. As it is now, the discussions are no longer productive, and to repeat my basic point, a culture of condescension and disrespect for a position has been allowed to flourish, which appears to me to be counter to true critical thinking and discourse.

To cite a brief example, TAM, you must admit that you have considered the LIHOP scenario more plausible than MIHOP. But LIHOP is indeed conspiracy. We're talking about a complex, historical event. Unfortunately, around here questioning the official story has been put on equal footing with Bigfoot theories and psychics. It's not.
Click to expand...

Hypocricy at its best!
 
chillzero said:
Ben, come on - keep it on topic, and pay at least the slightest respect for the OP?
Click to expand...
Yes it was off topic but what it did do was get us out of the rhetorical, let's all be nice, use lots of words, correct punctuation and pontificate with eloquence and (self professed) dignity.

Unless you want JREF to be just a debating club where form trumps substance and style defeats facts and evidence, we need to prevent Red's form of "debate" from flourishing. I don't think I'm alone is seeing him as one of the most disingenuous trolls on the forum (a title given with much thought). You made a great point here:
chillzero said:
...However, in order to undertake an honest and full discussion it also help to lay out your position and defend it, rather than hide behind implications and veiled theories that you can later claim you never stated as fact.
Click to expand...
Bingo, you defined him perfectly. He executes this form of trolling better then the rest.

Red and his ilk have turned JREF into nothing more then a bad take off on Monty Python's Argument Clinic.
 
DavidJames said:
Yes it was off topic but what it did do was get us out of the rhetorical, let's all be nice, use lots of words, correct punctuation and pontificate with eloquence and (self professed) dignity.
Click to expand...
I didn't see anyone suggest what you have laid out there as the proposed terms for discussion. This isn't a grammatical exam. It's about topic, and each thread has the topic that it should be restrained to. Ben's already chasing that discussion elsewhere, this thread isn't the place for it. It also completely snubbed the OP by firstly going wildly off topic in a thread started by a mod, and by ignoring exactly what the OP asked for by asking a question - and an irrelevant one (to this thread) at that. All it did was invite mod attention for Ben, and did nothing for this discussion at all.

DavidJames said:
Unless you want JREF to be just a debating club where form trumps substance and style defeats facts and evidence,
Click to expand...
All I expect is a discussion forum where civility defeats bickering, and where discussion defeats nonsensical attempts at trolling. Nothing is acheived by jumping all over a poster with insults and laughing dogs.
 
chillzero said:
All I expect is a discussion forum where civility defeats bickering, and where discussion defeats nonsensical attempts at trolling. Nothing is acheived by jumping all over a poster with insults and laughing dogs.
Click to expand...
I applaud and agree with your goals. However, unless something is done to deal with tactics like Red's, nothing will still be the result.
 
BigAl said:
Repeatedly asking pointless and irrelevant questions.
Click to expand...

That's a difference of opinion. I ask those questions because I believe they're relevant. Some agree, a lot don't, it's just the premise of discussion.
 
I think the issue people have with your "tactics" Red, is that you do not seem to commit to a claim, or pov. It is hard to deal with someone who ONLY asks, "but what if", or "doesn't that seem a bit suspicious", or "Isn't it strange that..." without follow up in terms of what you think the "coincidence" means, or what your perspective is on a particular theory.

I am not sure anyone has pinned you down as to your opinion on any single given 9/11 CT, and I think people get tired of you coming here, insinuating or implying a certain opinion or pov, without actually coming out and stating it, or openly committing to it.

I think it is why I for so long thought you were LIHOP.

but, that is just my take...my best guess. I could be way off base.

TAM:)
 
RedIbis said:
What specifically do you see as my disingenuous tactics?
Click to expand...


I think chillzero best described a debate style which could be accurately attributed to you:
chillzero said:
However, in order to undertake an honest and full discussion it also help to lay out your position and defend it, rather than hide behind implications and veiled theories that you can later claim you never stated as fact.
Click to expand...


Furthermore -and there's really no delicate way to put this- you have a tendency to blatantly lie. I'm happy to provide examples if you so request.
 
RedIbis said:
That's a difference of opinion. I ask those questions because I believe they're relevant. Some agree, a lot don't, it's just the premise of discussion.
Click to expand...

let me give you an example of what I think you do, and what I think you should do...lol

eg. crash site at shanksville.

Red: Where is the jet fuel. Isn't that strange? Where is it?

What I think Red should say: I think the government is covering up the fact that flight 93 did not crash in Shanksville, so they faked the site, but forgot to put the jet fuel there. Can someone prove to me that I am wrong.

See, at least then, even though you are clearly MIHOP, you have pointed out an oddity, pointed out your perspective on it, and laid down the gauntlet to others to prove you wrong, or to at least enter the discussion on it.

Thats the way I see it anyway.

TAM:)
 
RedIbis said:
That's a difference of opinion. I ask those questions because I believe they're relevant. Some agree, a lot don't, it's just the premise of discussion.
Click to expand...

That is the whole point, or the point you are missing Red. You continually ask questions and expect the answers to be spoon fed for you here, if for what ever reason the answers are not to your satisfaction it simply reinforced your predetermined concussion, that being 911 is all fake and one massive cover up.

What you fail utterly to understand is that members here are not at your beck and call, nobody here is obliged to provide you with anything. There is not a single member here that is defending the "official story" as you guys love to call it. I speak for myself when I say this but if you are so concerned about the events of Sept 11th then why are you here demanding answers from skeptics? Why can you not just do something for yourself, action unilaterally and make things happen outside this forum.

If you genuinely believe that 911 was one massive cover up, what on earth are you doing here debating it with us?
 
T.A.M. said:
let me give you an example of what I think you do, and what I think you should do...lol

eg. crash site at shanksville.

Red: Where is the jet fuel. Isn't that strange? Where is it?

What I think Red should say: I think the government is covering up the fact that flight 93 did not crash in Shanksville, so they faked the site, but forgot to put the jet fuel there. Can someone prove to me that I am wrong.

See, at least then, even though you are clearly MIHOP, you have pointed out an oddity, pointed out your perspective on it, and laid down the gauntlet to others to prove you wrong, or to at least enter the discussion on it.

Thats the way I see it anyway.

TAM:)
Click to expand...

You see it that way Doc because thats the way it is. Thats the way it will continue to be. Moderating should address it, yet it doesnt.

Red and Bill, to name but two, follow the same tired MO. They appear a little spineless to come to the point. They procrastinate over tiny detail, derail threads, use veiled implications in a smug and smarmy way, tell blatent lies, then retreat behind their rock without answering questions. This is where suspensions should come into play.

Spamming is not pemitted, yet the site appears to be riddled with it. The same tired questions being spammed and repeated over and over again, usually by the same post or puppet who has returned with nothing new to discuss. Suspension should come into play.

Just saying
 
Jackanory said:
You see it that way Doc because thats the way it is. Thats the way it will continue to be. Moderating should address it, yet it doesnt.

Red and Bill, to name but two, follow the same tired MO. They appear a little spineless to come to the point. They procrastinate over tiny detail, derail threads, use veiled implications in a smug and smarmy way, tell blatent lies, then retreat behind their rock without answering questions. This is where suspensions should come into play.

Spamming is not pemitted, yet the site appears to be riddled with it. The same tired questions being spammed and repeated over and over again, usually by the same post or puppet who has returned with nothing new to discuss. Suspension should come into play.

Just saying
Click to expand...

As long as he does not violate any of the rules or agreements, as much as it annoys the bejeebus out of us, we really should not call for moderation on it, should we?

As for spam, if we are to call repeating questions spam, then State Of Grace (No offence SOG, just using you as an example) is spamming over in another thread as we speak, with steve austin, asking him the same question over and over. As much as it is annoying, I am not sure we should call it "spam".

The greatest thing, IMO, about this forum, is that as long as you do not violate the rules or agreements, you can feel free to post what you wish, as you wish. Of course, some moderation to make sure that the topics are not derailed, etc...is greatly appreciated, but honestly, do we really want to start suspending people just because we do not like their technique of conversing/debating/discussing/communicating?

just saying:D

TAM:)
 
T.A.M. said:
As long as he does not violate any of the rules or agreements, as much as it annoys the bejeebus out of us, we really should not call for moderation on it, should we?

As for spam, if we are to call repeating questions spam, then State Of Grace (No offence SOG, just using you as an example) is spamming over in another thread as we speak, with steve austin, asking him the same question over and over. As much as it is annoying, I am not sure we should call it "spam".

The greatest thing, IMO, about this forum, is that as long as you do not violate the rules or agreements, you can feel free to post what you wish, as you wish. Of course, some moderation to make sure that the topics are not derailed, etc...is greatly appreciated, but honestly, do we really want to start suspending people just because we do not like their technique of conversing/debating/discussing/communicating?

just saying:D

TAM:)
Click to expand...

So the point of this thread is?
 
Jackanory said:
You see it that way Doc because thats the way it is. Thats the way it will continue to be. Moderating should address it, yet it doesnt.

Red and Bill, to name but two, follow the same tired MO. They appear a little spineless to come to the point. They procrastinate over tiny detail, derail threads, use veiled implications in a smug and smarmy way, tell blatent lies, then retreat behind their rock without answering questions. This is where suspensions should come into play.

Spamming is not pemitted, yet the site appears to be riddled with it. The same tired questions being spammed and repeated over and over again, usually by the same post or puppet who has returned with nothing new to discuss. Suspension should come into play.

Just saying
Click to expand...

This is a good example of the kind of baiting that does nothing for this sub-forum. No one should be surprised that I'd want to come to my own defense when I read stuff like this, but I won't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom