A simple way to expose the JAQ-offers

[1337m4n]

Given our recent issues with people coming here pretending to be "just asking questions" then gradually becoming more and more hostile and rigid, I came up with a simple technique that we can use to tell if a JAQer is faking it.

The plan is, to every newbie who comes here claiming to be JAQ, we present a modified version of the Totovader Challenge: We ask them specifically what piece(s) of evidence would put their doubts to rest.

If they respond with something at least semi-reasonable, we give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they are honest JAQers.

If, on the other hand, they respond with something that is obviously a dodge, such as "Well, so much happened that day that was so suspicious that I don't think I can ever be completely sold on the official story", or if they respond with something completely ludicrous such as "I want a petition from 100% of the nation's engineers saying they have no doubts about the official story!" then we can be pretty certain that we've got another LastChild in the making.

One simple question, and they'll be exposed, rather than going through 10-some-odd pages of debate trying to guess their motives.

[cisco]

I think people need to stop answering until it's crystal clear what, exactly, the question is. The "What happened to flight 93's tail?" thread doesn't even have any original text - let alone a question mark - in the first post. It's just a link and a quote. A reasonable person would assume the subject line was the question, but the OP uses it as more of a general topic.

Answering before clarifying the question lets them keep changing the question.

[OldTigerCub]

I say we just let NWO Kitty get medieval on their butts and save the time that way.....:p

[beachnut]

I think people need to stop answering until it's crystal clear what, exactly, the question is. The "What happened to flight 93's tail?" thread doesn't even have any original text - let alone a question mark - in the first post. It's just a link and a quote. A reasonable person would assume the subject line was the question, but the OP uses it as more of a general topic.

Answering before clarifying the question lets them keep changing the question.
He is a known person of 9/11 truth who makes up lies; he actually did not spread a lie in that thread for a few posts. But the dead give away for him, his post answered the question, he is too challenged to see the source he cited answered his own question. He is not running on all cylinders, his video proves it! I am sorry, those are the facts of the case, and they are irrefutable.

[T.A.M.]

I think I should dredge up that old Multiple Choice Series of Questions I had for new comers and ask them to answer it before we seriously address them...

TAM:)

[DGM]

For most of these people a brief description of how to use the search function would work best. Nothing new has come through the door in I don't know how long.

[Brainache]

Maybe we could just ask: "where did you hear about JREF?" and "What do you think will be the response to your question here?"

The answers to these two simple questions can be very telling.

[LastChild]

Given our recent issues with people coming here pretending to be "just asking questions" then gradually becoming more and more hostile and rigid, I came up with a simple technique that we can use to tell if a JAQer is faking it.

The plan is, to every newbie who comes here claiming to be JAQ, we present a modified version of the Totovader Challenge: We ask them specifically what piece(s) of evidence would put their doubts to rest.

If they respond with something at least semi-reasonable, we give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they are honest JAQers.

If, on the other hand, they respond with something that is obviously a dodge, such as "Well, so much happened that day that was so suspicious that I don't think I can ever be completely sold on the official story", or if they respond with something completely ludicrous such as "I want a petition from 100% of the nation's engineers saying they have no doubts about the official story!" then we can be pretty certain that we've got another LastChild in the making.

One simple question, and they'll be exposed, rather than going through 10-some-odd pages of debate trying to guess their motives.

So your simple way to expose the JAQer faker is to…

A) Just ask the Question – “what piece(s) of evidence would put their doubts to rest.” Isn’t that just asking a question?
B) Reserve the right to judge what qualifies as reasonable – “at least semi-reasonable” It’s very important to reserve this right when pretending to debunk at JREF or at least assert to reserve the right.
C) Or Lie- "I want a petition from 100% of the nation's engineers saying they have no doubts about the official story!" Where did I ever ask anything of the sort? Can you source it?

What time does the debunking start? Ever?

[Brainache]

So your simple way to expose the JAQer faker is to…

A) Just ask the Question – “what piece(s) of evidence would put their doubts to rest.” Isn’t that just asking a question?
B) Reserve the right to judge what qualifies as reasonable – “at least semi-reasonable” It’s very important to reserve this right when pretending to debunk at JREF or at least assert to reserve the right.
C) Or Lie- "I want a petition from 100% of the nation's engineers saying they have no doubts about the official story!" Where did I ever ask anything of the sort? Can you source it?

What time does the debunking start? Ever?

What makes you think this thread was directed specifically at you?

The debunking starts when you read and comprehend the thoughtful responses that many people post here (I'm not claiming to be one of those people).

The problem with the fake JAQ types is that they never ever listen to the answers.

[RedIbis]

I think I should dredge up that old Multiple Choice Series of Questions I had for new comers and ask them to answer it before we seriously address them...

TAM:)

So you just want them to answer questions before they just ask questions.

[LastChild]

What makes you think this thread was directed specifically at you?

Not the thread the lie -"I want a petition from 100% of the nation's engineers saying they have no doubts about the official story!" then we can be pretty certain that we've got another LastChild in the making.

The debunking starts when you read and comprehend the thoughtful responses that many people post here (I'm not claiming to be one of those people).

A thoughtful response of ones opinion is not debunking and many of the opinions are more knee-jerk then thoughtful.

The problem with the fake JAQ types is that they never ever listen to the answers.

I listen but I don't hear any debunking just a bunch of apologies and excuses. That is when they're not trying to knockdown something no one ever claimed in the first place asserting it will somehow automatically make their version the truth by default.

[twinstead]

So you just want them to answer questions before they just ask questions.

You've been here long enough to know the tactic the OP is describing. What would YOU do?

[T.A.M.]

So you just want them to answer questions before they just ask questions.

Yes Red, some elementary questions that when answered definitely enlighten us here about where said members are coming from.

I have dredged up the thread, if you want to answer them.

TAM:)

[twinstead]

I listen but I don't hear any debunking just a bunch of apologies and excuses. That is when they're not trying to knockdown something no one ever claimed in the first place asserting it will somehow automatically make their version the truth by default.

That's your circuit beaker in action. You justify serious challenges to your theories by waving them off as 'apologies and excuses'.

Any FOOL can see the way you protect your world view that way by simply reading the threads you participate in. The reason you don't is because you don't want to. According to you, YOU are right and everybody here--even those substantially more knowledgeable--are either shills or idiots.

It's great if all you want to do is win arguments, if only in your mind, but not really conducive to honest debate.

[RedIbis]

Yes Red, some elementary questions that when answered definitely enlighten us here about where said members are coming from.

I have dredged up the thread, if you want to answer them.

TAM:)

So you're "just asking questions."

[Brainache]

So you're "just asking questions."

And hoping to learn from the answers.

[T.A.M.]

So you're "just asking questions."

lol...yes I am asking questions about the opinions or pov's of posters here, so I can get a better Idea of what mindset they have, "where they are coming from". It helps me differentiate who I should spend time talking to, versus those who are beyond my ability or desire to assist or discuss things with.

TAM:)

[16.5]

Why bother?

Seriously. Let the closet truther come and spread his innocent cover story: "Hi I'm a sincere person with a serious question and an open mind." Within a page they are exposed as frauds, their credibility destroyed and the Twoof movement made to look like the hollow shell of bottom feeders that it really is.

I love those threads! You'd think that more well known Twoofers would take the newbies aside and say: PLEASE, please please don't do the Trojan Horse shtick. You end up looking like a fraud and a liar, and the Truth Movement dies another little death every time you do it.

Keep it up Twoofers!

[LastChild]

Any FOOL can see...

Oh so that's what makes you think you're qualified to assert that excuses and apologies equate debunking.

Thanks for the answer.

[RedIbis]

lol...yes I am asking questions about the opinions or pov's of posters here, so I can get a better Idea of what mindset they have, "where they are coming from". It helps me differentiate who I should spend time talking to, versus those who are beyond my ability or desire to assist or discuss things with.

TAM:)

Just as long as we all see the irony in this.

[T.A.M.]

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=72490

Take a look.

Ironic, that I have suggested posters answer some questions in a thread about them "Just Asking Questions", yes I see your point, but the reason for the questions I have posed is to help better understand where they are coming from. Do you have a problem with this??

TAM:)

[RedIbis]

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=72490

Take a look.

Ironic, that I have suggested posters answer some questions in a thread about them "Just Asking Questions", yes I see your point, but the reason for the questions I have posed is to help better understand where they are coming from. Do you have a problem with this??

TAM:)

Not at all, but yet another slang term was added to the jref lexicon (JAQing off) used to denigrate "truthers" yet the "skeptics" cannot hold to a higher standard.

[16.5]

Thanks for the answer.

You see: sincerity, the hallmark of the Truth Movement!

Keep it up, now it is not as effective as posting "FAIL" in every other post, but it really helps people to open their eyes!

/I am well aware of the irony in this post.

[T.A.M.]

Not at all, but yet another slang term was added to the jref lexicon (JAQing off) used to denigrate "truthers" yet the "skeptics" cannot hold to a higher standard.

Well then I guess, in the spirit of fair play, my thread linked above is a JAQ-off thread as well, but for completely different reasons.

TAM;)

[RedIbis]

Well then I guess, in the spirit of fair play, my thread linked above is a JAQ-off thread as well, but for completely different reasons.

TAM;)

In the spirit of fair play, there's not a damn thing wrong with asking questions, by you or anyone else.

Among the more disappointing aspects of this forum is the way in which perfectly acceptable words and strategies have been co-opted, such as "truth" or "just asking questions."

[WildCat]

For most of these people a brief description of how to use the search function would work best. Nothing new has come through the door in I don't know how long.
The search function here is terrible, I've found it much better to search this site from google rather than use the one here.

[Totovader]

In the spirit of fair play, there's not a damn thing wrong with asking questions, by you or anyone else.

Among the more disappointing aspects of this forum is the way in which perfectly acceptable words and strategies have been co-opted, such as "truth" or "just asking questions."

Nobody said there's anything wrong with asking questions- the problem is when conspiracists come under the guise of being curious or on the fence and in reality, they're avoiding the facts by constantly moving the goalpost and refusing to accept the answers.

JAQing off does not refer to people who are honestly curious about the events and for some reason have just been stuck under a rock for the last 6 years- it refers to people who use JAQing as a shield against the answers.

Hence- there is no irony in asking a question of a JAQoff-er.

[Pardalis]

I'm sorry but "9/11 was an inside job" is not a question.

You can try to add a question mark at the end of it, it's still not a question.

[kookbreaker]

In the spirit of fair play, there's not a damn thing wrong with asking questions, by you or anyone else.

Among the more disappointing aspects of this forum is the way in which perfectly acceptable words and strategies have been co-opted, such as "truth" or "just asking questions."

In this subforum, when it comes to the phrase 'Just asking questions' those who use it constantly and consistently ignore any answers they get to their questions. This intellectual cowardice is a hallmark of a movement that claims to be seeking truth.

Its only natural that we should take them to task for pretending to be something they are not.

Ask questions honestly on this forum, with a genuine desire for an answer and you will likely get a good answer. Ask 'questions' loaded to try and get a response where you can pathetically try to 'PWN' JREFers and you will get the JAQing off comments. Nothing wrong about pointing out someone's intellectual dishonesty.

It's hardly unique, a staple joke on USENET was that those who claim to 'Tell it like it is' invariably do not.

[X]

Why not just ask them, before answering any of their questions, if they're willing to listen to, and endeavor to understand, the answers?

[dbalsdon]

there's not a damn thing wrong with asking questions,


There is when you're just going to ignore the answer.

[TjW]

In the spirit of fair play, there's not a damn thing wrong with asking questions, by you or anyone else.



Why would you think that?

[StoneRook]

I would recommend that you don't try to put some sort of "rules" before you can answer posts.

If you feel the person is JAQing, just skip that thread.

If you feel you can answer, do so - but don't worry if the person ends up just trying to stir up trouble.

Your not going to filter them out, so the best thing you can do is be true to your knowledge, answer what you can, and carry on.

You can't fix stupid... So don't even try. If you show them the path and they refuse to follow it, then they will get lost...

just my two cents...

[Myriad]

One size definitely does not fit all, and the inconstant nature of mileage, especially the mileage experienced by the second person possessive determinative pronoun, is a well-documented fact. However, I find that what works the best for me, strategically, is to just keep answering the questions and responding to the arguments offered, at face value. (That's not to say that's what I always do. I'm only human. But it's what works best, when I do it.)

As the arguments offered become more and more ridiculous as the interlocutor searches with increasing desperation for something that will stick, one can shift in tone from "good question, and the answer is..." to "that question makes no sense, because..." or even "that is patently false," without hostility and without mention of lies, lying, or liars. The closest I usually get is to regard the person as a victim of lying: "The quotes you've cited have been misleadingly edited and taken out of context. Were you deceived by them?"

The drawback to this approach is that it is very time-consuming. Also, it appears to require the kind of patience that not everyone has had an opportunity to learn (in my case, from working with mentally retarded people for my entire life, and I mean that honestly and literally, no backhanded insult to anyone intended). The upsides are it's very effective against the more trollish posters -- it might be feeding the trolls, but it's feeding them brussels sprouts and creamed cabbage, not the tasty high-saturated-insults junk food they're searching for -- and makes good reading for third parties.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[StoneRook]

In the spirit of fair play, there's not a damn thing wrong with asking questions, by you or anyone else.

Among the more disappointing aspects of this forum is the way in which perfectly acceptable words and strategies have been co-opted, such as "truth" or "just asking questions."

You are correct, there is nothing wrong asking questions.

However, if you come to a forum, posing as a seeker of knowledge, but you have a hidden motive, is that really helping the search for knowledge, or hindering it.

I have seen alot of "truth" seekers base their questions on close minded answers.

Is this "truth"? Or twisting reality to suit what the person all ready "knows" - regardless if it is true or not.

I know if someone posts truthfully, they will find their answers, but if they cloud the issue by playing off being "less informed", that person is a waste of time to the pursuit of truth.

A persons character is based on their actions, and their words.

[1337m4n]

Not at all, but yet another slang term was added to the jref lexicon (JAQing off) used to denigrate "truthers" yet the "skeptics" cannot hold to a higher standard.

"JAQing off" doesn't refer to people who are genuinely curious and on the fence, it refers to people who PRETEND to be curious and on the fence but in reality already have their minds made up about 9/11. You've been here long enough to see plenty of examples of this, surely.

[Hokulele]

-- it might be feeding the trolls, but it's feeding them brussels sprouts and creamed cabbage, not the tasty high-saturated-insults junk food they're searching for --


Brussel sprouts are tasty. :(

[nicepants]

Unfortunately, getting someone whose mind works like a truther to follow any sort of procedure in which their motivations are analyzed is likely to fail. Not that I think it's a poor idea.

I don't really understand what brings them here in the first place. They obviously aren't looking for the answers to the questions that they are asking...it seems more likely that they're just looking to try to trash on some "debunkers". Obviously the approach they take isn't making any believers out of anyone here, and we would be the first to want to see any actual evidence/proof of one of these crazy claims.

At some point, though, it becomes a rather pathetic charade, where in every thread participated in by the JAQer, they repeatedly get their [rule8] handed to them. They go on painting themselves into a corner until eventually they decide that to avoid further embarrassment they will abandon the thread altogether. (Speaking of which, LC...still waiting for a response to this post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3324013&postcount=57))

I personally find it somewhat intriguing how someone can be so wrong on so many levels, and yet see the exact opposite. But I guess that's how cognitive bias works.

[Blender Head]

I believe JAQing off is a defense mechanism used to avoid dealing with the substance at hand; an accusation of 'what's wrong with asking a few simple questions that should be easy to answer?' is the new 'anti-Semite' charge. It prevents anything from getting discussed.

[dbalsdon]

Brussel sprouts are tasty.

No they're not...

[T.A.M.]

In the spirit of fair play, there's not a damn thing wrong with asking questions, by you or anyone else.

Among the more disappointing aspects of this forum is the way in which perfectly acceptable words and strategies have been co-opted, such as "truth" or "just asking questions."

You are correct. As many others here have pointed out, the taunts of someone "JAQing Off" tend to be reserved for those who are making statements and rhetoric with their questions, or people who are asking them as part of a socratic method to "bring them over" to the truther side of the argument.

I agree with others, that if you are up front about your intent here, and you ask genuine questions, with an honest quest for knowledge behind it, you will likely get some good, considerate responses.

As with any forum, you will also get some heckling from the locals.

TAM:)

[alexg]

"JAQing off" doesn't refer to people who are genuinely curious and on the fence, it refers to people who PRETEND to be curious and on the fence but in reality already have their minds made up about 9/11. You've been here long enough to see plenty of examples of this, surely.

No doubt. Some are full-on truthers just hoping to spring a trap or catch you in a minor inconsistency or something along those lines.

There are some in a sort of gray area too I think. Leaning toward the CT but genuinely interested in a real dialog. This variety could just come out and say as much up front but they may be afraid of being ridiculed or ignored. JREF can be a pretty intimidating place.

[T.A.M.]

I also think there are a group of people who hate what america has become, hate how their government has made them look in the eyes of the world, who want to place blame for the catalyst (9/11) on the same politicians who have made the world dislike the USA.

I think these people caught wind of the 9/11 CTs, jumped on them, swallowed them hook line and sinker, and then come here to dare people to prove the CTs wrong.

TAM:)

[beachnut]

In the spirit of fair play, there's not a damn thing wrong with asking questions, by you or anyone else.

Among the more disappointing aspects of this forum is the way in which perfectly acceptable words and strategies have been co-opted, such as "truth" or "just asking questions." 9/11 truth officially has no conclusions. Check out the "leaders", they have no real conclusions. Zip. They made up JAQs. Just like Thermite; stupid ideas.

Thus, the only thing 9/11 truth does best and poor 9/11 truth sympathizers can do is "ask questions".

(Lack of conclusions is based on zero facts and evidence from 9/11 truth to even support one single integrated plan or idea of what happen on 9/11)

It is ironic 9/11 truth sympathizers protest, since all 9/11 truth sympathizers do is JAQs, and never come up with any thing about 9/11 to support 9/11 truth or even 9/11 truth sympathizers' own conclusions. Lack of knowledge, zero displayed experience, no conclusion based on reality, nothing but aimless stupid questions that go on for ever = 9/11 truth and 9/11 truth sympathizers. It is a demonstrated fact.

[1337m4n]

I don't really understand what brings them here in the first place. They obviously aren't looking for the answers to the questions that they are asking...it seems more likely that they're just looking to try to trash on some "debunkers". Obviously the approach they take isn't making any believers out of anyone here, and we would be the first to want to see any actual evidence/proof of one of these crazy claims.


Well, in the other thread I got into a tangent about how likability influences persuasiveness. Maybe the Truthers think that by pretending to be JAQ, they'll be more likable and thus more persuasive?

That probably doesn't make much sense, but then again Truthers are known for doing things that don't make sense.

[T.A.M.]

The other thing that bothers me about the JAQ issue, is that most if not all of the Questions have been answered. The trouble is, the truthers do not often like or agree with the answers, so they claim, falsely, that the questions have not been answered.

TAM:)

[Coffee]

Originally posted by: Twoofer_in_disguise:

....b-b-but how can you say for sure that it wasn't an inside job?

http://www.geocities.com/bndkelley@sbcglobal.net/jaqing.jpg

Most JAQing is thinly veiled trolling.

[Jennie C.]

I think I should dredge up that old Multiple Choice Series of Questions I had for new comers and ask them to answer it before we seriously address them...

TAM:)

What were your questions? Just asking.... :p


never mind, i didn't see the clicky to them when i wrote this. :o

[Jennie C.]

;3328816']Why not just ask them, before answering any of their questions, if they're willing to listen to, and endeavor to understand, the answers?

Probably because, if they're a typical shill, they'll come all over sincere and tell you that Of Course they're willing to listen. Just before they don't.

[Jennie C.]

One size definitely does not fit all, and the inconstant nature of mileage, especially the mileage experienced by the second person possessive determinative pronoun, is a well-documented fact. However, I find that what works the best for me, strategically, is to just keep answering the questions and responding to the arguments offered, at face value. (That's not to say that's what I always do. I'm only human. But it's what works best, when I do it.)

As the arguments offered become more and more ridiculous as the interlocutor searches with increasing desperation for something that will stick, one can shift in tone from "good question, and the answer is..." to "that question makes no sense, because..." or even "that is patently false," without hostility and without mention of lies, lying, or liars. The closest I usually get is to regard the person as a victim of lying: "The quotes you've cited have been misleadingly edited and taken out of context. Were you deceived by them?"

The drawback to this approach is that it is very time-consuming. Also, it appears to require the kind of patience that not everyone has had an opportunity to learn (in my case, from working with mentally retarded people for my entire life, and I mean that honestly and literally, no backhanded insult to anyone intended). The upsides are it's very effective against the more trollish posters -- it might be feeding the trolls, but it's feeding them brussels sprouts and creamed cabbage, not the tasty high-saturated-insults junk food they're searching for -- and makes good reading for third parties.

Respectfully,
Myriad

"brussels sprouts and creamed cabbage" ???? Ewww, I wouldn't listen either :D

[Hokulele]

Brussel sprouts are tasty. :(



No they're not...



"brussels sprouts and creamed cabbage" ???? Ewww, I wouldn't listen either :D


Hmph. You people have never tried my pan-browned sprouts with Gruyère. :dqueen

[T.A.M.]

Probably because, if they're a typical shill, they'll come all over sincere and tell you that Of Course they're willing to listen. Just before they don't.

Well that would leave sincere in an awful mess, now wouldn't it?

Sorry, I had to.

TAM;)

[twinstead]

Oh so that's what makes you think you're qualified to assert that excuses and apologies equate debunking.

Thanks for the answer.

You realize the same applies to you, right?

Just exactly whom do you think YOU are?

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Personally, I say just let them go with it for a while. Once exposed, just point how easily members of the truth movement engage in such willful deception.

[twinstead]

Personally, I say just let them go with it for a while. Once exposed, just point how easily members of the truth movement engage in such willful deception.

Yea, I suppose the 'ends justify the means' kind of ignorant debate cannot help but be found out, but that doesn't make it any less aggravating.

[CHF]

The other thing that bothers me about the JAQ issue, is that most if not all of the Questions have been answered. The trouble is, the truthers do not often like or agree with the answers, so they claim, falsely, that the questions have not been answered.

TAM:)

Or they're just too stupid to understand the answers, which in their minds equals no answer.