Skeptics, Where Do We Go From Here?

[pomeroo]

From an article in Skeptical Briefs, "Where Do We Go From Here?":

"...After all, in a world where Peter Popoff can once again make a sweet fortune performing miracles--Popoff, for heaven's sake!--what's the point in fighting so hard? It's the much lamented 'unsinkable rubber duck' problem.

"Expose a magic golf-ball-finding device, and that exact same worthless device reaapears instantly with a new name. Expose a con man--even reveal him, caught deliciously red-handed, on the Tonight Show in front of millions of witnesses--and he barely misses a beat."

"If scam artists are moving targets and paranormal believers are impossible to convince, where does that lead the skeptics' movement? Here we are at the crossroads. In what direction are we supposed to carry the baton?"

An excellent question. What do we think we are doing here? There is no opposition. It is instructive to watch Mackey and other real scientists and engineers such as Newton's Bit and RWGuinn expose incompetents, but how many times? Johnny-One-Notes such as Max Photon, Christophera, and Ace Baker come and go. Lately, the other side consists of low-IQ kids like the aptly-named LostChild wiggling their ears and braying real loud. Yeah, victories are easy to achieve when our opponents punch like three-year-old girls, but what are we winning?

I have tried to stage debates featuring proponents of the absurd inside-job myth. It's not possible: they won't swallow the bait any longer. Why should they get humiliated by Mark when there's a room full of suckers waiting for them somewhere else? Okay, Popoff was caught committing fraud. He switched channels and continues to commit the same fraud. Ultimately, what defeats the skeptic is the prevalence of stupidity and apathy. In a culture that denigrates critical thinking skills, there will always be room for charlatans and con men.

[Magenta]

You mean what are we doing in this forum in particular? You probably shouldn't underestimate the number of people who use the forum as a resource. I recently came across an old thread inviting lurkers to comment and it was surprising how many there were.

ETA: Sorry, I don't really have an answer offhand to "where do we go from here?"

[Tweeter]

I`m not gonna say it, but you know where you can go!:D

[pomeroo]

I`m not gonna say it, but you know where you can go!:D


I kinda think you said it.;)

[1337m4n]

I`m not gonna say it, but you know where you can go!:D

Disney World?

[SezMe]

From an article in Skeptical Briefs, "Where Do We Go From Here?":

"If scam artists are moving targets and paranormal believers are impossible to convince, where does that lead the skeptics' movement? Here we are at the crossroads. In what direction are we supposed to carry the baton?"
I see no reason to think we are at any kind of crossroads. It's the same hard slog down the same frustrating road it has always been.

Where do we go? Seriously, I don't see any choice. If you think a rational approach to life you keep slogging down that road, take your victories where you can, and pass the torch when your time is up. Really, what else is there?

[jhunter1163]

I agree with SezMe. There's still a need for debunking, becuase there are still people out there who are seeing Loose Change or 9/11 Mysteries or Press For Truth for the first time and going "hmmmmm". I would say that there are probably fewer potential Truthers than there have been, and the declining quality of the argument here tells me that we're winning the war on 9/11 "truth", but as long as lies and intellectual dishonesty are being spread, there'll be a need to fight them.

[The Doc]

For me, it's a matter of sitting and waiting. There's no doubt that the highlight of my debunking days was back in late 2006/ early 2007. I feel like I actually made a pretty decent impact back then by rationally taking down what could quite possibly be the second most popular 9/11 denial film.

These days, however, there simply is no longer any opposition that is making an impact on anyone. The forum trolls around here who cannot put up a constructive argument do not get any attention from the general public, and thus don't really need to have any attention paid to them. Also, there is no need to update my paper/video either, because I've yet to be shown one reason to do so. Conspiracists could not give me one valid argument that would demonstrate an error in my paper. This is over a year since its release.

I guess one could always make the argument that the battle has been won, and that 9/11 conspiracists are a dying breed. They'd probably be right. However, I'm still going to come here, ignore the trolls, and hope that one day some valid opposition will present itself. Be it with a new theory, or new "evidence", I think that those of us who possess the ability to think critically and logically owe it to the rest of society to point out the plentiful amount of errors that these conspiracy theorists are throwing at them.

If the 9/11 conspiracists somehow do manage to dig themselves out of the grave they've been buried in by debunkers with some new popular film, book, or similar, I'll be first to analyze and possibly counter it depending on its accuracy. I just really don't think that's ever going to happen at the moment.

It's important that we defeat absurdity with reason. However, recently that's not been hard at all, seeing as the conspiracists haven't given us anything new for years. The constant repetition of their arguments (and consequently our arguments) is very exhausting and unnecessary. We should simply be referring them to the resource bank that we have created and not giving them the extra attention that they're after, and thus leading lurkers and fence sitters to the same place. In fact, I think I might start doing this.

[A-Train]

I have tried to stage debates featuring proponents of the absurd inside-job myth. It's not possible: they won't swallow the bait any longer. Why should they get humiliated by Mark when there's a room full of suckers waiting for them somewhere else?

I seem to remember Galileo challenging Mark (Gravy) to a public debate on this very forum a few months ago. Gravy has since high-tailed it off to the tall grass, with as of yet no response.

[Alt+F4]

I guess one could always make the argument that the battle has been won, and that 9/11 conspiracists are a dying breed. They'd probably be right.

I agree. In the fall of 2006 about 10 of my 11th/12th grade students talked to me about Loose Change. That was the peak of interest, and this coming from Loose Change's key demographic: young, white boys/men. And this is NYC.

This school year, not one peep about Loose Change or 9/11 conspiracies...not that conspiracies or stupid ideas are lacking. Now I'm dealing with, "Yo Miss, did you know the world is gonna end in 2012? The Mayans said so!"

Sigh....

[SezMe]

For me, it's a matter of sitting and waiting.
As your post referred to the 911 nuttery, I agree with what you wrote and especially with your contribution. But the OP was referring to all skeptical efforts being at a crossroads and it is that notion I was objecting to.

[johnny karate]

For me, debunking is born of a principle rather than the idea of achieving some intangible goal. When I see someone slinging crap, I feel compelled to point it out, and subsequently laugh at them.

So, as long as there are crap-slingers, I'll be here. Pointing and laughing.

[Skyhawk]

It is never acceptable to stop standing up for fact, scientific accuracy, and genuine skepticism, even when it seems like con-artists and conspiracy theorists are exponentially increasing in numbers and skill. Well, at least numbers, anyways.

[GlennB]

20 years ago I dissuaded a friend from getting involved in a pyramid scam by explaining the maths of it. A few more since then too. This hasn't stopped pyramid scams, but there are a few other people out there now who understand and won't get involved, and they may also pass on the word.

It's about all you can do.

[Hokulele]

This sounds like the beginning of a conversation on the differences between skepticism and cynicism. True, some of the members of the truth movement who post here could drive anyone to cynicism, however it is important to remember that just as the CT sub-forum is not the entirety of the JREF, the CTists who post here are not the entirety of the movement.

Although I haven't been as vocal a participant in the debates as others, I still enjoy reading through these threads for several reasons.

1) There are still sincere people for whom this is all new. Just as the CT's around the JFK assasination and the Apollo missions still attract new followers, so to will the 9/11 CT's. Not all of those people will be willfully ignorant. There are a fairly decent number of people like that who post here.

2) I do on occasion learn something new. In one of the most recent Holocaust threads, Nick Terry posted some history I wasn't aware of previously. I have learned a bunch about photography from the various Moon Hoax threads. I certainly would never have read the NIST report if someone hadn't tried to give 9/11 Mysteries to my husband, triggering my first visit to this sub-forum (huge thanks to The Doc!).

3) The people who post here are in general a fun and funny bunch. Even though this is supposed to be an Educational forum, it is nice to get a chuckle in during a blah work day.

And as a final point, the con men will always try to return (Exhibit A - Kevin Trudeau). Why let them have the field unopposed?

[Magenta]

Good post, Hokulele. :)

[Bananaman]

It's important that we defeat absurdity with reason.

Well said.

I felt like cheering when I read that.


Bananaman.

[LastChild]

If any of you had anywhere to go you would go.

So what time does the debunking start?

[TheRedWorm]

Define debunking.

[Bananaman]

If any of you had anywhere to go you would go.

So what time does the debunking start?

Lastchild, I don't mean to be rude but you're an idiot.

You've been debunked a million times but like a punch drunk boxer you keep coming back swinging your fists with your flattened nose bleeding, and it's no longer amusing. It's just sad.

Get it into your head, mate, their was no conspiracy on 9/11.

Yes, you can keep asking pointless questions if you want but it just makes you look more and more stupid.

Sorry to tell you the truth but somebody had to.

Bananaman.

[LastChild]

Lastchild, I don't mean to be rude but you're an idiot.

Well I don't mean to either but you're reported.

You've been debunked a million times but like a punch drunk boxer you keep coming back swinging your fists with your flattened nose bleeding, and it's no longer amusing. It's just sad.


Really. You have 27 post joined in 2008 and have witnessed me debunked a million times on exactly what conspiracy theories?

Get it into your head, mate, their was no conspiracy on 9/11.

Maybe but you would need a real investigation to know that. That's how I know you're full of it.

Yes, you can keep asking pointless questions if you want but it just makes you look more and more stupid.

They're not pointless just because you can't answer them.

Sorry to tell you the truth but somebody had to.

You don't know the truth and it upsets when I point that fact out.

Bananaman.

Remember. Watch your mouth.

[TheRedWorm]

Define debunking.



Please, I've seen you use the term before.

[LastChild]

Please, I've seen you use the term before.

Definition: To expose and disprove false or exaggerated claims.

[TheRedWorm]

And you do think that space beams and mini-nukes in the twin towers as "false or exaggerated claims?"

[LastChild]

And you do think that space beams and mini-nukes in the twin towers as "false or exaggerated claims?"

I don't know. Was it investigated and debunked right here? Show me.

[TheRedWorm]

So your shifting the goalposts from just debunking to "investigated and debunked"? Interesting. tell me, LC. What is your threshold for oddity? By that I mean; is there any theory that you dismiss as a little too out there to think there is a realistic possibility that it happened?

[A W Smith]

I don't know. Was it investigated and debunked right here? Show me.

we have been waiting for you to debunk the NIST report and the general consensus. So far you have failed. There is no need for us to debunk the theory that George Jetson used a space beam from Spacely Sprockets to bring down the twin towers. Or every other moon bat theory that comes down the pike from the mentally and emotionally disturbed.

[The Doc]

If any of you had anywhere to go you would go.

So what time does the debunking start?

Oh, please. The old "everyone on the internet except me is a loser with no life!" argument gets thrown into the open again by "LastChild". Unless you can somehow prove that all of us here live meaningless lives that we merely dedicate to debunking people like you without serving any other purpose, I suggest you keep your mouth shut. It reflects much more on you than any of us.

By the way, your number of posts per day is more than double mine. By your logic that means you either don't put any effort into your posts, or have half the life that I do, or perhaps both. However, I'm going to make the reasonable conclusion that I don't know anything about you, and thus shouldn't call your personal life into question, which is the same conclusion you should be making about people here.

[MIKILLINI]

If any of you had anywhere to go you would go.

So what time does the debunking start?

LC, if you had anywhere to go here, making an actual convincing case would be significant.

[T.A.M.]

Welcome back Ron.

TAM:)

[Mobyseven]

Debunking is still necessary, but not as much as it was in the past. Nowadays most of the research into the claims that aren't bat**** crazy has already been done, and all that is needed is to throw a couple of links out and give a brief explanation. When someone asks why NORAD stood down, we can search out Gumboot's great work, when someone brings up William Rodriguez we can head on over to Gravy's paper on him.

We've become the librarians of the revolution.

[athon]

The complete article by Junior Skeptic editor Daniel Loxton can be found here (http://www.skeptic.com/downloads/WhereDoWeGoFromHere.pdf) as a pdf. I recommend reading it in its entirety.

I agree entirely with Loxton's sentiment. Skepticism has come so far in the past century, however we're now at a point where we can ask the hard questions. A gullibility within the public, a susceptibility amongst many to swallow snake oil, pseudoscience and conspiracies and a general lack of critical thinking arises not because of an absence of good information, but a lack of skill in knowing what to do with it.

There's obviously a need to combat nonsense with good information. Without it, we'd be nowhere. But it's a little like treating the symptoms while paying no mind to the root causes. Several thousand years of medical science acted much as skeptics are today - addressing what they see without a good mind of dealing with the fundamental cause.

It's easy to be an opposing voice, to say 'no, you're wrong', and feel as if you've accomplished something. Occasionally this is even true. But it we have definitely arrived at a crossroads, where some people are looking beyond being a dissenting opinion and scratching at ways that might address why the problems exist in the first place.

Athon

[stateofgrace]

Definition: To expose and disprove false or exaggerated claims.

So when are you going to start?

[SezMe]

Debunking is still necessary, but not as much as it was in the past. Nowadays most of the research into the claims that aren't bat**** crazy has already been done, and all that is needed is to throw a couple of links out and give a brief explanation. When someone asks why NORAD stood down, we can search out Gumboot's great work, when someone brings up William Rodriguez we can head on over to Gravy's paper on him.

We've become the librarians of the revolution.

Again, the OP has NOTHING to do with 911. It cited Popoff, magic gold ball finders and scam artists. Sure the twoofers are scam artists but I would argue that that is not the intent of the OP.

The issue is the direction of skepticism. To conflate that general question with the immedicacy of 911 debunking is to miss the whole point.

[LashL]

We've become the librarians of the revolution.


I am so stealing that line. ;)

[The Doc]

Again, the OP has NOTHING to do with 911. It cited Popoff, magic gold ball finders and scam artists. Sure the twoofers are scam artists but I would argue that that is not the intent of the OP.

The issue is the direction of skepticism. To conflate that general question with the immedicacy of 911 debunking is to miss the whole point.

Ron finished the OP with several very specific comments about 9/11 and conspiracy theories. Thus, leading the whole thread in the same direction.

The article itself, however, was not 9/11 related. You are correct in that sense. I just posted in context of conspiracy theories seeing as that seemed to be why Ron created the thread.

[Brainster]

I think this 9-11 conspiracy theory is it for me; I certainly don't intend to devote much time to the next one to come down the pike. Part of it was because I saw the "Truthers" as particularly cynical and selling a pernicious product, and because that day is extraordinarily significant. I hope that we never seen its like again.

The market seems to be contracting. 9-11 Blogger's traffic was down year over year in February, and it seems obvious from some of the You Tube videos that the "Truth" Squads are increasingly greeted with hostility and anger. There is no sense of excitement about the seventh anniversary the way there was about the fifth or even the sixth.

I've always felt that the election would pretty much kill the movement and stand by that assessment now. What I did not anticipate was how much even the primary process has sucked attention away from the CTs. The 9-11 activists who are political are focusing their attention on the race.

[LashL]

Again, the OP has NOTHING to do with 911.

Are you kidding? The OP cited a general skepticism article and specifically related it to 9/11 conspiracy nonsense. I find it difficult to understand how this could be construed as having "nothing to do with 911" :

It is instructive to watch Mackey and other real scientists and engineers such as Newton's Bit and RWGuinn expose incompetents, but how many times? Johnny-One-Notes such as Max Photon, Christophera, and Ace Baker come and go. Lately, the other side consists of low-IQ kids like the aptly-named LostChild wiggling their ears and braying real loud. Yeah, victories are easy to achieve when our opponents punch like three-year-old girls, but what are we winning?

I have tried to stage debates featuring proponents of the absurd inside-job myth. It's not possible: they won't swallow the bait any longer. Why should they get humiliated by Mark when there's a room full of suckers waiting for them somewhere else? Okay, Popoff was caught committing fraud. He switched channels and continues to commit the same fraud. Ultimately, what defeats the skeptic is the prevalence of stupidity and apathy. In a culture that denigrates critical thinking skills, there will always be room for charlatans and con men.


What do you think the foregoing is referring to, if not the 9/11 conspiracy nuts and the parallels between them and other frauds and conmen?

Sure the twoofers are scam artists but I would argue that that is not the intent of the OP.

Well, the OP seemed to me to be pretty straightforward in its meaning. But if you have an argument to make about the OP's "intent", how about making it rather than just saying that you would or could do so? Is there some personal feud going on here that the rest of us (me, anyway) are unaware of, or are you being deliberately vague for some other reason?

Sorry, but I just don't get it.

[Wildy]

Well in the context of 9/11 CTs I think that we are really in mopping up mode.

The "truth" movement is dead but I think that it is the "truthers" that do not see that clear and obvious fact. All that is left now is to deal with the few new people while watching the old ones argue perpetually in circles.

For the rest of skepticism?

I don't know.

I think that it would just be the same old same old, until we can think of something that moves critical thinking and knowing things (How about a gameshow? People like gameshows...) up a few notches in the collective mind of the societies in which we live.

[SezMe]

Are you kidding? The OP cited a general skepticism article and specifically related it to 9/11 conspiracy nonsense. I find it difficult to understand how this could be construed as having "nothing to do with 911"
You and The Doc make a good point so I with draw my assertion that the OP had "nothing" to do with 911.

OTOH, the citations from the article cited in the OP had nothing to do with 911. pomeroo extrapolated them to 911 and then used that extrapolation to question the direction of skepticism in general. In that sense, my original point stands, namely, that whether skepticism in general is at a crossroads has little to do with the status of specific 911 debunking. I stand by that assertion.

[uk_dave]

So what time does the debunking start?

You don't think the fantasies of Terral, supposed 'demolition supervisor' and signatory to the sainted AE911truth petition, has been debunked?

How about Heiwa who is listed as an expert on the 'Patriots Question 911' website* (as a true american patriot? :boggled:)? Think his crap hasn't been debunked on this forum?

How about 'Pilots for Truth'? Have they managed to come up with anything that hasn't been comprehensively debunked on this forum?

Then of course we enter the realms of the CIT and their attempt at fame and fortune. Good job they test drove it on this forum first and thus avoided further embarassment to themselves by not issuing the 'researchers edition' they had been promising.

Of course the various editions of Loose Change also took a mauling on this forum. Loose Change is debunked.

David Ray Griffin, Hoffman, Jones (Both father and son) etc etc etc have all been comprehensively debunked on this forum.

So Lastchild, when are you going to start debunking NIST and the 911 Commission report?

ETA - *And a member of Scholars for 911 Truth & Justice - is he a scholar?

[Bananaman]

..

(Can't work how to delete this post of a double post. Mods, can you give it the chop please?)

Nana.

[Bananaman]

So Lastchild, when are you going to start debunking NIST and the 911 Commission report?

Now, there's a question.

Could the obvious answer be that he can't?

Edited for civility.

Bananaman.

[pomeroo]

I seem to remember Galileo challenging Mark (Gravy) to a public debate on this very forum a few months ago. Gravy has since high-tailed it off to the tall grass, with as of yet no response.


What would they debate?

[MarkyX]

I don't know. Was it investigated and debunked right here? Show me.

Do not make personal attacks

Debunk that.

[tanabear]

In a culture that denigrates critical thinking skills, there will always be room for charlatans and con men.

Yes, and you will find charlatans and their supporters in spades on this forum. You forgot the biggest con-men in the modern world today, the neo-cons. Why is that there is very little criticism of them and the fraud they perpetuated on the American people? A recent book by Joseph Stiglitz is entitled, The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Cost of the Iraq Conflict . It should have been entitled The Three Trillion Dollar Fraud. The neo-cons have conned us out of more money than Popoff and Sylvia Browne could do in their wildest dreams. To say that you practice critical thinking skills is an exercise is self-flattery. Who is going to pay the American people back for this three trillion dollar scam? No one.

[tanabear]

In a culture that denigrates critical thinking skills, there will always be room for charlatans and con men.

Yes, and you will find charlatans and their supporters in spades on this forum. You forgot the biggest con-men in the modern world today, the neo-cons. Why is that there is very little criticism of them and the fraud they perpetuated on the American people? A recent book by Joseph Stiglitz is entitled, The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Cost of the Iraq Conflict . It should have been entitled The Three Trillion Dollar Fraud. The neo-cons have conned us out of more money than Popoff and Sylvia Browne could do in their wildest dreams. To say that you practice critical thinking skills is an exercise is self-flattery. Who is going to pay the American people back for this three trillion dollar scam? No one.

[SDC]

I am so stealing that line. ;)

Darn it, aren't you a lawyer, not a librarian? Back off, counsellor!

[16.5]

Last Child: "Really. You have 27 post joined in 2008 and have witnessed me debunked a million times on exactly what conspiracy theories?"

Well, last week there was:

1. Your claim that the 911 Commission report did not mention box cutters;

2. Your claim that the 911 Commission did not investigate the "put options," when in fact they identified the very entities that had made the trades, and specifically discussed the fact that the trades were part of hedging strategies;

3. You claim that the Airlines could not track the planes while they were in the air.

Those are just a few.

[Alt+F4]

Definition: To expose and disprove false or exaggerated claims.

Oh, I do that everyday in real life. What do you do besides post online?

[Tweeter]

Youre making it sound like what you do online is not real.
I guess you could say thats true.

[Horatius]

Okay, Popoff was caught committing fraud. He switched channels and continues to commit the same fraud. Ultimately, what defeats the skeptic is the prevalence of stupidity and apathy. In a culture that denigrates critical thinking skills, there will always be room for charlatans and con men.


This school year, not one peep about Loose Change or 9/11 conspiracies...not that conspiracies or stupid ideas are lacking. Now I'm dealing with, "Yo Miss, did you know the world is gonna end in 2012? The Mayans said so!"

Sigh....

It is never acceptable to stop standing up for fact, scientific accuracy, and genuine skepticism, even when it seems like con-artists and conspiracy theorists are exponentially increasing in numbers and skill. Well, at least numbers, anyways.


And as a final point, the con men will always try to return (Exhibit A - Kevin Trudeau). Why let them have the field unopposed?


I agree entirely with Loxton's sentiment. Skepticism has come so far in the past century, however we're now at a point where we can ask the hard questions. A gullibility within the public, a susceptibility amongst many to swallow snake oil, pseudoscience and conspiracies and a general lack of critical thinking arises not because of an absence of good information, but a lack of skill in knowing what to do with it.





I think my feelings on this issue were best summed up in the comic strips I did back when Hector died:


http://static.stripgenerator.com/generated/horatius/strip/2007/11/29/standing-a-post.png

http://static.stripgenerator.com/generated/horatius/strip/2007/11/29/standing-a-post-part-2.png

http://static.stripgenerator.com/generated/horatius/strip/2007/11/29/standing-a-post-part-3.png

http://static.stripgenerator.com/generated/horatius/strip/2007/11/29/standing-a-post-part-4.png

http://static.stripgenerator.com/generated/horatius/strip/2007/11/29/standing-a-post-part-5.png

http://static.stripgenerator.com/generated/horatius/strip/2007/11/29/what-its-all-about.png



This really is how I feel. There was a time when just about every single human being who lived believed woo, and believed it all the time. And that time wasn't so long ago. The fact that a huge percentage of people still believe woo can be daunting, but we need to remember where it is we started from, so we can see how far we've come.

This fight isn't one that began in our lifetimes, nor is it one that will end in our lifetimes, or even a hundred lifetimes. But it's a fight that must be fought, for reasons I'm sure we all know. At some point there may come a time when most people are rational, and woo is dying or dead, but that day won't come if we despair now. As Athon says, to move forward, we must begin to understand and attack the underlying causes of woo.

Because if we won't, who will?

[Bananaman]

Horatius, I think you might enjoy this youtube link. In fact, I'm nearly certain you will.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTsIuLtdAEk&feature=related

Bananaman.

[Abbyas]

hello, as a "debunker", I'd say we don't go very far. Because we don't need to. Loose Change is all but completely dead in the water. They can't make back money for their investors and this is as far as they will get. The NWO stuff will be around forever in various "elite run the world through the jews, communists, etc" forms. But those cults don't make much money off themselves.

99.9% of the people I see online in various forums promoting the stuff are really just looking for a fight.

If you let these people go on, eventually they say something too stupid for most of the easily dissuaded to stand behind. I think we're at that point. Debates, discussions, debunking guides all had their place, but I think they just aren't needed anymore. Because now that the big bad enemy hasn't come to get them, we're all they have left. They need an enemy now, and I don't think we should be too eager to give it to them.

I found it ironic that Avery released a statement calling out "haters", these same haters (Maddox, BBC, history channel, etc) all the publicity he gets. Alex Jones has dropped Louder than Words like a brick. He doesn't mention them any more at all.

Edited to add: That being said... a good myspace forum back and forth is a fun way to kill a couple of hours.

[Horatius]

Hotatius, I think you might enjoy this youtube link. In fact, I'm nearly certain you will.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTsIuLtdAEk&feature=related

Bananaman.



Yep, James Burke is Da Man. I'm not sure that progress is "inevitable", but it's certainly desirable and worth working/fighting for.

[Hokulele]

I think my feelings on this issue were best summed up in the comic strips I did back when Hector died:


You know Horatius, that comic still makes me tear up.

:rose:

[Mobyseven]

You know Horatius, that comic still makes me tear up.

:rose:

Ditto. You do damn fine work Horatius.

[The Doc]

hello, as a "debunker", I'd say we don't go very far. Because we don't need to. Loose Change is all but completely dead in the water. They can't make back money for their investors and this is as far as they will get. The NWO stuff will be around forever in various "elite run the world through the jews, communists, etc" forms. But those cults don't make much money off themselves.

99.9% of the people I see online in various forums promoting the stuff are really just looking for a fight.

If you let these people go on, eventually they say something too stupid for most of the easily dissuaded to stand behind. I think we're at that point. Debates, discussions, debunking guides all had their place, but I think they just aren't needed anymore. Because now that the big bad enemy hasn't come to get them, we're all they have left. They need an enemy now, and I don't think we should be too eager to give it to them.

I found it ironic that Avery released a statement calling out "haters", these same haters (Maddox, BBC, history channel, etc) all the publicity he gets. Alex Jones has dropped Louder than Words like a brick. He doesn't mention them any more at all.

Edited to add: That being said... a good myspace forum back and forth is a fun way to kill a couple of hours.

Very well said.

I never really thought about that. Dylan Avery pretty much owes any "fame" he's got to people who opposed him.