9/11 CT Subforum Discourse Deterioration

[T.A.M.]

Folks;

I have noticed recently, that the level of discourse here has deteriorated significantly. There are a number of factors, I believe, contributing, and I think it deserves some time to ponder, and where possible, correct.

1. The theories presented here by "truthers" or "agnostics" are old, and to many tiresome. I, like many of you, have grown irritated by this. However, the answer is not to get angry, to get malicious, and hence to get yourselves a yellow card, suspension, or banning (take a look at the number of faithful debunkers already suspended in September). My suggestion is point the poster to links that cover the theory in question, and then move on.

2. The "truthers" etc... that remain, or have newly joined, are purposely provoking, baiting, flaming, and dragging the level of conversation down. Once again, post a link to evidence that debunks their points, and move on...or learn to use the ignore function. If your purpose here is to answer antagonism with reciprocal behavior, then fine, do as you will, but expect the mods to not play favorites.

3. Some Debunkers are purposely baiting, flaming, provoking. This occurs much more frequently now than it use to. I can explain (but not excuse) some of it with "boredom". Most however, is reducing yourselves to the level of those you scathe for the same thing. Starting threads with individualized and provocative titles is not only uncalled for, but is something we find hard to stomach, when the role is reversed.

There are other issues that we should discuss, if anyone feels it appropriate, but this is a start.

TAM:)

[DC]

the truthers......

SOME debunkers......

[Drudgewire]

While I'm sure this is a forum management issue, I'd like to pre-emptively defend TAM for posting it here. That way we at least get the "MOVED" link and those who never scroll that far down the index page will see there's a discussion going on.

http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/golfclap.gif

[Confuseling]

Re 1, how much effort would it be to administrate a wiki? I think it would be the best way to present all the definitively settled points in one place, personally.

[twinstead]

the truthers......

SOME debunkers......

T.A.M. Made it quite clear he thinks BOTH groups have some blame

[Darat]

As Admin:

This is something that the Mod Team has some concerns about and certainly the amount of appropriate, on-topic and quality discussion has fallen away and we are spending more time just dealing with, to be candid, puerile behaviour. Yes when this section was very active we also had to do a lot of work but that was in the context of allowing the very good research, discussion and debate to continue.

It may be that a specific 9/11 section is no longer required or perhaps we set the section so that all new threads have to be approved so we only allow threads about new subjects to be started or some other change.

I will leave this thread here for the Members who are most interested in this section to have their say.

[funk de fino]

ETA - on reflection reconsidered post and deleted.

[funk de fino]

As Admin:

It may be that a specific 9/11 section is no longer required or perhaps we set the section so that all new threads have to be approved so we only allow threads about new subjects to be started or some other change.


I think this would be an improvement IMO. This happens on some other forums I am on and it reduces the noise and junk.

[16.5]

As Admin:

This is something that the Mod Team has some concerns about and certainly the amount of appropriate, on-topic and quality discussion has fallen away and we are spending more time just dealing with, to be candid, puerile behaviour. Yes when this section was very active we also had to do a lot of work but that was in the context of allowing the very good research, discussion and debate to continue.

It may be that a specific 9/11 section is no longer required or perhaps we set the section so that all new threads have to be approved so we only allow threads about new subjects to be started or some other change.

I will leave this thread here for the Members who are most interested in this section to have their say.

Oh, please don't do that. Most of the problems are in threads asking the same questions, time after time.

Solution: Add a sentence to a rule like "We strongly encourage and in the 911 SubForum insist that members conduct a search of previous threads to ensure that the subject you wish to discuss in a new thread has not been discussed a brazillion times in the past."

And then start tossing the repeat crap into AAH without remorse. Don't even think about it, just BOOM, gone.

Done and done.

[SDC]

That new-thread-approval process may be a good method, as the whole topic gradually fades from view. Of course, it sets mods up to be targets of vitriolic abuse from some of the usual suspects. But considering the money and other benefits the mods get...

[Drudgewire]

I will leave this thread here for the Members who are most interested in this section to have their say.


Shows what I know. Oh well, at least I got to use the golfclap emote for the first time. :cool:

[Minadin]

I agree that the level of discourse here has deteriorated. On the one hand you can only work with what you've got, but on the other, there has been a marked increase in the number of "debunker" types who seem to have just gone off the deep end, recently.

Didn't we coin a term for folks who get fatigued from dealing with conspiracy theorists? I forget what it is called, but the cure for it is to step back and go do something else you enjoy for a while.


As far as the suggestion that new threads may only be started with mod approval, I'm not sure how I feel about that. It seems like it would restrict discourse but it would also raise the signal-to-noise ratio dramatically. In any case, it wouldn't affect me much, as I've started a grand total of 6 threads in CT subfora in 2 years.

[Grizzly Bear]

I agree that the level of discourse here has deteriorated. On the one hand you can only work with what you've got, but on the other, there has been a marked increase in the number of "debunker" types who seem to have just gone off the deep end, recently.

Didn't we coin a term for folks who get fatigued from dealing with conspiracy theorists? I forget what it is called, but the cure for it is to step back and go do something else you enjoy for a while.


Whatever term was coined I've only been here for what? 4 months or so? I've seen some of the debunker threads which voice call-outs but it's really not always these people that singularly deteriorate it. People who respond to these call-out threads in my mind are equally responsible. Heck even I've done it myself a few times, where the sarcasm and derails take over the entire thread and no real dialect takes hold. I stay out of most of those and keep whatever snubs I have limited to where the sarcasm and response are appropriate.

"Truther" or debunker" however, when someone from either group makes these sort of threads there's not much to distinguish them apart short of their relative positions

For the repeated threads, I don't have much of an opinion regarding moderated approval as I've yet to begin a single thread since joining. Whatever topic I want to comment on already have threads. Perhaps we could find threads to more significant topics and make a link directory to all of them in a sticky thread here. That way people can look for relevant threads. Albeit collecting ther links to so many threads would be tedious, perhaps if it's considered though we could us the most active of those threads?

[T.A.M.]

Debunker Fatigue Syndrome, If I recall.

Anyway, good discussion. Some honesty at least. Self reflection and sometimes deserved self deprecation are good for the soul.

If I am being brutally frank, I think some of it (SOME) is a result of our unintentional dependence on Gravy/Mark.

Now before everyone gets their knickers in a knot, hear me out.

While there are still many stellar debunkers here (I will not mention names, as to leave someone out), there is no doubt in my mind, that many of us, myself included, relied on Gravy to come in and lay the slap down on whatever truther came forward, regardless of the theory. Now that he has pulled out, I have noticed a gap in the level of discourse. Maybe it is coincidence, maybe not.

Also, I have noticed that many long standing posters have retracted from the forum in general, and the 9/11 CT forum in particular. I am sure the reasons are varied, but likely include a general boredom with the nonsense that is still peddled, as well as a realization that the job has been, for the most part, finished. Despite what some of the truther baiters would spout, the fact is the truth "movement" has recoiled into a small tiny cave. It is nowhere near what it was 2-3 years ago, and even then it was not that big.

Now do not get me wrong. Most people who remain here are intellegent, often articulate individuals who mean well, and are good solid debunkers. However, I think that as the ACTIVE membership has shifted/changed, so has the tone of the forum. Perhaps this is a point more for reflection, than placing blame.

Just some thoughts.

TAM:)

[1337m4n]

After this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=123975) I honestly don't feel that any of them deserve respect anymore.

It's not that I think that this one Truther reflects on the whole bunch, mind you. It's that not one Truther spoke out against it. They remain completely silent on the despicable words and actions of people who claim to represent their very same cause.

[ElMondoHummus]

T.A.M., you're right. There has been a degredation lately. It's all too easy to fall prey to flamebait, and that's why I've been taking pains to moderate my own tone myself (hence those crazy long posts from last month), but it is indeed a constant struggle.

I think it's a good idea to understand that when we reply to a conspiracy fantasist, we're not only replying to a conspiracy fantasist; we're also talking to every Tom, Dick, and Harry that's lurking on the forum. There may not be a lot of them, but they're there, and they deserve better than just another flamewar forum. Many of them won't have the prior knowledge that many of us here have, and therefore won't understand much of our aggravation, and short answers to repeated topics. They definitely won't understand the sarcasm and reverse flaming and baiting. So it's a good idea to remember that answers are never just towards conspiracy peddlers alone, but are broadcast to truly uninformed but otherwise rational individuals. And delving in drek - yes, we've all done it before, myself included - does not help those lurking individuals discover the truth. Not to toot my own horn here, but that's what I often have to remind myself when I'm posting, and yes, I've ended up erasing or outright terminating many responses on many occasions. We're all susceptible to mean and argumentative responses, and it takes effort to rise above it.

I don't know if some of the moderation proposals are good ideas, no offense to Darat and the moderating staff. They're looking out for all of us here, and the proposals have good intent, but I don't know if they'll have good effect. Prior authorization and strict rules about "only new topics" may be a bit excessive, although I freely admit, the nuance of how that's applied may make such moderation palatable. Still, though, I'd hate to see such restrictions in place when the better answer is for participants to make better posts, and avoid resorting to bad behavior. And regarding the thought that possibly a 9/11 subforum is not necessary: I don't agree. The trash to treasure ratio may not be appealing, but the mere fact that there are continuing posts that have value demonstrates that this forum is still viable. And it also acts as a good archival resource as well. I'd hate to see it go away.

Anyway, my 2 cents...

[laodoggie]

There are also a lot of "I need help debating this issue", pleas that need to be addressed.

So this forum is still needed!

[Thunder]

Admins should approve all new topics here. It is getting a bit rediculous here and I know even I have contributed to it. Reasons? Boredom with the same topics over and over again..and the same tired old used and debunked truther arguments..again and again.

[Horatius]

Admins should approve all new topics here. It is getting a bit rediculous here and I know even I have contributed to it. Reasons? Boredom with the same topics over and over again..and the same tired old used and debunked truther arguments..again and again.



That's the Debunker Fatigue Syndrome mentioned earlier. It's no shame to decide to withdraw, for a week or forever. I understand that some people hate to think that the twoofers might get in the last word (I'm like that myself), but at some point you have to realize that the truly delusional twoofers we get these days simply are not going to be convinced by anything we say.

Hang out and help those who might actually be fence-sitters, but when the Mark of Woo becomes obvious, it's time to just leave them alone. Otherwise, all we're doing is validating their fantasies.

If you need to blow off steam, do it through some other outlet. Mine is the Comic Strip thread, but I'm sure there are other outlets available.

[Hokulele]

T.A.M., you're right. There has been a degredation lately. It's all too easy to fall prey to flamebait, and that's why I've been taking pains to moderate my own tone myself (hence those crazy long posts from last month), but it is indeed a constant struggle.

I think it's a good idea to understand that when we reply to a conspiracy fantasist, we're not only replying to a conspiracy fantasist; we're also talking to every Tom, Dick, and Harry that's lurking on the forum. There may not be a lot of them, but they're there, and they deserve better than just another flamewar forum. Many of them won't have the prior knowledge that many of us here have, and therefore won't understand much of our aggravation, and short answers to repeated topics. They definitely won't understand the sarcasm and reverse flaming and baiting. So it's a good idea to remember that answers are never just towards conspiracy peddlers alone, but are broadcast to truly uninformed but otherwise rational individuals. And delving in drek - yes, we've all done it before, myself included - does not help those lurking individuals discover the truth. Not to toot my own horn here, but that's what I often have to remind myself when I'm posting, and yes, I've ended up erasing or outright terminating many responses on many occasions. We're all susceptible to mean and argumentative responses, and it takes effort to rise above it.

I don't know if some of the moderation proposals are good ideas, no offense to Darat and the moderating staff. They're looking out for all of us here, and the proposals have good intent, but I don't know if they'll have good effect. Prior authorization and strict rules about "only new topics" may be a bit excessive, although I freely admit, the nuance of how that's applied may make such moderation palatable. Still, though, I'd hate to see such restrictions in place when the better answer is for participants to make better posts, and avoid resorting to bad behavior. And regarding the thought that possibly a 9/11 subforum is not necessary: I don't agree. The trash to treasure ratio may not be appealing, but the mere fact that there are continuing posts that have value demonstrates that this forum is still viable. And it also acts as a good archival resource as well. I'd hate to see it go away.

Anyway, my 2 cents...


What he said.

In addition, for all of the new posters here to simply troll, there have been several that have added a new perspective and even new information to this and other sub-fora. If I were to go through the last few pages on each of the threads on the front page, I could likely count at least double the number of posters new since this spring I would consider as adding valuable content to the discussion. Yes, there is a bunch of nonsense, but it generally seems to come from very few people (on both sides of the debate), most of whom are fairly easy to ignore.

I agree with EMH, I don't think moderating solutions would be the best way to deal with the noise. I have also been trying to moderate my responses, with varying degrees of success. I think that if the veteran posters make more of an effort to lead by example, and several of them have always done this, the tone can be raised without resporting to drastic measures.

To the Admins/Mods, are you swamped with reports coming from this place? Would you recommend any guidelines for people reporting posts/threads to allow everyone posting here (again, on both sides of the debate) to do a little more self-policing, or would this cause more problems than it would solve?

[chillzero]

I don't know if some of the moderation proposals are good ideas, no offense to Darat and the moderating staff. They're looking out for all of us here, and the proposals have good intent, but I don't know if they'll have good effect. Prior authorization and strict rules about "only new topics" may be a bit excessive, although I freely admit, the nuance of how that's applied may make such moderation palatable. Still, though, I'd hate to see such restrictions in place when the better answer is for participants to make better posts, and avoid resorting to bad behavior. And regarding the thought that possibly a 9/11 subforum is not necessary: I don't agree. The trash to treasure ratio may not be appealing, but the mere fact that there are continuing posts that have value demonstrates that this forum is still viable. And it also acts as a good archival resource as well. I'd hate to see it go away.

Anyway, my 2 cents...

It's not going to go away - worst case would be an archival - it should always be available for viewing. I completely agree that it is an important section with a lot of important and valid information.

Now, to address the idea that better posting habits would be the best solution, I completely agree. However, the facts is that the forum section was put on stricter moderation for a long period. When that was lifted it was still under scrutiny, and basically, you have a mod dedicated to keeping an eye on the section as much as possible - no other section really has that. We don't have the resources needed to keep this place on such strict mod review on a permaent basis, and frankly, it shouldn't need to be treated so much differently than the rest of the forum.

The mod team have tried to steer this section in the right direction. We've tried to encourage you all to stop creating threads that are basically designed to abuse those who disagree with you - not to actually make any attempt to discuss anything in particular. We have tried to encourage you all to debate in a civil manner without namecalling, or bickering. We repeatedly remind you to focus on the matter at hand instead of insulting each other. This section (to answer Hokulele) still keeps us busy.

When I review the section, I don't see our efforts having had much effect. When I review the reports we get, or get involved in trying to untangle a thread that's descended into abuse and mockery, I don't see people taking previous mod actions or warnings on board. I see - repeatedly - mass pile-ons, sock puppet accusations, and vicious mockery when someone takes the opposing viewpoint. I still see threads started for the sole purpose of mocking another member, or to mock a member of the TM. I don't see any educational value in that.

Worst of all, I have seen those frustrations and disagreements impact members in a negative fashion outside this forum, and in my opinion, that's completely unacceptable.

[chillzero]

Would you recommend any guidelines for people reporting posts/threads to allow everyone posting here (again, on both sides of the debate) to do a little more self-policing, or would this cause more problems than it would solve?

Let me think a little more on this specific question.

[gumboot]

To be honest I'm not sure I agree with the OP. The quality of the forum deteriorated quite some time ago, and it has been rather poor quality for a long while now.

There's a few useful bits of discussion going on such the the one I'm engaged with in the "Touching History" Attack by John Farmer" thread, but mostly it's just childish bickering.

At least those offering alternative explanations for 9/11 once used to advance research by motivating people to uncover new information and analyse various claims. Now they just seem to pop into threads to drop snide remarks or complain about how they're treated.

I for one wouldn't mind seeing the "calling them out" threads go. There's really no point in starting threads asking a particular Conspiracy Theorist to answer a specific question that everyone knows they will never answer. What do you think you're achieving starting such a thread?

The really disappointing thing is when new posters turn up and ask questions they're not even given pointers to appropriate threads; they're just slammed without thought. Try to be fair. The search function in this forum is frankly useless, and trying to find the answer to a specific question in amongst the thousands of pages of threads is virtually impossible - I've had great difficultly finding specific posts even when I knew what thread they were in and who made it.

[T.A.M.]

To be honest I'm not sure I agree with the OP. The quality of the forum deteriorated quite some time ago, and it has been rather poor quality for a long while now.

There's a few useful bits of discussion going on such the the one I'm engaged with in the "Touching History" Attack by John Farmer" thread, but mostly it's just childish bickering.

At least those offering alternative explanations for 9/11 once used to advance research by motivating people to uncover new information and analyse various claims. Now they just seem to pop into threads to drop snide remarks or complain about how they're treated.

I for one wouldn't mind seeing the "calling them out" threads go. There's really no point in starting threads asking a particular Conspiracy Theorist to answer a specific question that everyone knows they will never answer. What do you think you're achieving starting such a thread?

The really disappointing thing is when new posters turn up and ask questions they're not even given pointers to appropriate threads; they're just slammed without thought. Try to be fair. The search function in this forum is frankly useless, and trying to find the answer to a specific question in amongst the thousands of pages of threads is virtually impossible - I've had great difficultly finding specific posts even when I knew what thread they were in and who made it.

So you agree with the essence of my OP, but not the timing of the deterioration? If I am wrong, please elaborate more, as that was the purpose of the OP in the first place.

I guess deterioration is a subjective thing, and depending on ones standards, if may have occurred earlier, later, or not at all. From my pov, it REALLY started to go down hill just before Gravy left (and got much worse after he left), and I think it was likely one of a number of factors that made him decide to call it quits.

TAM:)

[gumboot]

Yes, that's about right TAM. I'm in full agreement with the thrust of your concern, however it's been an issue for a long time, and there's been a lot of threads started pointing it out. Nothing changed after any of those threads and, despite your best efforts, I don't expect anything to change this time around.

The corpse that is the 9/11 CT Forum is not about to be reanimated any time soon... ;)

[Travis]

I've seen a lot of replies lately that are some variant of:

Shut up liar!

Did you respond to my post in this other thread?

Why are you so stupid and dishonest?



...and other things that just generally annoy me. I think this is because some of the Truthers and Debunkers have developed some personal animosity between each other and are doing a poor job of restraining themselves from simply insulting the poster they hate when they should be replying to what they wrote.

[DC]

I've seen a lot of replies lately that are some variant of:

Shut up liar!

Did you respond to my post in this other thread?

Why are you so stupid and dishonest?



...and other things that just generally annoy me. I think this is because some of the Truthers and Debunkers have developed some personal animosity between each other and are doing a poor job of restraining themselves from simply insulting the poster they hate when they should be replying to what they wrote.

i am guilty of that i think.

[Hyperviolet]

I completely agree, TAM.

[SDC]

Check out Roundhead's thread of today. It's a perfect example of the utter failure of the "Truth movement." And the need its followers have to endlessly recycle their own personal "arguments from incredulity" which have been debunked numerous times.

There is no longer any point to this. Posters like Roundhead, or Red Ibis, or Turbofan, etc. -- I am naming names intentionally -- are merely trying to abuse the system. If I had my way they would simply be banned as perpetual trolls. I suppose it is a good thing I don't have my way. But still, the fact that Roundhead felt able to raise this as a serious thread, at this point ... well, there is no sense to any of it.

[T.A.M.]

Yes, that's about right TAM. I'm in full agreement with the thrust of your concern, however it's been an issue for a long time, and there's been a lot of threads started pointing it out. Nothing changed after any of those threads and, despite your best efforts, I don't expect anything to change this time around.

The corpse that is the 9/11 CT Forum is not about to be reanimated any time soon... ;)

I am not sure I completely agree. Myself and others have posted like this from time to time, almost like a "friendly reminder" to some that have let themselves slide. For a while, at least, some make an honest effort to tidy up their behavior a little. If this is all that occurs, it is at least something.

I do agree that posting the OP a hundred times will not like "fix" the problem...that would take a change to the human genome.

TAM;)

[gumboot]

I am not sure I completely agree. Myself and others have posted like this from time to time, almost like a "friendly reminder" to some that have let themselves slide. For a while, at least, some make an honest effort to tidy up their behavior a little. If this is all that occurs, it is at least something.


You may be right. A brief bit of politeness is better than none at all. :)

[JimBenArm]

You know, when the only truth movement people left here are the no-planers, how can you have any rational discourse? It's like talking about general relativity with your dog. One side gets it, the other just drools.
Let's just close this section. Unless we turn it into another humor section. They can post their nonsense, we can laugh at it. Other than that, I think the CT section has run its course.

As far as going downhill, though, I remember when I first got here, and it was the wild west in here. Compared to then, this is a tea party. Of course, I've tamed my posting, if only to keep chillzero from ripping my lips off. That downright smarts!

[Reality Believer]

On another forum, I have tried the calm, cool method. It is a forum that discusses all manner of current events including, 9/11.

You sometimes develop cordial relationships with people of different views and I have one with a dude names Johnny. He is younger than I and has shown respect for my comments and advice at times.

The other day we had this exchange over a video that some posted that showed random comments about explosions (the usual tripe). Even after a calm and cordial explanation, from someone he respects, there was a cognitive disconnect that I can only attribute to some kind of psychological disconnect from reality. Some people are just unreachable, and I think the discussion should end at that point.

Johnny, buddy. Here is the short list why people like me, and some of the other guys that may not be so patient about responding to this issue, think that the idea of inside job is complete nonsense:

1. No direct evidence of demolition devices. No barrage of window shattering devices that are required to bring a building down. No remnants of devices in the rubble. Every square inch of the WTC rubble was sorted by hand at the Fresh Kills landfill site. They found wallets, wedding rings, fingernails, and other bits and pieces of minutely small material that they were trying to recover for evidence and body part recovery purposes. If you say that they concealed evidence of demolition devices, then you implicate thousands of workers and volunteers as being "in on it". You know what a volunteer is. How can that person be influenced by money or authority?

2. No plausible scenario for which they were planted and how they survived a 1 hour firestorm. It takes weeks for pro demolition experts to prepare a structure for demolition and they have to cut into the fabric of the building to do it. You cannot do this in secret. It is impossible.

3. Statement of people who have heard explosions or bombs were probably genuine in that they heard energetic sound waves. A beam snapping, a large piece of equipment hitting the ground, a drum of lacquer thinner blowing up. All of these could sound like an "explosion".

Energetic pressure waves are not the exclusive domain of pyrotechnic devices.

I hope this makes sense. This is how technically and logically inclined people think, and why the demolition scenario is impossible. Address my concerns above with direct evidence, then I will listen.

To you and Churchill, all the best.


Thanks for your input , but no one here or in my life time tell me otherwise . 911 was a inside job and I'd put my life on it .
You Bro and Raven have a Great weekend .

[Hokulele]

... Let's just close this section. ...


But then the forum runs the risk of having loons with no evidence posting in the "serious" sub-fora!

*Checks in on Politics*

Oh, never mind.

[ChrilleT]

I think it's a good idea to understand that when we reply to a conspiracy fantasist, we're not only replying to a conspiracy fantasist; we're also talking to every Tom, Dick, and Harry that's lurking on the forum. There may not be a lot of them, but they're there, and they deserve better than just another flamewar forum. Many of them won't have the prior knowledge that many of us here have, and therefore won't understand much of our aggravation, and short answers to repeated topics. They definitely won't understand the sarcasm and reverse flaming and baiting. So it's a good idea to remember that answers are never just towards conspiracy peddlers alone, but are broadcast to truly uninformed but otherwise rational individuals.

This part is very true. I have been lurking here for along time and mostly use this site to gather information and reading about various 911 subjects. With the amount of posts, threads and subjects it´s not getting easier to find the informative ones with alot of namecalling, provoking etc in between.

Chillzero : There are not really alot of good and informative 911 CT forums so it would be really sad if this part would be closed and archived.

[chillzero]

This part is very true. I have been lurking here for along time and mostly use this site to gather information and reading about various 911 subjects. With the amount of posts, threads and subjects it´s not getting easier to find the informative ones with alot of namecalling, provoking etc in between.

Chillzero : There are not really alot of good and informative 911 CT forums so it would be really sad if this part would be closed and archived.

But you just gave very good reason why it should.
Listen - if we locked the section, but bumped the top most informative threads, that would place the best discussions on page 1.

You also have the Gravylinks section.

I personally would think that having this clear section to use as necessary - it will come up in google searches, etc - would be better than allowing that good information to continually drop further and further back in the annals, buried by threads laughing at where the CTists are doing their latest demonstrations, or sharing the latest locations that 91 truth stickers have been posted, or announcing again and again and again that the TM is dead, or mocking whichever public figure is the latest to be attached to TM support, or ... well ... I'm sure you get the picture.

[Firestone]

Bottomline is that the whole concept of 9/11 CT is dead.
No way to have quality debate on a dead issue.

[chillzero]

Chillzero : There are not really alot of good and informative 911 CT forums so it would be really sad if this part would be closed and archived.

I've seen my name in a few posts like this.

Just a quick note. This won't be my decision.

I know it is clear that I am pretty much for closing the section, although there's possibly room for persuasion. Darat has offered an alternative of fully moderating it. We are really interested in gathering your thoughts on the matter.

There are differing opinions in the mod team, but in the end it will be a decision made by either the team or by the JREF in consultation with the team.

[T.A.M.]

I guess the issue with pre-approval of topics, is that it is a heavy form of censorship. An alternative, albeit one that might require more labor, would be to add to the subforum a note to new users that threads deemed non-productive, or inflammatory, may be removed at the discretion of the moderators, without warning. I know until now, the extreme cases of this have been moved to AAH, but perhaps simply deleting threads from the get go, might be better. That said, it is still censorship...I dunno, it is a tough call.

I personally would hate to see the section closed, as it is still a community, and a place for legitimate questions to be asked and answered.

TAM:)

[Hyperviolet]

I personally would hate to see the section closed, as it is still a community, and a place for legitimate questions to be asked and answered.
QFT.

Should you close this section of the forum, we'll lose a lot of regulars.
Personally, I enjoy General Skepticism, Religion, and Forum Community, too.
However, there are members here who really just post exclusively in the 9/11 Conspiracy section.

Close it and they're gone.

[chillzero]

However, there are members here who really just post exclusively in the 9/11 Conspiracy section.

Close it and they're gone.

Well, here's another issue. This is not a 911 debunking website. The 911 separate section wasn't really welcomed by JREF to begin with as it doesn't really match the intents of the Foundation or the site. However, some concession was given to the idea of community. That community, however, should not continue to insulate itself. Skepticism should be applicable to all walks of life - go out and wander the rest of the forum, folks, and participate in the other sections.

The JREF exists to encourage critical thinking and education in many areas. This section isn't living up to that ideal.


TAM - clamping down on what threads are and aren't allowed has been tried, and I personally dislike the reactions of those who find their threads removed. I don't like doing it in the first place, but the accusations of how I should just go ahead and ban someone because their thread on a video they made mocking someone or other was removed from this section for example, get really irritating and sometimes very aggressive. I can do without it.

As was said earlier, it would be better that the mods aren't needed to spend so much time and attention here in the first place - so the question remains, what are you guys going to do about it?

[Hyperviolet]

Well, here's another issue. This is not a 911 debunking website. The 911 separate section wasn't really welcomed by JREF to begin with as it doesn't really match the intents of the Foundation or the site. However, some concession was given to the idea of community. That community, however, should not continue to insulate itself. Skepticism should be applicable to all walks of life - go out and wander the rest of the forum, folks, and participate in the other sections.
Of course the JREF is not a 911 Debunking website.
It isn't a Political, Religious, or Anti-Homeopathy website, either.
It's for Critical Thinking & Skepticism of all kinds, as far as I understand.

On the note of community: Personally, I really don't feel people will post in threads where their interests simply do not lie.
There are members of this forum who visit here with simply an interest to discuss Conspiracy Theories, and not ESP, Religion, or Politics.
Likely they have their own personal views on each topic, skeptical views perhaps, but care not for discussing it on the internet.
And by closing this section there will be a loss of JREF members, and forum activity.
I'd rather that not happen.

That said, it's not my decision to make.

[T.A.M.]

Well, here's another issue. This is not a 911 debunking website. The 911 separate section wasn't really welcomed by JREF to begin with as it doesn't really match the intents of the Foundation or the site. However, some concession was given to the idea of community. That community, however, should not continue to insulate itself. Skepticism should be applicable to all walks of life - go out and wander the rest of the forum, folks, and participate in the other sections.

The JREF exists to encourage critical thinking and education in many areas. This section isn't living up to that ideal.

I understand the perspective. However,

1. We shouldn't mistake lack of interest for insulation. Most of the other CTs do not necessarily interest me, and may not interest others. The JFK CT has never interested me, nor has the moon hoax CT. As for the rest of the forum, there are lots of sections, i will admit, I should visit...I do occasionally.

2. While I think, AS OF LATE, this subforum may not be living up to the JREF ideals and goals, I think in the past it has, and in the future it can, but as you said, it will depend on what WE, THE COMMUNITY HERE, do about it.

3. I fail to see how the 9/11 CT topic did not match the intent of the site. I thought the intent of the JREF Forum, as you have said is to educate and critically think. I think critical thinking is a key component to seeing through the BS that has become 9/11 truth CT. If you mean giving the 9/11 CT its own subforum, then yes, I can see how that might have been a gift from the forum as a whole...one that perhaps has not been appreciated or utilized correctly. As for educating, we could do more, for sure, but we do have our stickys with important links.:)


TAM - clamping down on what threads are and aren't allowed has been tried, and I personally dislike the reactions of those who find their threads removed. I don't like doing it in the first place, but the accusations of how I should just go ahead and ban someone because their thread on a video they made mocking someone or other was removed from this section for example, get really irritating and sometimes very aggressive. I can do without it.

You have my admiration and condolences. Life as a mod on ANY SITE, let alone one that can get as nasty and heated as this one, has to be rough. I do not envy you...I appreciate you (and the others).


As was said earlier, it would be better that the mods aren't needed to spend so much time and attention here in the first place - so the question remains, what are you guys going to do about it?

Well threads like this, in a small way help, if in no other way but to make some here open their eyes to their own behavior.

Perhaps we should open the floor to suggestions...

So far we have:

1. Close the Section
2. Moderator Approval for New Threads.
3. Moderator Removal of Inappropriate Threads.

any more???

TAM:)

[Shrinker]

If the 911 section were closed, wouldn't the discussion just leak into the other sub-forums? Then you'd be faced with having to ban 911 CT discussion which would be quite ironic.

I say leave it be. The stupid callout threads and 'truthers advocate murder' threads don't really take off anyway and the trolling threads by the minority of truthers are just so obviously provocative that no person silly enough to read it should complain about what they find therein.

[chillzero]

3. I fail to see how the 9/11 CT topic did not match the intent of the site. I thought the intent of the JREF Forum, as you have said is to educate and critically think. I think critical thinking is a key component to seeing through the BS that has become 9/11 truth CT. If you mean giving the 9/11 CT its own subforum, then yes, I can see how that might have been a gift from the forum as a whole...one that perhaps has not been appreciated or utilized correctly. As for educating, we could do more, for sure, but we do have our stickys with important links.:)


You are of course, correct. And I did mean the 911 CT section specifically, althought that is mainly why the CT section as a whole was originally detached from General Paranormal and Skepticism.

I am perhaps viewing this with the hindsight that the bolded section allows me.

I'm going to try and duck out of this conversation a bit, and see how you all consider the options, and anything else you may come up with. The team are interested to see what you all feel about it.

[T.A.M.]

If the 911 section were closed, wouldn't the discussion just leak into the other sub-forums? Then you'd be faced with having to ban 911 CT discussion which would be quite ironic.

I say leave it be. The stupid callout threads and 'truthers advocate murder' threads don't really take off anyway and the trolling threads by the minority of truthers are just so obviously provocative that no person silly enough to read it should complain about what they find therein.

That is an incredibly important point. This would almost certainly happen.

TAM:)

[DC]

Why not make a subforum in the 9/11 Subforum, where not everybody is alowed to post.
maybe even moderated, in there there are only quality debates like the one where gumboot reheat etc are taking part in about the norad faa etc.

[chillzero]

That is an incredibly important point. This would almost certainly happen.

TAM:)

Ack - I meant to comment on this above.

There are rules to cover posting what is appropriate to any given section. As long as those are complied with, there shouldn't be an issue. The problem in this section is things have gone too loose.

I don't see the need for further 911 discussion unless anything new comes up. However, people continue to use the section, in the vacuum - becaue it is here, perhaps.

I also feel that to continue providing a platform to some of the views subscribed to is highly insulting to 911 victims.

[Shrinker]

I think new things are coming up all the time. WTC 7 for instance. Also, we're not just here to discuss the 'evidence', but also the publications, protests, TV appearances and plain old crazy antics of the truthers(eg their short bus). The homeopathy 'debate' has been over for decades but the topic is still relevant and it's still discussed at JREF.

Admittedly the new stuff, isn't arriving as fast as posters' desire to create new threads, but as interest wanes, the number of posters will eventually follow. To reduce the number of threads, I guess you could post some guidelines, dump or lock worthless threads or some other such tactics. It only seems like about 10% of threads need that treatment.

I'd also be happy with less moderator involvement. Trimming threads seems like such hard and thankless work. Perhaps threads bogged down with bickering should be just locked for a couple of days to let participants cool off.

[T.A.M.]

I think new things are coming up all the time. WTC 7 for instance. Also, we're not just here to discuss the 'evidence', but also the publications, protests, TV appearances and plain old crazy antics of the truthers(eg their short bus). The homeopathy 'debate' has been over for decades but the topic is still relevant and it's still discussed at JREF.

1. Yes, you are right, new theories, and takes on those theories are still coming up.

2. protests, TV appearances, and plain old crazy antics, may be some of the areas the mods are concerned about wrt the "spirit" and "intent" of JREF and its forums.


Admittedly the new stuff, isn't arriving as fast as posters' desire to create new threads, but as interest wanes, the number of posters will eventually follow. To reduce the number of threads, I guess you could post some guidelines, dump or lock worthless threads or some other such tactics. It only seems like about 10% of threads need that treatment.

I'd also be happy with less moderator involvement. Trimming threads seems like such hard and thankless work. Perhaps threads bogged down with bickering should be just locked for a couple of days to let participants cool off.

I like that last suggest. Somewhat similar to "mod" status for a thread, but involves none of that extra work a mod would have to put in.

example:

Thread gets out of hand. Mod gives warning in that thread that if bickering or bad behavior continues, thread will be locked.

(A) behavior stops, no further action
(B) behavior continues, thread is locked for an automatic 48 hours.

Thread reopens. Posting resumes. Many posts later, bad behavior begins again. Mod warns that if the behavior continues, the thread will be PERMANENTLY LOCKED.

(A) behavior stops, no further action
(B) behavior continues, thread is PERMANENTLY LOCKED.

TAM:)

[RedIbis]

There is no longer any point to this. Posters like [...] Red Ibis [...] I am naming names intentionally -- are merely trying to abuse the system. If I had my way they would simply be banned as perpetual trolls. I suppose it is a good thing I don't have my way.

I would like to know how I'm abusing the system, which if I were, I'm sure I'd hear from the mods. In fact, my record here is pretty clean.

[T.A.M.]

I have to agree. While I do not follow his every post, and I certainly disagree with him on many things, Red usually does not spam, or "troll", IMO.

TAM:)

[Kryptos]

In my case, I will never post and rarely/if ever involve myself in the "politics" section of the forum here or anywhere else on the Internet. To me, there are aspects of 9/11 that go beyond or above the level of politics, though taking a look over at that section of the forum, I do see some threads discussing 9/11 and al-Qaeda that might be of interest. But, I avoid politics, so it's no-go for me. Other aspects of 9/11 might belong in the "history" section, which I wouldn't mind posting in. The WTC collapse and other aspects might involve science. And, of course, we have 9/11 "truth" here.

In the work I'm doing re: 9/11 on my website and on Wikipedia, I have mostly gone beyond or above the level of conspiracy theories. Lately, I'm also interested in the myths that Al Qaeda is spreading within the Muslim world, from the idea it's okay in Islam for them to kill civilians, to disinformation surrounding a polio vaccine campaign in Pakistan (the extremists say that the vaccine is really intended to sterilize males).

I'm not a regular enough here, but might be more a regular if other aspects of 9/11 besides 9/11 truth were included in this section of the forum. Having a place to discuss 9/11 and the "truth" has been very useful, and I would hate to lose it. But, I would like it if the level of discourse was raised and other non-truth aspects could be discussed here. Maybe JREF isn't the right place for me, but I can't find many other places (if any) that allow civil, non-politics discussion of 9/11.

[SDC]

My statement is in regard to your post comments, not behavior. Your manners are better than most here, me included. Basically, I believe that you consistently fail to address arguments, and do a lot of post and run. And bring up, over and over again, thoroughly discredited lines. Recently, you've repeatedly plowed over Gen Myers' tea party; referred to the UA93 remains in Shanksville as inconsequential (and I think you used the word 'ditch'); and veered close to the no-planer view for the WTC.

That's what I'm referring to. The posts; like other posters far denser and less literate than you, you churn over the same discredited ground. I see that as abuse, by this point.

Also, I keep seeing that damned bird when I go to lunch at the Scandinavian Inst on Park Ave and look in at the shop.

ETA: I should have made it clear that I am addressing Red Ibis.

[Nick Terry]

I would like to know how I'm abusing the system, which if I were, I'm sure I'd hear from the mods. In fact, my record here is pretty clean.

No, you don't spam, you don't start baiting threads and you're polite. But none of this changes the fact that you never actually say anything that could be considered substantive or coherent. One-liner questions do not make for an interesting discussion. On this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=124718&page=2), it took you six posts to write more than a single line. Several posts thereafter reverted back to one-liners. You generated a slew of responses many of which you ignored. It took about 4 pages before your real point became clear. SDC is right, that's trolling.

ETA: what he said. SDC, that is.

[chillzero]

Please don't make this thread about personal issues. Remember to stay on topic to the question of possible approaches to the 911 CT section.

I'm not sure creating a whole new set of rules or mod SOPs just for this section is the way to go, though.

[SDC]

OK, what about this approach. A mod sits blindfolded, with earplugs (complete sensory deprivation, in fact). He/ she is connected to a device which somehow is able to access the computers used by all posters in the 9/11 CT area. At random intervals, he/ she twitches a finger, and all individuals posting in that area at that moment receive a painful but not disabling shock.

Yes, I know the technology may not exist for this yet. But perhaps we, ourselves, here, can get there.

How about it? Chillzero? You first?

[Nick Terry]

Please don't make this thread about personal issues. Remember to stay on topic to the question of possible approaches to the 911 CT section.

I'm not sure creating a whole new set of rules or mod SOPs just for this section is the way to go, though.

There's a process of cause and effect at work here. All you need are a few posters - there are more than one, so this is not personal - who adopt minimalist JAQ-off tactics and never actually outline a coherent explanation, and these then provoke the slew of 'truthers, please explain' type threads that are then answered by minimalist JAQ-off types with one-liners that don't amount to a coherent explanation, shifting the burden of proof faster than you can say the words. That in turn provokes ever more frustration and irritation, which occasionally spills out into anger, occasionally resulting in warnings, suspensions, bans, and allowing the minimalist JAQ-off type to feel 'superior'.

Yes, it's trolling. Call it by what it really is. But it's just how it is. I don't know if you can legislate against it, in the same way as you cannot define a troll very easily. That's conspiracism, as it's now practised on the internet by a great many people. But if we're going to discuss why there are so many 'challenge' threads, let's be honest about why they emerged: because no answers are ever given, just more questions fired back so certain people can avoid having their illusions shattered and/or provoke yet more sparring.

[Horatius]

But if we're going to discuss why there are so many 'challenge' threads, let's be honest about why they emerged: because no answers are ever given, just more questions fired back so certain people can avoid having their illusions shattered and/or provoke yet more sparring.



I agree that this is part of why there are so many "challenge threads". But I think we need to accept that these guys will never come right out and answer our challenges in a straightforward manner.

I think a ban on all such "challenge" threads, from either side, might go a long way to raising the discourse here, since they rarely if ever produce any substantive result*. We might need to put some thought into exactly how to identify such a thread, though.




*I think R.Mackey's "Let's Settle It" thread might be the only recent example, and even in that case, how much has actually been settled?

[Nick Terry]

I agree that this is part of why there are so many "challenge threads". But I think we need to accept that these guys will never come right out and answer our challenges in a straightforward manner.

I think a ban on all such "challenge" threads, from either side, might go a long way to raising the discourse here, since they rarely if ever produce any substantive result*. We might need to put some thought into exactly how to identify such a thread, though.


*I think R.Mackey's "Let's Settle It" thread might be the only recent example, and even in that case, how much has actually been settled?

Agreed on limiting or banning new challenge threads, but I think there have been some very good old ones.

The simplest thing would be to identify the half-dozen most worthwhile challenge OPs - which would certainly include R. Mackey's 'Let's Settle It' thread, and bump them up every so often, reposting the original challenge, as and when appropriate. Mackey's = (1).

Despite its current woeful state, the 'best evidence' challenge should be (2). That is a very valid question.

Whichever challenge thread asked for a coherent story/narrative should be (3). That is also a very valid question.

Of course, the chances are these questions will be obfuscated and go unanswered, but it would not be trolling or counter-trolling to focus relentlessly on these salient questions: what would satisfy their curiosity about 9/11, what is the single piece of positive evidence that they have to prove that 9/11 was not as generally accepted, and whether they can explain what they think happened in a coherent story.

[Max Photon]

If all you would-be statists, control-freaks, central-planners, and world-improvers out there want a better 9/11 Conspiracy Subforum, concentrate on improving your output.

[Max Photon]

I suspect many of you who feel negatively toward the experience of participating in the 9/11 Conspiracy Subforum feel that way exactly because of your feeble output and your hypocracy. Now many of you are simply projecting your negativity onto Truthers.

Nothing is stopping you from producing transcendental posts that take the discussions to much higher levels. You can start today. Go ahead: wow us. Put up or shut up.

[R.Mackey]

There are rules to cover posting what is appropriate to any given section. As long as those are complied with, there shouldn't be an issue. The problem in this section is things have gone too loose.

I don't see the need for further 911 discussion unless anything new comes up. However, people continue to use the section, in the vacuum - becaue it is here, perhaps.

I also feel that to continue providing a platform to some of the views subscribed to is highly insulting to 911 victims.

There really hasn't been much "new" put forth here in a long time. For example, see this poll (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=106577) I put together seven months ago, or beyond that, my 2006 Victory thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2034175#post2034175), the challenge for which was never answered...

In the latter thread, I used to do periodic updates on the position and status of all the Truth Movement supporters posting here. This was done before the crackdown, and I haven't put forth any update since in an attempt to refrain from personal attacks. However, if I did, we'd see that the number of Truth Movement supporters is quite low, and most of them have been here for a very long time and have made no visible progress. Without exception, every single one fits the criteria of Irreducible Delusion (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=118389). I can only interpret this as still further proof that the Truth Movement has jumped the shark, and is irretrievably spiraling into oblivion, but as we know from other conspiracy theories, that spiral will last decades.

In the field of legitimate uses for the subforum, I can't even remember the last time we sighted a genuine "Fence Sitter." We do get the odd request from newer debunkers looking for information, which is fine, but it's not as interesting.

So, whether to keep the subforum or kill it? As I understand it, the subforum was born out of an attempt to mitigate the workload on the moderators (after delphi_ote's marathon "Loose Change" thread burned out of control), and presumably the decision to cancel it should be based on the same factors. Does keeping it open encourage more inane, repetitive, often abusive posting? Probably. But it also keeps those posts contained -- we still see a few leak through to General Skepticism and many to Politics, and it is probably easier to confine them here than chase them wherever they spring up. Short of a blanket fiat backed by punitive action that Posters Shall Not Discuss 9/11, I don't think closing this subforum will be effective. I could be wrong.

Perhaps the most effective approach, within the current guidelines, would be to simply adopt a zero-tolerance approach -- but this is also the most work-intensive. If the subforum is really distinguished by invective and irrelevance, and it is those qualities that make it an outlier on the JREF Forums, then the most straightforward approach is to eliminate any and all occurrences of this characteristic, backed by discipline for the offenders. I estimate traffic here would drop by 75%+ with iron-handed enforcement, but again, this may not be practical.

For my own part, I'm adopting my own zero-tolerance policy. I expect the majority of abusive posters to wind up on my Ignore list by next week. If so, and if the useful posts are really that few and far between, then the problem -- or my contribution to it, anyway -- will fix itself.

[AJM8125]

As a former lurker, I have to confess: Guilty as charged. One only needs to look at my posting history to see that. Most of my remarks have been largely ignored, because they're hardly worth commenting on. The OP has opened my eyes and now I can see how these types of contributions can have a detrimental effect. So from now on, I pledge not to post unless I have anything relevant to contribute to the discussion and ask that those who share my posting habits do the same.

To the veteran posters here: I haven't said this before, but thank you very much for taking the time to come here and sharing your expertise, not limited to but especially in the areas of aviation and electronics. I've taken away some really good information from this forum and you all have had an effect on me personally; You've made me re-discover learning. I had forgotten how much fun that can be and I am grateful.

To the mods: I'd never dream of telling you how to run this place. Put me down as a yes on having it stay. If I were to make a suggestion, I'd have to say putting stronger restrictions on new members might help. For instance, if a new member shows that s/he is here just to flame, then s/he should be banned immediately. Ignored mod box warnings could carry an automatic suspension for new members. New members could be under these restrictions for say, their first 100 posts.

OK, that's it then. Back to lurking unless I've got anything important to say. Peace.

[LashL]

I agree with much that has been said in this thread about the level of discourse in this sub-forum, and agree that it has been deteriorating for quite some time.

It seems to me that the solution has to be derived from the members themselves, rather than it being foisted upon the mods and admins to "fix". (i.e. we have to be better at "self-policing" so to speak, by reviewing our words before we hit "submit reply" and trying harder to maintain a higher level of discourse than we sometimes do. It takes self-control, more than anything, and most of us have occasionally lapsed in that regard, myself included.



Perhaps we should open the floor to suggestions...

So far we have:

1. Close the Section
2. Moderator Approval for New Threads.
3. Moderator Removal of Inappropriate Threads.

any more???

TAM:)


4. Move the sub-forum to the "Members Only" section (perhaps temporarily and as an experiment, while a more permanent solution is worked on)

[Horatius]

Despite its current woeful state, the 'best evidence' challenge should be (2). That is a very valid question.

Whichever challenge thread asked for a coherent story/narrative should be (3). That is also a very valid question.




They are all valid questions, what I doubt is that we will ever get any valid answers. I think we all know that, so let's not pretend otherwise.

If you have a question that you think a CT will actually answer honestly, you can place it in a current thread - there are enough threads that I think you could find one on the appropriate topic. But new threads on questions you know they won't give honest consideration to are just going to spiral down the tubes.

Perhaps we could have a few "Standard question" threads, one for each major topic. If you have a good question, you could post it there. Any "baiting" questions or non-answers would be automatically deleted. It would at least contain the problems to a few threads, and make the workload on the mods a bit less.

[Myriad]

The following seven threads are among the top ten threads in the Religion and Philosophy section at this moment:

Atheism? A Mental Disorder
Atheists are worse than Hitler!
Atheists are...
Woot; atheists are smarter than agnostics
Atheists evolved from pond scum!
Atheism is to Theism as Water is to Wine
Atheism is a false philosophy held by the most arrogant

Seven simultaneous top-ten threads basically on "atheism good/bad" at least three of which are parodies or commentaries on the others.

I can't recall seeing a lot of new ideas developing there, on any side. I'm not seeing many people changing their minds as a result of reasoned arguments. I'm not seeing much in the way of resolution of differences. I'm not seeing the anti-rationalist side choosing to give straightforward answers to the tougher questions.

But apparently those disappointments are only problems for this subforum. Can someone please explain why?

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Mince]

Discourse deterioration? Nah. I don't think so. If you were to quantify it, it started at 0 and remains at 0.

[Bananaman]

I haven't read all this thread so apologies in advance if I duplicate anything anyone else has said.

Forums are funny things. People get to say what they think in ways they probably wouldn't do in real life, therefore rules are imposed and moderators elected, one presumes, to try and keep things civil.

But a forum is comprised of lots of people with different opinions and different ways of expressing themselves. There are those who politely explain their point of view backing it up up with evidence and logical arguments; there are those who bluster their own viewpoint backed up with nothing more than candyfloss; there are those who write unspeakable gibberish; and there are those, like me, who don't write very often, but suddenly can't take any more and blow their tops. I feel there's room for all the above listed in an active and vibrant discussion forum.

I'm aware my particular brand of, 'Oh God, you're an idiot' posting doesn't endear me to many, but it does serve to say what many are thinking but not saying. It also keeps the mods on their toes, plus it cuts through a huge amount of rubbish that can make threads pointlessly meander on for 60 pages.

But I would like to make the point that the writing style of the poster doesn't necessarily describe the person. For instance I get the impression that one or two 9/11 conspiracists regard me as a homicidal maniac who can't wait to hack them to bits with a machete. And in reality I'm all fluffy and lovely and love bunny rabbits. Er, that might not be doing me any favours, anyway...

But sometimes people reveal themselves in their posts. Actually they don't reveal themselves so much as take all their clothes off and unconsciously wave their bottoms at you. Then is the time when the logical argument is redundant and the abrasive comment is apt.

OK, that's my two pence worth. Carry on, everyone.

Bananaman.

[Hokulele]

Would it help to have a sticky, moderated thread containing links to the threads that address the most common issues, or that would be of most interest the new poster/lurker? I am thinking of sort of a "Best of JREF CT threads" that anyone could contribute to, but moderated to avoid off-topic posts or other uncivility. Each post would have a title reflecting the topic of the linked thread, a link, and maybe a short summary of what the thread is about and/or any conclusions reached. If a poster is feeling energetic, they could add links to specific posts in the thread.

[Caustic Logic]

It'll have to close eventually I suppose.

Myself, I've enjoyed this forum for perhaps all the wrong reasons. I don't get around the rest of the forum, like I should. Interests, too little time/energy.... I don't even keep up on most of the stuff in THIS sub-forum. My bad.

As Gumboot pointed out, there are some good discussions and research that happen here, but in that case, perhaps not coincidentally, it's not a 9/11 CT issue, just actual 9/11 research.

That thread makes me realize there is in fact a "new investigation" underway, like so many truthers have called for and fumbled at in their own ways, sometimes digging up interesting info... One vague thought I had was a 9/11 investigation forum - not to discuss CTs except to sort out the fact from fiction, the proven from the possible from the impossible, etc, leave the answer as open-ended as it deserves, and as widely agreed as possible, and CLOSE it. Clear up questions, clear the debris, drain the pond, move on.

I don't know if that even makes sense.

[T.A.M.]

The following seven threads are among the top ten threads in the Religion and Philosophy section at this moment:

Atheism? A Mental Disorder
Atheists are worse than Hitler!
Atheists are...
Woot; atheists are smarter than agnostics
Atheists evolved from pond scum!
Atheism is to Theism as Water is to Wine
Atheism is a false philosophy held by the most arrogant

Seven simultaneous top-ten threads basically on "atheism good/bad" at least three of which are parodies or commentaries on the others.

I can't recall seeing a lot of new ideas developing there, on any side. I'm not seeing many people changing their minds as a result of reasoned arguments. I'm not seeing much in the way of resolution of differences. I'm not seeing the anti-rationalist side choosing to give straightforward answers to the tougher questions.

But apparently those disappointments are only problems for this subforum. Can someone please explain why?

Respectfully,
Myriad

I can only speak for me personally, but my view pertains to the 9/11 CT subforum mainly because most of my posting (99%) occurs here. Your posting of the above has opened my eyes to the fact that the same problem (if we are to strictly define it as a problem) exists elsewhere at the JREF Forums.

I haven't read all this thread so apologies in advance if I duplicate anything anyone else has said.

Forums are funny things. People get to say what they think in ways they probably wouldn't do in real life, therefore rules are imposed and moderators elected, one presumes, to try and keep things civil.

But a forum is comprised of lots of people with different opinions and different ways of expressing themselves. There are those who politely explain their point of view backing it up up with evidence and logical arguments; there are those who bluster their own viewpoint backed up with nothing more than candyfloss; there are those who write unspeakable gibberish; and there are those, like me, who don't write very often, but suddenly can't take any more and blow their tops. I feel there's room for all the above listed in an active and vibrant discussion forum.

I'm aware my particular brand of, 'Oh God, you're an idiot' posting doesn't endear me to many, but it does serve to say what many are thinking but not saying. It also keeps the mods on their toes, plus it cuts through a huge amount of rubbish that can make threads pointlessly meander on for 60 pages.

But I would like to make the point that the writing style of the poster doesn't necessarily describe the person. For instance I get the impression that one or two 9/11 conspiracists regard me as a homicidal maniac who can't wait to hack them to bits with a machete. And in reality I'm all fluffy and lovely and love bunny rabbits. Er, that might not be doing me any favours, anyway...

But sometimes people reveal themselves in their posts. Actually they don't reveal themselves so much as take all their clothes off and unconsciously wave their bottoms at you. Then is the time when the logical argument is redundant and the abrasive comment is apt.

OK, that's my two pence worth. Carry on, everyone.

Bananaman.

You do make good points here. I have often struggled internally with rules and censorship of the forum for reasons such as the above.

TAM:)

[SezMe]

I think the idea of requiring mod approval of new threads is a bad idea. From the Title and OP of a thread, who knows what will ensue? Sometimes crap but sometimes new ideas emerge or thread drift takes it into new, productive areas. NO mod can make that judgement.

I think the solution can be found in the Christophera thread. Old hands started to encourage posters to not respond to his delusions both in the thread itself and via PM. The thread became somewhat self-policing.

The same can work here. TAM, LashL, and the every other old-timer can post in a useless thread, "Don't feed the troll" or "He's NEVER going to answer your question so please stop asking" or "Don't lower yourself to the troll's level".

At the same time, use PMs to remind debunkers who are getting caught up in the nonsense that their posts are part of the problem, not part of the solution. In time, useless threads will die and any threads that are, in fact, providing new information will continue.

As an example I would cite roundhead's latest thread. He started out saying he wanted to be convinced. No reasonable mod could have killed that thread based on the OP and title. Yet it quickly became apparent that he was blowing smoke. If many old hands had posted asking people to not respond, I think the thread would have died, especially if PMs had been used to contain further posts. Nothing kills a troll like inattention. It will soon fall off the first page and die a well deserved death-by-obscurity.

The beauty is that mod attention/action is not required, valuable threads (if there are any) expand and ignored trolls eventually fade away.

In short, let's solve the problem ourselves and not ask the mods to take on the additional burden that is not part of their remit in the first place.

[Horatius]

As an example I would cite roundhead's latest thread. He started out saying he wanted to be convinced. No reasonable mod could have killed that thread based on the OP and title. Yet it quickly became apparent that he was blowing smoke. If many old hands had posted asking people to not respond, I think the thread would have died, especially if PMs had been used to contain further posts. Nothing kills a troll like inattention. It will soon fall off the first page and die a well deserved death-by-obscurity.




The problem with that plan is, it feeds into the CTs beliefs that "you can't answer my questions!" and "You're all trying to suppress my questions!" There are a lot of posters who don't like to leave them those sorts of openings.

We need to find a balance between addressing their "questions", and going overboard on slamming them.

[SDC]

The problem with that plan is, it feeds into the CTs beliefs that "you can't answer my questions!" and "You're all trying to suppress my questions!" There are a lot of posters who don't like to leave them those sorts of openings.

We need to find a balance between addressing their "questions", and going overboard on slamming them.

Bolded by me.

How about more kittens?

[Horatius]

Bolded by me.

How about more kittens?


I tried that. Didn't work.

[Minadin]

I agree with much that has been said in this thread about the level of discourse in this sub-forum, and agree that it has been deteriorating for quite some time.

It seems to me that the solution has to be derived from the members themselves, rather than it being foisted upon the mods and admins to "fix". (i.e. we have to be better at "self-policing" so to speak, by reviewing our words before we hit "submit reply" and trying harder to maintain a higher level of discourse than we sometimes do. It takes self-control, more than anything, and most of us have occasionally lapsed in that regard, myself included.





4. Move the sub-forum to the "Members Only" section (perhaps temporarily and as an experiment, while a more permanent solution is worked on)


I agree with the first portion - we all need to concentrate on improving the content that we post, as well as our expectations of what others post.

I don't, however, agree with your suggestion #4. This place contains a wealth of answers for the 9/11 CT garbage that's out there, and it needs to be search-able by google-bots in order to spread the informed, rational counter-argument to the canards which are used over and over again by the "Truth" movement types. I know that's how many folks found this place - I'm one of them.

Do this as an experiment: Type a random, over-used, well-debunked CT line into your google search bar, and see how high JREF CT sub-forum hits on each of them. Like this (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS273&q=plane+flew+north+of+the+citgo+on+9%2F11). Having this information ready to hand for people who are looking for it is important.

[Orphia Nay]

Folks;

I have noticed recently, that the level of discourse here has deteriorated significantly. There are a number of factors, I believe, contributing, and I think it deserves some time to ponder, and where possible, correct.

1. The theories presented here by "truthers" or "agnostics" are old, and to many tiresome. I, like many of you, have grown irritated by this. However, the answer is not to get angry, to get malicious, and hence to get yourselves a yellow card, suspension, or banning (take a look at the number of faithful debunkers already suspended in September). My suggestion is point the poster to links that cover the theory in question, and then move on.

2. The "truthers" etc... that remain, or have newly joined, are purposely provoking, baiting, flaming, and dragging the level of conversation down. Once again, post a link to evidence that debunks their points, and move on...or learn to use the ignore function. If your purpose here is to answer antagonism with reciprocal behavior, then fine, do as you will, but expect the mods to not play favorites.

3. Some Debunkers are purposely baiting, flaming, provoking. This occurs much more frequently now than it use to. I can explain (but not excuse) some of it with "boredom". Most however, is reducing yourselves to the level of those you scathe for the same thing. Starting threads with individualized and provocative titles is not only uncalled for, but is something we find hard to stomach, when the role is reversed.

There are other issues that we should discuss, if anyone feels it appropriate, but this is a start.

TAM:)

Forums are full of baiting, flaming, and provoking. You can't stop human nature. But don't ignore the fact that nice things happen here too.

Let those who break the civility rules, and/or other forum rules get suspended or banned, debunker or truther alike.

I personally appreciate the challenge threads, because they highlight what a particular truther is like, and also reveal who has been debating them. This is useful for someone like me who doesn't want to read every page of every thread, or who can't keep up with the long, fast-moving threads. I don't think the challenge threads are a problem - I think we may just have had a rush of them in the past week or so. Let's not commit a slippery slope fallacy with regards challenge threads.

I think the 9/11 subforum:
A) was created too late (not that anything can be done about that now), and
B) possibly should be merged back into the Conspiracy Theories forum, now that twoof has had its day. Thoughts?

Perhaps something we debunkers can get together on is to work on creating a thread that links to all the best threads on the most common 9/11 CT subjects. I'm sure we've all got at least some bookmarked. The mods could sticky that thread, and perhaps lock the linked threads if bumping for silly reasons becomes a problem.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I'm just throwing this idea out here, but how about a temporary lockdown?

Just shut down the 9/11 CT forum for a week or even just a weekend, the attention whores would be forced to go elsewhere for their fix. It'd give the mods some time off and might cool things down a little in here.

[Norseman]

I'm just throwing this idea out here, but how about a temporary lockdown?

Just shut down the 9/11 CT forum for a week or even just a weekend, the attention whores would be forced to go elsewhere for their fix. It'd give the mods some time off and might cool things down a little in here.

This has in a way already been tried. Earlier this summer the whole forum was down for several days due to technical problems. When the forum got online again it was back to business as usual here. Nothing changed.

[T.A.M.]

This has in a way already been tried. Earlier this summer the whole forum was down for several days due to technical problems. When the forum got online again it was back to business as usual here. Nothing changed.

I wouldn't say nothing.

It was after this shutdown that I noticed some of our more serious, long term posters decrease their posting ratio here.

It was after that shutdown that I to reduced my posting frequency...time to reflect I guess.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

A bump as a reminder to those who are currently engaging the user AndyB in what is clearly trolling and baiting.

TAM:)

[Drudgewire]

A bump as a reminder to those who are currently engaging the user AndyB in what is clearly trolling and baiting.

TAM:)

There are two of them (both joined in the last couple of months, how convenient) out in full force today. I can't imagine even other twoofers not being embarrassed by how pathetic their level of trolling is.

[mchapman]

There are two of them (both joined in the last couple of months, how convenient) out in full force today. I can't imagine even other twoofers not being embarrassed by how pathetic their level of trolling is.

So posting a video of somebody believing wtc7 was an inside job is trolling? Debating with gravy and others about the anti semetic influence on the truth movement is trolling? What isn't trolling in your eyes?

The responses from the "skeptics" in those, and other threads, should make the educated among you ashamed.

[JimBenArm]

So posting a video of somebody believing wtc7 was an inside job is trolling? Debating with gravy and others about the anti semetic influence on the truth movement is trolling? What isn't trolling in your eyes?

The responses from the "skeptics" in those, and other threads, should make the educated among you ashamed.
And anyone who believes no-planer garbage should be ashamed, too. Guess we'll both have to be disappointed.

[T.A.M.]

1. mchapman, I have you on ignore.
2. AndyB was trolling, not because of the thread he initiated, that was fine. It was the conduct, tone, and language he used after that made his intentions quite clear.

TAM:)

[MaGZ]

For what it’s worth I would be in favor of keeping the 9/11 subforum. I find it to be a valuable resource. It has allowed me to refine my ideas of what happened on 9/11. New facts and information I find here at times change my previously held views.

[RedIbis]

1. mchapman, I have you on ignore.

TAM:)

In some way I wonder if the deterioration of discourse in this subforum is related to this. I can't say that I've read even most of mchapman's posts (some are quite long), but I haven't seen where he has been rude, profane or breaking the rules.

Could you direct me to the post that offended you? I'm asking because hostility, ignorance (in the literal sense), and impatience more often than not is born of the frustration tough questions cause around here. FTR, I found nothing convincing in his video fakery post.

[1337m4n]

I'm asking because hostility, ignorance (in the literal sense), and impatience more often than not is born of the frustration tough questions cause around here.

Wrong. It is born of posts like this, right here. Posts that try to sneak an insult past the Mods by avoiding the use of words that the Mods can objectively determine to be insults. Words like "stupid" and "idiot". Just because you don't use such words, doesn't mean your post isn't an insult. But the Mods can't punish this type of "stealth" insult because they don't have an objective criteria for determining whether that's what it truly is.

You may not have actually used the word "stupid", but by stating that "hostility, ignorance, and impatience" are caused by "tough questions"--and caused by little else--that is, for all intents and purposes, what you just called all of us.

And this isn't an isolated incident. You do this all the time, RedIbis. You are infamous for your "stealth insults" around here, for that is all you ever do--you rarely actually contribute anything.

We get fed up with you because you insult us. You think we won't see it, but we do. You insult us, so we respond in kind. We'd be happy to stop, if you would only do so as well.

It's also related to the fact that you NEVER answer any of our "tough questions" while at the same time demanding that we answer all of yours.

[mchapman]

Wrong. It is born of posts like this, right here. Posts that try to sneak an insult past the Mods by avoiding the use of words that the Mods can objectively determine to be insults. Words like "stupid" and "idiot". Just because you don't use such words, doesn't mean your post isn't an insult. But the Mods can't punish this type of "stealth" insult because they don't have an objective criteria for determining whether that's what it truly is.

You may not have actually used the word "stupid", but by stating that "hostility, ignorance, and impatience" are caused by "tough questions"--and caused by little else--that is, for all intents and purposes, what you just called all of us.

And this isn't an isolated incident. You do this all the time, RedIbis. You are infamous for your "stealth insults" around here, for that is all you ever do--you rarely actually contribute anything.

We get fed up with you because you insult us. You think we won't see it, but we do. You insult us, so we respond in kind. We'd be happy to stop, if you would only do so as well.

It's also related to the fact that you NEVER answer any of our "tough questions" while at the same time demanding that we answer all of yours.


Perhaps you could produce some of my offensive posts that caused TAM to put me on ignore. If noone produces any then I can only assume TAM put me on ignore because of the tough questions.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Perhaps you could produce some of my offensive posts that caused TAM to put me on ignore.


Just as the conclusions arrived at in the various investigations into 9/11 are not based on one or a few pieces of evidence, but rather the whole set of available evidence, I imagine that, too, is how T.A.M. arrived at his decision to ignore you.

[mchapman]

Just as the conclusions arrived at in the various investigations into 9/11 are not based on one or a few pieces of evidence, but rather the whole set of available evidence, I imagine that, too, is how T.A.M. arrived at his decision to ignore you.

He arrived at it very quickly. TAM and gravy both put me on ignore less than 24 hours after I had joined and after I had only been posting in one thread. Perhaps the fact that I completely demolished gravy about his anti semite strawman influenced their decision.;)

[Cl1mh4224rd]

He arrived at it very quickly.


Well, you do post very quickly...

TAM and gravy both put me on ignore less than 24 hours after I had joined and after I had only been posting in one thread.


At 71.63 posts/day, it seems you've given them quite a sufficient sample set in that amount of time.

[RedIbis]

He arrived at it very quickly. TAM and gravy both put me on ignore less than 24 hours after I had joined and after I had only been posting in one thread. Perhaps the fact that I completely demolished gravy about his anti semite strawman influenced their decision.;)

Specificity combined with civility is a very sharp sword.

[mchapman]

Specificity combined with civility is a very sharp sword.

Especially when the only shield available is righteous indignation.

[mchapman]

Well, you do post very quickly...




At 71.63 posts/day, it seems you've given them quite a sufficient sample set in that amount of time.

You actually checked my post count lol

[Cl1mh4224rd]

You actually checked my post count lol


I'm sure you think you're amused at the fact that I took the time to do so, but it's not that hard. A couple of clicks. Hardly a significant waste of time, and quite enlightening for the 2 seconds spent, I must say.

[mchapman]

I'm sure you think you're amused at the fact that I took the time to do so, but it's not that hard. A couple of clicks. Hardly a significant waste of time, and quite enlightening for the 2 seconds spent, I must say.

You enjoy yourself. You only live once. Would you like anything else? Inside leg? Colour of underwear? You could put them in a spreadsheet and look for patterns!

[DavidJames]

You actually checked my post count lolActually, that's one of the most sure way to spot the trolls.

You may think you're special, unique, but your style matches about 100 others before you. Nothing special, nothing unique. Same claims, same sources, same lack of honest research, same failure to search this forum. Same spam different name.

[mchapman]

Actually, that's one of the most sure way to spot the trolls.

You may think you're special, unique, but your style matches about 100 others before you. Nothing special, nothing unique. Same claims, same sources, same lack of honest research, same failure to search this forum. Same spam different name.

The reason my post count is higher is because 15 trolls at once demand I answer their ridiculous stalling questions. It's easy to be a cheerleader posting occasionally isn't it?

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Would you like anything else? Inside leg? Colour of underwear? You could put them in a spreadsheet and look for patterns!


Since the other information you've offered to present are not freely available thanks to the forum software, and I am fully aware of such, if I was interested in knowing, I would ask. I have no interest.

Your "look for patterns" comment was oddly unwarranted and completely irrelevant.

I'd say you were pretty agitated that I bothered to look up information that's freely available thanks to the forum software. Curious.

The reason my post count is higher is because 15 trolls at once demand I answer their ridiculous stalling questions. It's easy to be a cheerleader posting occasionally isn't it?


You are aware that you don't have to answer them immediately, right? We'd all appreciate well-thought-out answers, even if they take you a couple hours, over the half-assed, rapid-fire, non-answers you've thus far been giving.

[applecorped]

The reason my post count is higher is because 15 trolls at once demand I answer their ridiculous stalling questions. It's easy to be a cheerleader posting occasionally isn't it?

Always do what your told?

[Mince]

We'd all appreciate well-thought-out answers, even if they take you a couple hours, over the half-assed, rapid-fire, non-answers you've thus far been giving.


Personally, I don't think he's attained the level of half-assed, rapid-fire, non-answers.

[fullflavormenthol]

The reason my post count is higher is because 15 trolls at once demand I answer their ridiculous stalling questions. It's easy to be a cheerleader posting occasionally isn't it?
Trolls? Oh you mean the people that are actually willing to call you on your nonsense. Yeah that is what I would consider a troll. Someone who actually contributes to the overall intellectual nature of this forum. Yeah, they are the trolls. :rolleyes:

BTW there are people I tend to disagree with that I actually like on this forum because at least they engage in intellectual debate. Dictator Cheney is one that comes to mind, and at least he doesn't ignore answers and questions. You my friend just ignore things you don't like...the answer is in the "Absolute" thread in which you ignore the tough questions.

If you believe in 9-11 truth, than fine. At least come here for debate and discussion, not to start fights and ignore contrary evidence against you.

[mchapman]

Always do what your told?

So you don't think I should bother to answer questions asked of me here? Noted.

[Mince]

The reason my post count is higher is because 15 trolls at once demand I answer their ridiculous stalling questions.


No, the reason your post count is higher is because you choose to post so much. Nothing necessarily wrong with that, but I find 70+ posts per day withering and a lot of your posts probably lack quality.

Think of it this way:

Roughly, post quantity = 1/post quality.

[mchapman]

No, the reason your post count is higher is because you choose to post so much. Nothing necessarily wrong with that, but I find 70+ posts per day withering and a lot of your posts probably lack quality.

Think of it this way:

Roughly, post quantity = 1/post quality.

I must admit I have missed the high quality posts you churn out. Can you link me to a post you have made that had any substance to it whatsoever?

[AZCat]

I must admit I have missed the high quality posts you churn out. Can you link me to a post you have made that had any substance to it whatsoever?

Attempting to quantify the relationship between post count and post quality counts as "substance" in my book (although I feel the relationship is better expressed as inverse squared, i.e. post quality = k/(post count^2) where "k" is a constant).

[Mince]

I must admit I have missed the high quality posts you churn out. Can you link me to a post you have made that had any substance to it whatsoever?


I'll be the first and last to admit that most of my posts aren't exactly quality. However, I don't shove them down peoples' throat 70 times a day.

[Mince]

(...where "k" is a constant).


mchapman's constant.

[AZCat]

mchapman's constant.

And so it shall be known, forevermore.

[snoop_doxie]

Would it help to have a sticky, moderated thread containing links to the threads that address the most common issues, or that would be of most interest the new poster/lurker? I am thinking of sort of a "Best of JREF CT threads" that anyone could contribute to, but moderated to avoid off-topic posts or other uncivility. Each post would have a title reflecting the topic of the linked thread, a link, and maybe a short summary of what the thread is about and/or any conclusions reached. If a poster is feeling energetic, they could add links to specific posts in the thread.

Hokulele,

Fantastic idea! "Best of JREF CT threads". I am fairly new to this forum, and just started reading about the 9/11 conspiracy on this board. I have gotten lost a few times, chasing down the links, but I always learn something.
When I see certain people show up, I know they will patiently and slowly explain where the 'truther' has gone awry. :boggled: or, vice versa.

gravy left here? i thought he was actively contributing to the professors protocol? (as much as anyone can help a bowl of jello get nailed to the wall. :eye-poppi)

PS can anyone lead me to the thread about how the whole conspiracy started? thank you

[Mince]

PS can anyone lead me to the thread about how the whole conspiracy started? thank you


I don't think this is answerable. It's almost like asking how the ants in my yard got there. Nobody knows really, not even the ants.


By the way, your name is an anagram of "Spoon Oxide". I notice stupid stuff like that.

[snoop_doxie]

I don't think this is answerable. It's almost like asking how the ants in my yard got there. Nobody knows really, not even the ants.

After thinking about it, there would be no way to really find out how it started. Did it start immediately after 9/11?

By the way, you name is an anagram of "Spoon Oxide". I notice stupid stuff like that.

thank you. i usually notice things like that too! But since getting my dancing blue footed birdie avatar, I get distracted. spoon oxide, i like that.
:p

[Gravy]

gravy left here? i thought he was actively contributing to the professors protocol? (as much as anyone can help a bowl of jello get nailed to the wall. :eye-poppi)Hi snoop. TAM's comment was about the conspiracies subforum only. Aside from a current thread about an interview I did, I've posted here only few times since the beginning of this year. I'm not involved in The Professor's MDC protocol.

PS can anyone lead me to the thread about how the whole conspiracy started? thank youThere may not be one here, but forum member Ref has this great timeline on his site (jpeg of a spreadsheet): http://911guide.googlepages.com/Timeline.JPG/Timeline-full;init:.JPG

The timeline items are detailed on this page of his: http://911guide.googlepages.com/history

[Cl1mh4224rd]

So you don't think I should bother to answer questions asked of me here? Noted.


Reductio ad absurdum.

[chillzero]

Well, I was going to remove some posts from this thread as it has veered off topic, and into bickering. I won't however, as I think it illustrates very clearly the problem with the section that I've tried to shine a light on.

Please .... carry on ...

[SDC]

Chillzero, your comment reminds me of ... I think it was in the TV dramatization of Graves' I, Claudius. The Roman emperor Claudius has given up on reform and good management and his own wife and family; instead, "Let all the poisons that lurk in the mud come out," shall be his method from then on.

Or something like that. What a thing to remember. But faced with contentless posts like Mchapman's (his/ her style is awfully familiar), I think it's appropriate.

[chillzero]

I wasn't referring to one individual member.

[applecorped]

So you don't think I should bother to answer questions asked of me here? Noted.

Not if you think the person asking you the question is a troll. Why would you bother?

[T.A.M.]

In some way I wonder if the deterioration of discourse in this subforum is related to this. I can't say that I've read even most of mchapman's posts (some are quite long), but I haven't seen where he has been rude, profane or breaking the rules.

Could you direct me to the post that offended you? I'm asking because hostility, ignorance (in the literal sense), and impatience more often than not is born of the frustration tough questions cause around here. FTR, I found nothing convincing in his video fakery post.

Just as the conclusions arrived at in the various investigations into 9/11 are not based on one or a few pieces of evidence, but rather the whole set of available evidence, I imagine that, too, is how T.A.M. arrived at his decision to ignore you.

Specificity combined with civility is a very sharp sword.

you assume the only reason to put someone on ignore is a lack of civility or rudeness.

Presently, anyone who I perceive to be MIHOP goes on ignore...I get tired of reading the same old nonsense.

You notice, Red, you are not on ignore yet.

I do not remember why I put him on ignore, but I ALSO DO NOT FEEL I NEED TO JUSTIFY WHY I PUT HIM THERE.

TAM:)

[RedIbis]

I do not remember why I put him on ignore, TAM:)

It must have been a very serious offense.

[Clippy]

It must have been a very serious offense.

T.A.M. put me on ignore when I told him that he wasn't replying directly to my post. I'm not sure if it's his failed career as a doctor that makes him so sensitive, I will not speculate any further.

[HyJinX]

T.A.M. put me on ignore when I told him that he wasn't replying directly to my post. I'm not sure if it's his failed career as a doctor that makes him so sensitive, I will not speculate any further.

I think your posts reveals why everybody should have you on ignore. Troll.

[T.A.M.]

It must have been a very serious offense.

While I am honored, almost blushing, at the importance my ignore list has taken, I do not need to justify who is on it and why. It may have been serious, it may have been trivial. Most people on my ignore list are there because I no longer care to have a discussion with them, or no longer care to have to read their drivel.

As for a failed career as a doctor (as mentioned by Clippy), a very lame attempt to bait me (which I would normally have not seen...ah, another reason to have him on ignore), I fail to see how having a thriving practice that allows me to live well above the average, make my career a failure.

I am my own boss, I work when I want to, and I do well. I fail to see how that is a failure, but given the source of the comment, and how wrong he is on everything else...I am not surprised by it.

TAM:)

[Drudgewire]

I'm not sure if it's his failed career as a doctor that makes him so sensitive, I will not speculate any further.


Aaaaaand now you've made mine. Pat yourself on the back or whatever you trolls do when this happens. :rolleyes:

[Darat]

I'm not nice like Chillzero so let me make this very clear - stop the bickering and personal attacks and get back on-topic, failing to do so will result in further action which may include suspension or banning.

[T.A.M.]

It is quite Ironic, and telling, that in a thread about the deteriorating discourse in this forum, the discourse has fallen to the level of multiple moderator warnings.

Chill, you were quite right. This thread, in an attempt to try and make people see how far we have fallen, has in fact displayed for everyone, lurkers and non, exactly what I was referring to.

TAM:)

[applecorped]

It has been mentioned before (i forgot who) that maybe the whole 9/11 CT sub forum should be moderated, wherein posts need to be approved. My initial feeling was negative but now I am wavering. Perhaps it should be tried to see the results.

[DC]

It has been mentioned before (i forgot who) that maybe the whole 9/11 CT sub forum should be moderated, wherein posts need to be approved. My initial feeling was negative but now I am wavering. Perhaps it should be tried to see the results.

I think that will not be possible, that would be a fulltime job.

[SDC]

I wasn't referring to one individual member.

I didn't mean to suggest you were. I was trying to say that Mchapman is one of a myriad which has little to say and says it endlessly. Or, perhaps, his/ her name is Legion.

My notion was that your post, presumably made in your moderatorian capacity, reminded me of a line from I, Claudius when Claudius, in anger and despair, resolves to "let all the poisons that lurk in the mud come out." (Probably not exact quote, but the sentiment is close.)

[RedIbis]

I didn't mean to suggest you were. I was trying to say that Mchapman is one of a myriad which has little to say and says it endlessly. Or, perhaps, his/ her name is Legion.

My notion was that your post, presumably made in your moderatorian capacity, reminded me of a line from I, Claudius when Claudius, in anger and despair, resolves to "let all the poisons that lurk in the mud come out." (Probably not exact quote, but the sentiment is close.)

At the risk of reprimand for this derail, someone recently gave me the DVD boxed set of I, Claudius and I thoroughly enjoyed it. Truly, one of the more magnificent TV series ever made.

[applecorped]

I think that will not be possible, that would be a fulltime job.

You are probably right, to time consuming.

[DC]

You are probably right, to time consuming.

another thing would propably be that claims of censoring would rise among some of the truthers.

/sarcasm
Why do we need a NWO moderated 9/11 subforum?

[Drudgewire]

another thing would propably be that claims of censoring would rise among some of the truthers.


Believe me, I love the chance to villify truthers. But the claims of censoring would come from everywhere, as a quick sampling of the posts in the forum management area quickly reveals.

"Victim mentality" is definitely an area no one side of this debate can claim the moral high ground on. :(

[DC]

Believe me, I love the chance to villify truthers. But the claims of censoring would come from everywhere, as a quick sampling of the posts in the forum management area quickly reveals.

"Victim mentality" is definitely an area no one side of this debate can claim the moral high ground on. :(

thanks for saying that, i would not have deared to. :)
not without a lawyer and a bulletproof vest :D

[applecorped]

thanks for saying that, i would not have deared to. :)
not without a lawyer and a bulletproof vest :D

Yes, whining about the mods is an equal opportunity sport.

[T.A.M.]

Bump to keep it fresh in everyone's mind (including my own).

TAM:)