I was un-banned at Loose Change, my Reply.

[RandFan]

The Quest (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=1695)

FYI, randfan had been playing innocent and dumb. He did not invent the game. It's common amoung people with preconcieved ideas about what really happened on 911 and they have no real interest in honest discourse. People like that are not going to tell me that they are here to decieve. That is why I have to make a judgement call.

Randfan hung himself. Plain and simple.

As of now he is unbanned.

Play it straight Randfan. I really resent this. Every statement I ever made was honest and above board. I was clear in what I knew and what I did not know. I said on more than one occasion that I did not agree with the prevailing belief of this forum concerning 9/11. I said that I would not dismiss you folks out of hand and I didn't. I admitted that I had not seen the movie (loose change) and when asked to view it I did. I said on more than one occasion that I was not ignorant of the issues but conceded that there was much information that I had not availed myself to. I was in the process of doing just that when you banned me.

I honestly don't know what more you could ask of someone. I find your attitude presumptuously arrogant. The issues of 9/11, at best in light of your position, are controversial. There is no consensus amongst experts as to the many events that occurred on that day. Most skeptics including those behind www.snopes.com (http://www.snopes.com), www.truthorfiction.com (http://www.truthorfiction.com), www.skepticreport.com (http://www.skepticreport.com), www.skeptic.com (http://www.skeptic.com), www.randi.org (http://www.randi.org) and others dispute your belief as to the motives and perpetrators of 9/11. Please note that these are all independent organizations. Please also note that most if not all of these organizations have taken hard stances toward President Bush and his administration. To call them shills of the president or of some 9/11 conspiracy would be ignorant of the plain and demonstrable truth.

I will readily concede that the fact that these respected organization disagree with you does NOT prove you wrong. It does however demonstrate that a good number of people who work diligently to think critically and who have a track record of objectivity disagree with you. It does not stand to reason that they all approached this single issue with only preconceived notions. I’m proud to count myself as one of those skeptics.

Since to date you have not provided one single quote demonstrating any transgression on my part or given anything more than a vague, arbitrary and capricious reason as to why I was banned I see no reason to assume that you won't do so again in the future.

I am what I am, an honest and sincere person who disagrees with you. I'm not going to pretend to be something else in the vain hope of pleasing your sensibilities. If that is insufficient for you then might I suggest you ban me again, right now. I'm not changing anything because in the end I did nothing wrong.

Sincerely,

RandFan

[Kochanski]

Your reply to them is excellent.

Somehow I don't think it will matter, these people are BELIEVERS and nothing you can say will convince them that you are anything less than evil if you disagree with them. You threaten their little worldview and that makes you dangerous.

The fact that you post in a reasonable and rational matter makes you all the more dangerous to them, because you might actually get people to listen to what you say and it might actually get people to question what they say. They would rather have a raving loony show up so they can point a finger and laugh and dismiss you.

[RandFan]

Thanks, I have no illusions.

"...but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers having itching ears" --The Aposotle Paul to Timothy.

How about that, one can find truth in the bible. :)

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Two things they could really stand to learn:
1) Listen, and _hear_ what is being said. As they have done with their theories, they are reading what they "think" a sentence is saying and run with it rather than understanding what is actually being said.
2) Words mean things. One of the beautiful things about language is its way of conveying very specific meanings, and to start playing fast and loose with definitions, or criticizing those that refuse to play fast and loose with definitions is willful ignorance.

[CFLarsen]

For some reason, I'm still there. But the thread is curiously silent...

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=1702&st=150

[Regnad Kcin]

...It's common amoung people with preconcieved ideas about what really happened on 911 and they have no real interest in honest discourse...Y'know, I'm growing a bit tired of the term "preconceived ideas." It implies that one has been duped, or is somehow ill-informed, before any debate has even begun. I'll guess this is a shrewd attempt to front-load the discussion, presenting the players as close-minded (those with the preconceived ideas) or open-minded (those who've bought into alternative claims, however questionable).

Nice try.

Attn. 9/11 Alternate Conspiracy Theorists: As of right now I have "preconceived ideas" about what happened on that day. Why? Because I've given it considered thought, never mind it turns out my "ideas" quite nicely duplicate the official story.

I will not be lectured, nor put on the defensive about it. You are making extraordinary claims about numerous of the New York, Pennsylvania, and Washington D.C. events. Whether I, or anyone else, have prevailing opinions, the easiest, best way to change them is to offer proof and evidence of substance.

Your efforts will by necessity need to be extraordinary in amount and detail, however. Because that's the cause you've taken up: arguing for something that is so remarkable as to be unprecedented in the history of man.

[Regnad Kcin]

By the way, RandFan, a very well-written response in your opening post.

[Reeco]

Been following this in a lurky kind of way. I have to say that the general attitude over there is shocking. They accused you of behaving in a way you weren't, but they were, and that must be hard to stomach.

I was surprised at the level of fervour in those forums. It seems that for 99% of the members 9/11 is an open and shut case.

They don't want debate. They want a riot.

[RandFan]

Been following this in a lurky kind of way. I have to say that the general attitude over there is shocking. They accused you of behaving in a way you weren't, but they were, and that must be hard to stomach. I have to admit, it definitly has a certain Lewis Carroll (http://www.cs.indiana.edu/metastuff/looking/lookingdir.html) feel to it. I'd add the Twilight Zone but then I don't want to mix my metaphors. :)

[RandFan]

By the way, RandFan, a very well-written response in your opening post.Thank you, and I agree with your post, and what about their preconceived notions? Oh wait, they've done their homework. ;)

Which only presupposes that those who disagree haven't.

[DeVega]

RandFan - I think your response was excellent, articulate and calm. I have nominated it.

Sad to say, I can't see any of Loose Change defecting to the JREF any time soon...

DeVega

[chipmunk stew]

RandFan - I think your response was excellent, articulate and calm. I have nominated it.

Sad to say, I can't see any of Loose Change defecting to the JREF any time soon...

DeVegaI think it was excellent, too.

I don't expect to change many minds among the regulars there, but I don't think our visits over there are futile for two reasons. First, if there happen to be any wavering lurkers reading who aren't so practiced at thinking critically it's valuable to see good debate mixed in with the rabid fervor. Second, it's generated some great discussion here and for those of us who hadn't grappled much with the nitty-gritty details of 9/11 in the past it's been a great exercise that's produced a lot of great information.

[valis]

I think it was excellent, too.

I don't expect to change many minds among the regulars there, but I don't think our visits over there are futile for two reasons. First, if there happen to be any wavering lurkers reading who aren't so practiced at thinking critically it's valuable to see good debate mixed in with the rabid fervor. Second, it's generated some great discussion here and for those of us who hadn't grappled much with the nitty-gritty details of 9/11 in the past it's been a great exercise that's produced a lot of great information.


Third it has shut up the guy that is two doors down from me at work. I used things I found in the various 911 threads here to question his belife in the CTs. Now he has to limit himself to saying "I just think there are a lot of unanswered questions about what happened that day". And then I say "Like what?" and then he remembers he has something else to do.

[Sultanist]

I tried to be the counterpoint in one thread over there last night.
I've never experienced true-believer'ism of this magnitude. It's utterly hopeless.
Alex Jones could get in front of the microphone today and tell them "I just made it all up. It was all a lot of hokum to get me some attention". And I'm telling you it wouldn't make one iota of difference. They would immediately find a way to rationalize that just like they do everything else.
There is no getting through to them. It's a full-blown cult. And it's a lost cause as far as I'm concerned.

[Ryan O'Dine]

SNIP

There is no getting through to them. It's a full-blown cult. And it's a lost cause as far as I'm concerned.
I’ve met CTers in person, and my layman’s “diagnosis” leans toward personality disorder. We have paranoia, irrational thinking, obsession. On a scale of mental illness, I wouldn’t score it very high, but I would put it on the scale. Somewhere.

Just my impression.

Oh, and excellent post, RandFan.

[tsg]

They would immediately find a way to rationalize that just like they do everything else.

Of course. "They" finally got to him thus proving he was right all along.

[Bronze Dog]

Excellent writing in the OP, RandFan.

[Reeco]

I'm starting to regret the moment I first visited the loose Change forums. I keep going back and reading a few threads and, well, it's making me think I have anger management issues.

From a thread entitled "All These Trolls And Shills, is it just me or......":

A lot of the skeptics are from the JREF forums (they seem to be thinning a bit however). I think they attracted a few "bandwagoneers" of what I like to call 'Professional Internet Arguers". Now take the professional part with a grain o' salt and you might know of the type.

For any legitimate skeptic bringing up real issues is a good thing. For the all the other pond frogs who say "this is all crap, I dun need to do rechurch cuz I just know, Im right cuz my prez says so". Are a distraction, and takes away from any serious debate.

Staggering.

[headscratcher4]

Randfan...

Why do you hate those who seek only truth? ;)

Your excellent post...which makes me envious of your ability to explain things clearly, logically and support your ideas... is clearly too rational. You deserved to be banned.

Keep up the good work!

[Sultanist]

For any legitimate skeptic bringing up real issues is a good thing. For the all the other pond frogs who say "this is all crap, I dun need to do rechurch cuz I just know, Im right cuz my prez says so". Are a distraction, and takes away from any serious debate.
I've heard that expressed so often it makes me nauseous. Every conspiracy buff I've ever entered into a conversation with has accused me of that.
That's such *********. The sad truth is that every damn body hates that ignorant moron Bush now. Not even the Republicans wanna associate with him anymore.
That loose change dude has about as much chance of finding someone now who says "I'm right cuz my prez says so" as Diogenes had when he was looking for an honest man.

[Bronze Dog]

A lot of the skeptics are from the JREF forums (they seem to be thinning a bit however). I think they attracted a few "bandwagoneers" of what I like to call 'Professional Internet Arguers". Now take the professional part with a grain o' salt and you might know of the type.

For any legitimate skeptic bringing up real issues is a good thing. For the all the other pond frogs who say "this is all crap, I dun need to do rechurch cuz I just know, Im right cuz my prez says so". Are a distraction, and takes away from any serious debate.
What forum was this guy reading? The Just Republicans Elected Forever forum or something?

[senorpogo]

Let's assume the Loosers get their wish and there is an independent investigation into 9/11. When that investigation comes back and says the official story checks out, do you think those people will accept it? I doubt it. Rather, it'll turn out that the independent investigation was in on it too. One of the people involved had an uncle who once sat on the board at Haliburton so it's all questionable yadda yadda....

No amount of proof or evidence will convince them otherwise.

And nice post Randfan. You've done a great job mixing it up with the Loosers.

[senorpogo]

I'm starting to regret the moment I first visited the loose Change forums. I keep going back and reading a few threads and, well, it's making me think I have anger management issues.


Same here. I was lurking here at JREF for a few weeks, but the CTs in the original Loose Change thread made me so mad that I had to say something. Between their readiness to pimp out the memory of 9/11 to attack the current administration and their inability to prove any of their extraordinary claims, I end up finding myself shouting at my computer screen.

[Regnad Kcin]

Y'know, I'm growing a bit tired of the term "preconceived ideas." It implies that one has been duped, or is somehow ill-informed, before any debate has even begun. I'll guess this is a shrewd attempt to front-load the discussion, presenting the players as close-minded (those with the preconceived ideas) or open-minded (those who've bought into alternative claims, however questionable).

Nice try.

Attn. 9/11 Alternate Conspiracy Theorists: As of right now I have "preconceived ideas" about what happened on that day. Why? Because I've given it considered thought, never mind it turns out my "ideas" quite nicely duplicate the official story.

I will not be lectured, nor put on the defensive about it. You are making extraordinary claims about numerous of the New York, Pennsylvania, and Washington D.C. events. Whether I, or anyone else, have prevailing opinions, the easiest, best way to change them is to offer proof and evidence of substance.

Your efforts will by necessity need to be extraordinary in amount and detail, however. Because that's the cause you've taken up: arguing for something that is so remarkable as to be unprecedented in the history of man.To add a bit to my rant above:

There's really no such thing as a "preconceived idea" anyway; how can someone have an idea before he has an idea? Prior to a thought's conception (which is what pre-conceived means), I haven't had it yet. It's like saying someone can imagine a pre-invented invention, or has a preconceived pregnancy.

Yeah, yeah, I'm being pedantic.

[alfaniner]

Well, never thought I'd say this one, but...

"You are unbanned."

[Starthinker]

I saw this phrase in another thread as an example of what to say to a believer in something outlandish: "Is there any evidence that could be presented that would cause you to rethink your belief in X?" (In this case X=government conspiracy involved in the 9/11 attacks.)

I've never been there but that sounds like a good site to ask that. Chances are, whatever they would probably say would be the opposite in what they believe so there's a good chance that it's the truth and you can present it back to them. Did that make sense?

Of course, after dealing with paranormal bigfoot believers I try not to even engage people from the outer reaches any more. I just take a deep breath and say to myself I can't help them.

[DavidJames]

I saw this phrase in another thread as an example of what to say to a believer in something outlandish: "Is there any evidence that could be presented that would cause you to rethink your belief in X?" (In this case X=government conspiracy involved in the 9/11 attacks.)

I've never been there but that sounds like a good site to ask that. Chances are, whatever they would probably say would be the opposite in what they believe so there's a good chance that it's the truth and you can present it back to them. Did that make sense? If only it were that simple. I saw that question asked on the loose bowel forum and the response was "evidence". The problem is they don't like and reject evidence that doesn't agree with their particular version of the CT.

[LordoftheLeftHand]

I saw this phrase in another thread as an example of what to say to a believer in something outlandish: "Is there any evidence that could be presented that would cause you to rethink your belief in X?"

I think that is a very important question to ask about any belief, on any subject. If you are unwilling to be proven wrong, you probably are wrong.

LLH

[strathmeyer]

I think that is a very important question to ask about any belief, on any subject. If you are unwilling to be proven wrong, you probably are wrong.

Another good questions is always, "What can we do to figure out whether you are right or wrong?" That usually shuts people up.

[Sultanist]

I think that is a very important question to ask about any belief, on any subject. If you are unwilling to be proven wrong, you probably are wrongYes, but that's their perspective too. They're convinced that we're the ones who are unwilling to be proven wrong.
As I said, it's a hopeless situation. There is nothing you will ever tell those folks which is gonna change their minds.

[Metullus]

Great post RandFan, except there you go using those two and three sylabel... silla...uh, those long words again. Remember your audience.