Watching the CTists attack / fight amongst themselves

[Obviousman]

Have a look at this thread:

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=11395&st=0

Does anyone else get the impression that 'hardline' CTists attack their own whenever there is a point of disagreement?

I still say some psych students should do a study of that place and the interactions between CT / non-CT and CT / CT. I reckon there is a major award of some type in it.

[brumsen]

Not sure if psychology is the best or only discipline that should look into this.
Sociology, more likely.

Lots of this stuff appears to boil down to the maxim "if you're not with us, you're against us", the pronouncement of which has made Bush the object of a lot of ridicule - in Europe at least - but which appears to be universally embraced by all discussants.

[Brainster]

Not sure if psychology is the best or only discipline that should look into this.
Sociology, more likely.

Lots of this stuff appears to boil down to the maxim "if you're not with us, you're against us", the pronouncement of which has made Bush the object of a lot of ridicule - in Europe at least - but which appears to be universally embraced by all discussants.

It's my impression that this has been brewing for awhile and that it's boiling over in the last few days is no coincidence.

For example, we all know there's a conflict between LC's call for protest at GZ and Rick Siegel and many anti-war Groups for a protest in Washington.

Discussants is not a word generally recognized in English. I don't know if there's a good substitution--all those in the discussion, or participants? Not being critical, just helpful.

[brumsen]

It's my impression that this has been brewing for awhile and that it's boiling over in the last few days is no coincidence.

For example, we all know there's a conflict between LC's call for protest at GZ and Rick Siegel and many anti-war Groups for a protest in Washington.

Discussants is not a word generally recognized in English. I don't know if there's a good substitution--all those in the discussion, or participants? Not being critical, just helpful.
Well, thanks for that terminology.
So, it's all about what to do on the 5th anniversary, according to you?

[H3LL]

Discussants is not a word generally recognized in English. I don't know if there's a good substitution--all those in the discussion, or participants? Not being critical, just helpful.

Can you tell dictionary.com (http://dictionary.com) they don't seem to know.

Discussants

dis·cus·sant (dhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/ibreve.gif-skhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/ubreve.gifshttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/prime.gifhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/schwa.gifnt) Pronunciation Key (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/ahd4/pronkey.html) http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif (https://secure.reference.com/premium/login.html?rd=2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fsearch%3 Fq%3DDiscussants%26x%3D40%26y%3D13) http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/premium.gif
n.
A participant in a formal discussion.

[sat556]

I still say some psych students should do a study of that place and the interactions between CT / non-CT and CT / CT. I reckon there is a major award of some type in it.

Oh it's all being noted :D