Proposal for Diplomatic Relations with LC

[jhunter1163]

My friend Oliver and I have been haunting the LC forum for a little while now, and there are a couple of pretty smart guys over there (Russell Pickering, Daniel, and a couple others) who we think would be worthy opponents for our guys here. I'd like to propose a scenario for an exchange (I don't want to call it a "debate", don't know if it would be that structured) with them that we can post over there and see if they're up for the challenge.

Rules of engagement:

1. Posts would be limited to one topic at a time, for a preset number of posts (say 100). No bumping or one-character posts allowed, and no derailing of topic.

2. Posts would be limited to presentation of evidence only. No personal attacks, flaming or trolling. One warning to be given on violation, after that violation results in moving of post to "Abandon All Hope" and banning of poster from thread (but not from JREF forum). Moderators to have sole discretion re: above.

3. Links or video can be posted, but must include statement of the thesis they support or refute. If possible, page numbers or timestamps to be used.

4. I would suggest limiting the number of JREF posters. We can start a separate "Peanut Gallery" thread for commentary (no doubt we would have anyway, and no doubt they will too.) We can designate our "team" before opening the thread; so can they.

5. The important thing in this, in my mind, is just to promote an open and fair examination of both sides of the story. Maybe I'm naive, but I'm hoping that there are enough adults on both sides of the fence to carry this off in a meaningful way.

Thoughts?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Here's my US$0.02. We already have an open door policy here. People aren't banned for having dissenting or unpopular views. The only bannings of CTists have been from direct rules violations that occurred after warnings/suspensions.

Why do we need to bend over backwards to engage in dialogue?

If they are so damned concerned about "the truth" they should be willing to come here and discuss.

[jhunter1163]

Arkan, I realize that we have an open-door policy here. But much of the venom that is spewed at JREF at the LC forum is related to the flamings that the poor (rule8)s got when they came here. I'm not going to speculate whether the flamings were justified or not.. my only intention is to take that excuse away from them. Come here, without fear of flaming or banning, present your case, and let it be judged on its merits. If they don't want to read the commentary from the peanut gallery, they shouldn't go to the (rule8)ing peanut gallery thread.

[Obviousman]

Daniels? Russell by all means but Daniels?

Surely you jest!

[Mancman]

Daniels? Russell by all means but Daniels?

Surely you jest!

Indeed. He was theorising recently, that people jumped from the WTC not because of fire/smoke/heat, but due to a toxic gas being released. :rolleyes:

[T.A.M.]

I don't see it as working. I see it as giving them ammunition so that when it fails, for what ever reason, they can claim that they did it our way, and we F&*ked it up anyway.

I also agree with Arkan. If these guys were really going to be open to what you suggest, the way you would have it, than they know they could have that here.
SO why are they not coming over here and debating.

The reason they do not want to come over here, is they don't want to be ganged up on, fair, but if you think they are going to accept a posting situation on their board where their minions can't have comment, I think you are mistaken. And if they are allowed to have comment, they will treat us with even more foulness then we do them, because their comments will not opnly be bias, but also will likely be without logic or sense.

Good luck, if this is what you wish. I personally see nothing to be gained with debating with any of them outside of Russ, and he seems sensible enough that if he actually wanted to debate, he would join here and start debating.

Just MO though. Be interesting to see what comes fo it.

TAM

[jhunter1163]

I think you may be right. I guess I thought too highly of our friends over there at LC. Except Russell. I still think he'd be a worthy opponent. Russell, if you're reading, come on over. You're too good for them there.

[T.A.M.]

Now what I would really like is to get some of the "Scholars" over here to debate. Now that would definitely be worth persuing.

TAM

[Loss Leader]

I agree with the thoughts above. JREF already has an open posting policy. Having read some of the horific racist and anti-semitic remarks on the LC forums, why should we make them any guarantees about whether they will or will not be insulted? Or should we really promise to contain ourselves when they start posting that Zionism is a movement within Judaism to take over the world?

Here's a compromise: Let LC open a section just for JREF members. We won't stray outside of the section, only their members who want to see us need to come into the section, and we'll promise to be civil. Any JREF member who identifies him/herself as such upon joining LC, who stays in the pen and who doesn't flame anyone must be allowed to post without fear of banning or blocking of IP addresses.

That's less freedom than they'd get here, but I bet they won't go for it.

[R.Mackey]

Now what I would really like is to get some of the "Scholars" over here to debate. Now that would definitely be worth persuing.
We've had a scholar or two over here. Notably in this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1917271#post1917271), where 9/11 Scholars For Truth member Craig Furlong eventually showed up in response to criticisms of his whitepaper.

The resulting technical discussion was, to put it mildly, disappointing. I don't believe the Scholars in any way represent an "elite" subgroup.

I also think that TruthSeeker1234 claims to be one of the Scholars, but I might be mistaken.

[Loss Leader]

I also think that TruthSeeker1234 claims to be one of the Scholars, but I might be mistaken.

He has stated that his name is on the front page of their website which may or may not mean he is an actual "scholar." He did it while defending his knowledge of economics. He appears to be from the wingnut-anti-gloablism-libertarian-the-world-bank-is-secretly-controling-the-world school.