How about a Guide for Newbies? Thoughts?

[T.A.M.]

So I am throwing this out, as we often hear complaints from new members, about how they get bombed by insults if they say the wrong thing, or told off for not using the search function, etc...

Should we put together a "Guide for Newbies" to have Stickied to the top of the sub-forum? We can then point said Newbies to the thread, which would contain a decent amount of information on "the way things are here" and where info can be found.

Any thoughts, suggestions? Should we forget it?

TAM:)

[uk_dave]

So I am throwing this out, as we often hear complaints from new members, about how they get bombed by insults if they say the wrong thing, or told off for not using the search function, etc...

Should we put together a "Guide for Newbies" to have Stickied to the top of the sub-forum? We can then point said Newbies to the thread, which would contain a decent amount of information on "the way things are here" and where info can be found.

Any thoughts, suggestions? Should we forget it?

TAM:)

Nice in theory, but in practice we know that the 'truthers' come here with the intention of debating their own favourite CT as if (in the words of madonna) "for the very first time"...... now if you could make a series of youtube videos, with (in the words of B.A.D) "...a beatbox soundtrack", then you might get a few willing to take the time to watch......... but reading? Forget it!

[Pope130]

I like this idea. It could help get past the first few pages of back and forth semantic debate, and go straight to the real issues.
Perhaps a few general articles to acquaint people with the overall outlines of the major topics of debate. Say the top three or four camps in the WTC, JFK, and UFO conspiracies, and a glossary for those who aren't familiar with the contractions or who the Illuminati, Trilateralists and so forth are. That way newbies won't be wasting there time on minor silliness, and will be able to go right to the major silliness.

Robert Klaus

[jhunter1163]

I'd suggest pointing them to Ref's excellent summations. If they're really looking for answers, they'll find them there. If they're just trolling, we have plenty of troll-smackers here.

[T.A.M.]

I agree. Often though, we cant immediately distinguish the trolls from the innocent. If we had a "Guide" as to how to present yourself (upfront tell us what you think...etc) then it might help ease them into this place.

TAM:)

[jhunter1163]

Maybe a "Mr. Randi's Guide To First-Post Manners."

1. Introduce yourself. You don't have to tell your whole life story: just a quick summation will do.

2. State your beliefs. Don't make your fellow posters drag them out of you.

3. State your evidence for your beliefs. Although newbies can't post links till the 15th post, you can make your case and cite your sources. Others will provide linkage for you. Remember, we were all newbies once.

4. Be courteous. Try to refrain from personal attacks. However, you should remember that this is a skeptical forum. Your beliefs will be challenged. Don't take it personally. As Darat so eloquently puts it, attack the argument, not the arguer. Or something.

5. Try for brevity in your posts. Most posters here won't read 10,000 copy-and-pasted words and will instead skip directly to attacking you. Try to sum up your arguments as concisely as possible. Also, see #3 above re: links if you must cite them.

6. Keep the forum rules in mind.

How's that for a start?

[Muckar-duva]

What happened with the wiki? Wasn't there supposed to be some kind of newbie guide in there?

[T.A.M.]

Maybe a "Mr. Randi's Guide To First-Post Manners."

1. Introduce yourself. You don't have to tell your whole life story: just a quick summation will do.

2. State your beliefs. Don't make your fellow posters drag them out of you.

3. State your evidence for your beliefs. Although newbies can't post links till the 15th post, you can make your case and cite your sources. Others will provide linkage for you. Remember, we were all newbies once.

4. Be courteous. Try to refrain from personal attacks. However, you should remember that this is a skeptical forum. Your beliefs will be challenged. Don't take it personally. As Darat so eloquently puts it, attack the argument, not the arguer. Or something.

5. Try for brevity in your posts. Most posters here won't read 10,000 copy-and-pasted words and will instead skip directly to attacking you. Try to sum up your arguments as concisely as possible. Also, see #3 above re: links if you must cite them.

6. Keep the forum rules in mind.

How's that for a start?


Excellent start. Perhaps then adding in that most topics (include a list perhaps) have been discussed in detail, and then links to Refs Summaries etc...

TAM:)

[jhunter1163]

OK, Mr. Randi's Guide to First-Post Manners Ver. 2.0.

1. Introduce yourself. You don't have to tell your whole life story: just a quick summation will do.

2. State your beliefs. Don't make your fellow posters drag them out of you.

3. State your evidence for your beliefs. Although newbies can't post links till the 15th post, you can make your case and cite your sources. Others will provide linkage for you. Remember, we were all newbies once.

4. Be courteous. Try to refrain from personal attacks. However, you should remember that this is a skeptical forum. Your beliefs will be challenged. Don't take it personally. As Darat so eloquently puts it, attack the argument, not the arguer. Or something.

5. Try for brevity in your posts. Most posters here won't read 10,000 copy-and-pasted words and will instead skip directly to attacking you. Try to sum up your arguments as concisely as possible. Also, see #3 above re: links if you must cite them.

6. Most of the popular conspiracy theories regarding 9/11 have been discussed here exhaustively. While we don't wish to discourage any poster from airing his/her views, please check the link below for rebuttals of these theories before posting.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=76025

If you feel you have something new to contribute regarding any theory, please feel free to do so. However, you should cite your sources and, again, be prepared to be challenged.

7. Keep the forum rules in mind.

Better? Maybe more linkage?

[Lisa Simpson]

Get it together, and I will post it and sticky it. I would also like to see, in addition to the link provided above, links within the forum to 9/11 related topics that have already been brought up. And I will probably add some more moderator-y stuff, like play nice or face the wrath of the Borg-o-Mods.

[Calcas]

Get it together, and I will post it and sticky it. I would also like to see, in addition to the link provided above, links within the forum to 9/11 related topics that have already been brought up. And I will probably add some more moderator-y stuff, like play nice or face the wrath of the Borg-o-Mods.

Good point.

Lisa, you know the 80/20 rule, right?

Is it true that this sub-forum has WAY more "problems" than others as it relates to total activity? I mean I wouldn't expect the lounge to be as controversial but is this place one big headache for you?:eek:

[Hawk one]

I would like a thread called "Read here if you think you have any "new" WTC evidence". I mean, don't you get rather sick and tired of tired of posts like this one:

Thanks, Gravy, for pointing me to truth? ;) You have even more impressive credentials (posts) than that gnome I just encountered a while ago ;) I'll get back to you in due time. There is more (A LOT MORE) to be said about 9/11 that has not been said before - here or anywhere.

And then it turns out that they are in fact presenting arguments several years old (as well as several years debunked), and which have been talked about here dozens and scores of times.

So, my vision for such a thread is to give them a rundown of what has been talked about here lots of times before, and with links to a few of the posts discussing it, as well as an outside source near the end.

It would look something like this:
--------
"New" Claim: The buildings fell in their own footprint:
Analysis: Only a fully solid building could be excepted to "topple over". Since the WTC buildings are mostly air inside, there's plenty of room to fall down. Of course, since there was nothing controlled about it, tons and tons of debris damaged the other buildings, sometimes very heavily

Posts and/or threads this claim has been discussed in:
Here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1559148&highlight=footprint#post1559148)
Here too. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1594681&postcount=1565)
Outside source showing pictures of the damage done to other buildings (http://army.firststrike.net/briefings/WTC_Damage_Assessment.ppt)
---------------------------

Naturally, this example is by no means complete (I'd imagine three of four threads in this forum and one or two outside sources), but it should give you an idea of what I'm talking about. It's giving a clear message that we have discussed subject X several times already. So whenever a CTist comes in, claims "I've got something you haven't seen" and then brings on the old assertions, it's possible to tell him: "Didn't you read the thread on the top of this forum page?"

I also have a few other ideas about how the layout of such a thread should be done, but tell me first if my specific angle is a good one. Basically, this is how I think it should be presented. If this idea goes through, then I'll be happy to mix together such a thread. I would of course not dream about doing it alone, but seek out help from the other resourceful members. They'll provide me with the items I should present, and also some info if they feel like it (both for which they will be credited, of course), and I'll be editing it all together roughly as presented.

So, what do you think, guys?

[Lisa Simpson]

Good point.

Lisa, you know the 80/20 rule, right?

Is it true that this sub-forum has WAY more "problems" than others as it relates to total activity? I mean I wouldn't expect the lounge to be as controversial but is this place one big headache for you?:eek:

Yes. But it's a headache that is contained in one place. Like a headache you get from accidentally bumping your head on the kitchen cabinet as compared to a migraine headache.

[JimBenArm]

Yes. But it's a headache that is contained in one place. Like a headache you get from accidentally bumping your head on the kitchen cabinet as compared to a migraine headache.
And we're your most favoritist headaches, too!

[Axiom_Blade]

Yeah, I've been thinking for a long time that this place needed a FAQ in the worst way.

[Elizabeth I]

Why is this thread in Conspiracy? Are we going to set up a COINTELPRO operation and feed them fake intelligence? ("Be sure to make it very clear YOU'RE 'JUST ASKING QUESTIONS.' JREFers love that." "Oh, yeah, and always say you just saw a really interesting article by Stephen Jones and have they ever looked into what he has to say?" "Don't forget to mention Charlie Sheen and Rosie O'Donnell.") :p

[GodSend]

T.A.M.:

This may not be the place for the linked article but I wanted to make sure that you see this article. It's an example that science/reason and faith can be perfectly compatible:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/03/collins.commentary/index.html

It doesn't HAVE to be personal trauma that leads you there, as in the case of Dr. Collins :)

[ail]

I would realy value a glossary where jargon and acronyms used specifically in this forum and JREF are listed.

Things like...

JREFER
WOO WOO
CT
STUNDIE
TRUTHER

I am sure the list would be quite large. Might be self evident for most here but us Newbies have to sort through lots of post to get the meaning. Then again that can be quite fun:seteacher:

[Minadin]

An acronym list specific to various conspiracy theory topics would be very helpful and appropriate for this forum. I had the worst trouble with those when I joined.

[ref]

My guide post was made to serve as this kind of guide, so I'm happy if that can be used as a part of this :)

Here is a thread discussing the jargon and acronyms used in here. This link could also be added.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=71713

[jhunter1163]

Since this appears to be my baby, I give you Mr. Randi's Guide to First-Post Manners Ver. 3.0.

1. Introduce yourself. You don't have to tell your whole life story: just a quick summation will do. If you have qualifications (education or experience) relevant to your opinions, state them.

2. State your opinions up front. Don't make your fellow posters drag them out of you.

3. State your evidence for your opinions. Although newbies can't post links till the 15th post, you can make your case and cite your sources. Others will provide linkage for you. Remember, we were all newbies once. If you are using mathematics, show your calculations.

4. Be courteous. Try to refrain from personal attacks. However, you should remember that this is a skeptical forum. Your beliefs will be challenged. Don't take it personally. As Darat so eloquently puts it, attack the argument, not the arguer. Or something.

5. Try for brevity in your posts. Most posters here won't read 10,000 copy-and-pasted words and will instead skip directly to attacking you. Try to sum up your arguments as concisely as possible. Also, see #3 above re: links if you must cite them.

6. Most of the popular conspiracy theories regarding 9/11 have been discussed here exhaustively. While we don't wish to discourage any poster from airing his/her views, we do recommend using the search function to look for relevant threads before starting a new one. Also, the thread below contains links to rebuttals of many of these theories. You may wish to review it before posting.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=76025

If you feel you have something new to contribute regarding any theory, please feel free to do so. However, you should cite your sources and, again, be prepared to be challenged.

7. Keep the forum rules in mind. The moderators here are generally tolerant of any opinions you wish to express, no matter how unconventional they may be; personal attacks on other posters, hotlinking, and profanity are not tolerated nearly as well.

8. Many of the posters here have been discussing 9/11 theories for years. There are a number of acronyms that you will see frequently regarding these theories. You can find definitions for many of those acronyms in this thread:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=71713

Any more suggestions?

[westprog]

Get it together, and I will post it and sticky it. I would also like to see, in addition to the link provided above, links within the forum to 9/11 related topics that have already been brought up. And I will probably add some more moderator-y stuff, like play nice or face the wrath of the Borg-o-Mods.

I'd like a short list of acronyms and a brief vocabulary.

[ref]

I'd like a short list of acronyms and a brief vocabulary.

Look above :)

[pagan]

Get it together, and I will post it and sticky it. I would also like to see, in addition to the link provided above, links within the forum to 9/11 related topics that have already been brought up. And I will probably add some more moderator-y stuff, like play nice or face the wrath of the Borg-o-Mods.

Yes, an introduction to 911 truth made into a sticky. That's a great idea.

We should intensify our battle against wild speculations and conspiracy theories on the 911 issue.

[Brainache]

Yes, an introduction to 911 truth made into a sticky. That's a great idea.

We should intensify our battle against wild speculations and conspiracy theories on the 911 issue.

Let me guess: Your password is "Password", right?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

T.A.M.:

This may not be the place for the linked article but I wanted to make sure that you see this article. It's an example that science/reason and faith can be perfectly compatible:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/03/collins.commentary/index.html

It doesn't HAVE to be personal trauma that leads you there, as in the case of Dr. Collins :)
You're right, it doesn't belong in this thread (or this subforum for that matter).

[T.A.M.]

I like jhunters list.

is there a way to sticky it as a single OP, then have limited access to posting on that thread (so that people do not fill it full of junk or comments)?

TAM:)

[Darth Rotor]

So I am throwing this out, as we often hear complaints from new members, about how they get bombed by insults if they say the wrong thing, or told off for not using the search function, etc...

Should we put together a "Guide for Newbies" to have Stickied to the top of the sub-forum? We can then point said Newbies to the thread, which would contain a decent amount of information on "the way things are here" and where info can be found.

Any thoughts, suggestions? Should we forget it?

TAM:)
How about deleting the entire forum, other than the sticky threads?

Entropy has taken over the CT forum.

DR

[pagan]

Yes, an introduction to 911 truth made into a sticky. That's a great idea.

We should intensify our battle against wild speculations and conspiracy theories on the 911 issue.

No answer Lisa? I volunteere to make a basic 911 truth introduction and make it a sticky. Any problems?

[Darat]

Good point.

Lisa, you know the 80/20 rule, right?

Is it true that this sub-forum has WAY more "problems" than others as it relates to total activity? I mean I wouldn't expect the lounge to be as controversial but is this place one big headache for you?:eek:

Yes - or at least it is generating more reports then all the other sections of the Forum added together.

[Darat]

Some comments as Admin.

Since this appears to be my baby, I give you Mr. Randi's Guide to First-Post Manners Ver. 3.0.

1. Introduce yourself. You don't have to tell your whole life story: just a quick summation will do. If you have qualifications (education or experience) relevant to your opinions, state them.



Introductory posts belong in Community and in the Welcome thread - that is also where the welcome PM direct people, for people who joined after the last revision the welcome PM currently reads:


Welcome to the JREF Forum

The Forum was opened in August 2001 for people to "Be part of the JREF web community by engaging in intelligent discussions with both skeptics and non-skeptics from around the globe".

The James Randi Educational Foundation is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1996. Its aim is to promote critical thinking by reaching out to the public and media with reliable information about the paranormal and supernatural ideas that are so widespread in our society today.

The Forum has helped foster a community of people that share the goals of the JREF by providing a venue for discussions about a wide range of topics, but always encouraging Forum Members to use the tools of skepticism and critical thinking that James Randi and the JREF have been championing for many years.

You will find many discussions that are very serious and intense, but you'll also find many that are frivolous and fun. What unites them all is a shared passion to get to the facts and let the evidence guide our conclusions -- in other words, facing the world as it is, and not as we would like it to be. But that doesn't mean that everyone agrees with one another; what it means is that you will be challenged to support your opinions and expected to challenge those of other Members. There are no sacred cows on the JREF Forum, but there are plenty of discussions about sacred cows.

The Forum…

You probably read the Forum, or at least one or two threads, before you became a member, so hopefully you noticed that we have arranged the Forum into a series of sections, each dedicated to a particular subject or subjects. It takes most new Members a little while to become familiar with the structure, so don't worry too much if you start a thread in the wrong section. The worst that will happen is that a member of the "Moderating Team" will move it to a more appropriate section.

The Moderating Team (usually referred to as "the Mods" by old timers) is a small group of volunteer Members that dedicate some of their time to helping manage Forum activity. They are available to assist Members in various tasks, such as moving threads and answering questions about the Forum.

The Mods also have a responsibility to the JREF to see that Members abide by the Membership Agreement you agreed to when applying for membership. But please remember that, unless posting in an "official" capacity, members of the Mod team are just regular Members of the Forum. Also, the Mods do not represent the JREF itself. (A list of the Mods can be found at the bottom of each forum section page, and they have an additional title under their user-name - either Moderator or Administrator.)

As a "New Member" (meaning you've made less then 50 posts) there are a few restrictions on your account. The most irksome to new Members is not being able to make a post that includes a URL (a link to a another website) until you've made at least 15 posts. Unfortunately, we have had to put this in place because people try to spam the Forum with commercial advertisements and links such as "click here for a free iPod".

If you have used other forums you should have no trouble finding your way around the JREF Forum. If this is the first forum you've used there is a general introduction to using the Forum in this section: General Forum Usage (http://forums.randi.org/faq.php?faq=vb_faq#faq_vb_board_usage). We also have an extensive frequently asked questions (FAQ) section (http://forums.randi.org/faq.php), there you'll find a series of "How to…" tutorials that cover some of the unique and non-standard features of the JREF Forum. There is also a short visual guide "Guide to a Post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=69887)" that explains what all the icons and buttons in a post do.

You may notice at the bottom of each post a button that says "Nominate". The "Nominate" button is linked to "The Language Award", which is run by the community and awarded every month to the member who wins the most votes for a well written post. (See this thread for more details: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=76070)

As a new Member you may at first feel a bit intimidated. However, everyone posting here was a new member at one time. We've all been through this stage and survived, so don't worry.

There are a few Forum conventions that have evolved over time, and following them can help you when you first start to post. These are not rules, and there is no penalty for not following them, but it is beneficial to be aware of them:

ETA – Stands for "Edited To Add". If you edited one of your post to make an addition, use this to indicate the addition.
Quoting another member – make sure it is clear what and who you are quoting. Using the built in "Quote" button to automatically start a new reply with the member's post you wish to quote is the easiest way to do this, or you can simply surround the words you wish to quote with the quote tag (See: this thread for an example)
NSFW - Stands for "Not Suitable For Work". Members usually place this into a post or a thread title that they think could cause problems for other people browsing the Forum from work (for instance if a link leads to a site that plays a loud sound).
OP - Stands for "Opening Post", you'll often read a post that says something like "In the OP is stated that..." and now you know what that means.
This all may seem a lot to take in, but remember the immortal words: "DON'T PANIC".

Seriously, although some Members can come across as quite abrasive to new Members, most of us will try to help you get settled in a cordial manner. We want you to enjoy posting here!

And speaking of enjoyment, just a few final words: Remember that the other Members posting are like you, real people with real feelings. It can be quite easy to forget that when we are communicating via impersonal words on a screen.

Look forward to seeing you around.



Darat
On Behalf of the JREF & the Moderating Team







Back to the guide:


You will encounter Members who hold very different views and opinions to you, you may consider their views crazy, out of this world, terrible and so on however remember the Membership Agreement you have agreed to follow - especially the "Be civil and polite" part.

This is a skeptical forum that is provided by an organisation that promotes critical thinking therefore your beliefs will be challenged. Don't take it personally and remember someone challenging your opinion or claim is not the same as someone insulting you.

2. State your opinions up front. Don't make your fellow posters drag them out of you.

3. State your evidence for your opinions. Although New Members can't post links till the 15th post, you can make your case and cite your sources. Others will provide linkage for you. Remember, we were all new once. If you are using mathematics, show your calculations - the Forum even has LaTex implemented see: .

5. Try for brevity in your posts. Most Members here won't read 10,000 copy-and-pasted words and will instead skip directly to challenging your claims. Try to sum up your arguments as concisely as possible. Also, see #3 above re: links if you must cite them.

6. Most of the popular conspiracy theories regarding 9/11 have been discussed here exhaustively. While we don't wish to discourage any Member from airing his/her views, we do recommend using the search function to look for relevant threads before starting a new one. Also, the thread below contains links to rebuttals of many of these theories. You may wish to review it before posting.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=76025

If you feel you have something new to contribute regarding any theory, please feel free to do so. However, you should cite your sources and, again, be prepared to be challenged.

8. Many of the Members here have been discussing 9/11 theories for years. There are a number of acronyms that you will see frequently regarding these theories. You can find definitions for many of those acronyms in this thread:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=71713

Any more suggestions?


I've made some edits and added some stuff - generally seems to be heading in the right direction - good work.

[Darat]

I'm quite happy to help support efforts to create a FAQ, and provide stickies/limited threads and so on - however it has to be in line with the rest of the Forum.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

It's spiffy. I like it.

[pagan]

I'm quite happy to help support efforts to create a FAQ, and provide stickies/limited threads and so on - however it has to be in line with the rest of the Forum.

What does this mean? Is a introduction sticky for 911 truth excluded? If so why?

[Darat]

What does this mean? ...snip...

It meant what it said - I'm happy to use the software features that I have access to as Admin to create sticky threads, provide linked threads, and so on to help support the ideas Members have come up with in this thread.

[T.A.M.]

How about deleting the entire forum, other than the sticky threads?

Entropy has taken over the CT forum.

DR

Hey man, I am just trying to find some ways to avoid turning off newcomers, to avoid scaring away those who might otherwise join in on the discussion.

I don't want to see the forum become a homogenous land of boredom either, but I hardly think my suggestion will result in Entropy...

TAM:)

[HyJinX]

What does this mean? Is a introduction sticky for 911 truth excluded? If so why?

Pagan...why don't you put a comprehensive post together and share it with the forum before asking why you wouldn't be able to sticky it? Until then, it's a moot point.

[Darat]

Hey man, I am just trying to find some ways to avoid turning off newcomers, to avoid scaring away those who might otherwise join in on the discussion.

I don't want to see the forum become a homogenous land of boredom either, but I hardly think my suggestion will result in Entropy...

TAM:)

Well a not too positive suggestion for this section has been to rename it to "Abandon All Hope Volume 2".... :)

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Hey man, I am just trying to find some ways to avoid turning off newcomers, to avoid scaring away those who might otherwise join in on the discussion.

I don't want to see the forum become a homogenous land of boredom either, but I hardly think my suggestion will result in Entropy...

TAM:)
Nah, I think DR meant that the subforum has already lapsed into complete entropy and no amount of energy injected in to the system will create any meaningful or lasting order. :)

[T.A.M.]

What does this mean? Is a introduction sticky for 911 truth excluded? If so why?

While I am at first suspicious of your desire to post a sticky for "truthers" here on the forums, I think it would be an ok thing. My view on it, as long as it is civl, and is not snide or derogatory in its points or overall nature, it should be allowed.

I would suggest that like us, you get some opinions from other "truthers" on what you want to include in your sticky.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

Well a not too positive suggestion for this section has been to rename it to "Abandon All Hope Volume 2".... :)

It is a shame that the forum has taken on this shape in the eyes of some. When I first came here, i didn't see it as such. Seems like too many have become so bitter, so annoyed, with all the pesky truthers, that the anger and pettiness that we often blame them for, has seeped in and spread like slime, coating the entire board.

TAM:)

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

While I am at first suspicious of your desire to post a sticky for "truthers" here on the forums, I think it would be an ok thing. My view on it, as long as it is civl, and is not snide or derogatory in its points or overall nature, it should be allowed.

I would suggest that like us, you get some opinions from other "truthers" on what you want to include in your sticky.

TAM:)
Thing is though, Darat's writeup is general to the subforum, while at the same time acknowledging the predominant topic of discussion here. Whereas, I believe, pagan's guide would be more of a foil to the LCG stickies. That's fine, but I think it should be made clear that it is a foil to those and not to the FAQ.

[Darat]

Oh I misunderstood Pagan's question.

Pagan the answer to your question would be work with the Members who are already working on a FAQ and a guide.

[ref]

So, to get back on point, what do we still need to add/modify, or are we close to getting it all together already? :)

[uk_dave]

A guide for newbies.......

"Get a life"

Will that do?

[ref]

A guide for newbies.......

"Get a life"

Will that do?

Dave, have you been to a pub too :rolleyes:

[uk_dave]

Dave, have you been to a pub too :rolleyes:

And here's me thinking I was hiding it so well!

Gotta love the adnams.

[ref]

And here's me thinking I was hiding it so well!

Gotta love the adnams.

Don't know what is adnams, but I loved the lagers :p

ETA: OK, a bit offtopic, but hey, we need a break sometimes.

[uk_dave]

Don't know what is adnams, but I loved the lagers :p

ETA: OK, a bit offtopic, but hey, we need a break sometimes.

If you ever get the chance, try the adnams....

http://www.adnams.co.uk/

I would just like to point out that I receive no remuneration or even any ****ing freebies for posting that link.

Though I should

[ref]

If you ever get the chance, try the adnams....

http://www.adnams.co.uk/

I would just like to point out that I receive no remuneration or even any ****ing freebies for posting that link.

Though I should

Have to keep that in mind :)

[gumboot]

I almost think the forums need a separate "9/11 Conspiracy Theories" subforum. Something akin to "Abandon All Hope".

-Gumboot

[Pope130]

I've got it! The general guide to conspiracy theories and conspiracy buffs could be called the "Wackopedia".

Robert

[Hawk one]

Was my particular suggestion (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2491913#post2491913) so bad you don't even want to reply to it? *sniff*

[ref]

Was my particular suggestion (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2491913#post2491913) so bad you don't even want to reply to it? *sniff*

Hawk, if you check my signature post, that is almost exactly like the one you suggested :)

[boloboffin]

Lisa: Definitely take a look at the link in ref's signature. It's not exclusively links to JREF posts, but there's a lot of them there and it's really well put together.

I too am very sad to hear that this subforum is producing a lot of grief for the JREF. I would say that most of us have found our way here after extended debates on other various and several sites, and the joy at finding like-minded people all over the globe has given way to some less than desirable situations. I suspect that truthers turning this place into a byword and a target is the least of your concerns, though. James Randi is no stranger to controversy.

I would hate to lose this place.

[westprog]

Lisa: Definitely take a look at the link in ref's signature. It's not exclusively links to JREF posts, but there's a lot of them there and it's really well put together.

I too am very sad to hear that this subforum is producing a lot of grief for the JREF. I would say that most of us have found our way here after extended debates on other various and several sites, and the joy at finding like-minded people all over the globe has given way to some less than desirable situations. I suspect that truthers turning this place into a byword and a target is the least of your concerns, though. James Randi is no stranger to controversy.

I would hate to lose this place.

Given the kind of people in the opposition, it's all too easy to let the level of discourse descend.

I'd recommend that when it all gets too much, just create a hotmail address, log in to the Loose Change groups, and let loose there. This will raise the standard of both forums. There's no need to show restraint because there's a certainty of being banned for content, rather than manner.

[Hawk one]

With regards to the problems, I'd like to know one thing: Is it also abnormally much problems even when considering that this has by far been the most popular sub-forum for the last year? I mean, it's not even a year old, and it's garnished so many posts already, that if the trend continues, it would be the most posted in subforum in JREF within a couple of years. If after this consideration, it's still significantly more troublesome than P&C, then perhaps there's cause for action.



ref: Yeah well, in that case, just have the mods make a stickied copy of that thread, then. ;)

[jhunter1163]

Thanks for the suggestions. I'll work up Version 4.0 when I get home from work in an hour or so. The one thing I want to say re: Darat's commentary is that by "introduce yourself" I meant some kind of statement of views and opinions regarding the conspiracy theory under discussion, and relevant qualifications, not necessarily a biography. If you're a Truther, you should say so up front, along with any qualifications you have that make your opinion carry more weight.

Sorry I didn't make that clearer up front. Otherwise, excellent suggestions and I'll certainly incorporate them.

[jhunter1163]

Mr. Randi's Guide to First-Post Manners, Ver. 4.0:

1. Introduce yourself. You don't have to tell your whole life story: just a quick summation will do.

2. State your opinions up front. Don't make your fellow posters drag them out of you. If you have qualifications (education or experience) relevant to your opinions, state them.

3. State your evidence for your opinions. Although new members can't post links till the 15th post, you can make your case and cite your sources. Others will provide linkage for you. Remember, we were all new once. If you are using mathematics, show your calculations.

However, you should keep in mind that this is a skeptical forum that is provided by an organization that promotes critical thinking: therefore your beliefs will be challenged. Don't take it personally and remember someone challenging your opinion or claim is not the same as someone insulting you.

4. Try for brevity in your posts. Most posters here won't read 10,000 copy-and-pasted words and will instead skip directly to challenging your claims. Try to sum up your arguments as concisely as possible. Also, see #3 above re: links if you must cite them.

5. Most of the popular conspiracy theories regarding 9/11 have been discussed here exhaustively. While we don't wish to discourage any member from airing his/her views, we do recommend using the search function to look for relevant threads before starting a new one. Also, the thread below contains links to rebuttals of many of these theories. You may wish to review it before posting.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=76025

If you feel you have something new to contribute regarding any theory, please feel free to do so. However, you should cite your sources and, again, be prepared to be challenged.

6. Many of the posters here have been discussing 9/11 theories for years. There are a number of acronyms that you will see frequently regarding these theories. You can find definitions for many of those acronyms in this thread:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=71713

I like this one. I think we're getting pretty close here. Anyone want to add or subtract anything? Thanks to all for your contributions.. :)

[T.A.M.]

I would just add a link to the "flame war" section for those who have come here to "flame" or find themselves in a "need to flame" situation.

TAM:)

[ref]

I like this one. I think we're getting pretty close here. Anyone want to add or subtract anything? Thanks to all for your contributions.. :)

It looks good to me :)

[jhunter1163]

Mr. Randi's Guide to First-Post Manners, Ver. 4.1:

1. Introduce yourself. You don't have to tell your whole life story: just a quick summation will do.

2. State your opinions up front. Don't make your fellow posters drag them out of you. If you have qualifications (education or experience) relevant to your opinions, state them.

3. State your evidence for your opinions. Although new members can't post links till the 15th post, you can make your case and cite your sources. Others will provide linkage for you. Remember, we were all new once. If you are using mathematics, show your calculations.

However, you should keep in mind that this is a skeptical forum that is provided by an organization that promotes critical thinking: therefore your beliefs will be challenged. Don't take it personally and remember someone challenging your opinion or claim is not the same as someone insulting you. The JREF does anticipate that there will be situations when emotions will get the better of our members: for those situations, this subsection has been provided.

http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=13

4. Try for brevity in your posts. Most posters here won't read 10,000 copy-and-pasted words and will instead skip directly to challenging your claims. Try to sum up your arguments as concisely as possible. Also, see #3 above re: links if you must cite them.

5. Most of the popular conspiracy theories regarding 9/11 have been discussed here exhaustively. While we don't wish to discourage any member from airing his/her views, we do recommend using the search function to look for relevant threads before starting a new one. Also, the thread below contains links to rebuttals of many of these theories. You may wish to review it before posting.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=76025

If you feel you have something new to contribute regarding any theory, please feel free to do so. However, you should cite your sources and, again, be prepared to be challenged.

6. Many of the posters here have been discussing 9/11 theories for years. There are a number of acronyms that you will see frequently regarding these theories. You can find definitions for many of those acronyms in this thread:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=71713

There are some other shorthand conventions that are covered in your welcome PM.

We welcome our new members and look forward to their contributions.

[jhunter1163]

Bumping for input from Down Under.