Organized Debunker Group

[Totovader]

While flyering at the LC:FC showing here in Minneapolis, I kept getting asked "What group are you with?"

At first, this seemed like a silly question to me- I need to be representing some organization in order to have a legitimate concern?

The more I think about it, however, the more it seems like it may be advantageous to- at the very least- identify ourselves as a group of some kind. (I often refer to myself as a member of the JREF forums, but that really isn't a group and forgetting to say "forums" can get you demoted in the NWO ranks). I remember that Gravy also wanted an email list at one point so he could push some of the media inquiries off to other individuals in order to have some time to himself. Well, when the media wants to know the facts, going to "Totovader of no particular organization, just a guy with too much time on his hands" doesn't seem too appealing.

I want to be clear- I'm not whining that we need "organization" or "leaders" ala Twoofers, but I do believe that belonging to some kind of an organization at least gives a bit of credibility.

Thoughts?

[T.A.M.]

While I agree it might give some degree of legitimacy, I think the reputation of the JREF CT Subforum speaks for itself within the truther community.

I kind of like the idea that a group of ordinary people with no "cause", no "movement" is the bane of their existence.

TAM:)

[16.5]

I see your point, but truth be told, it seems a little late to bother:

LC:FC dropped with a resounding "meh."

The only ones who seem to be making any noise anymore are the bat stuff insane No-Planers, who are self-debunking.

[Mr. Skinny]

While flyering at the LC:FC showing here in Minneapolis, I kept getting asked "What group are you with?"

At first, this seemed like a silly question to me- I need to be representing some organization in order to have a legitimate concern?

The more I think about it, however, the more it seems like it may be advantageous to- at the very least- identify ourselves as a group of some kind. (I often refer to myself as a member of the JREF forums, but that really isn't a group and forgetting to say "forums" can get you demoted in the NWO ranks). I remember that Gravy also wanted an email list at one point so he could push some of the media inquiries off to other individuals in order to have some time to himself. Well, when the media wants to know the facts, going to "Totovader of no particular organization, just a guy with too much time on his hands" doesn't seem too appealing.

I want to be clear- I'm not whining that we need "organization" or "leaders" ala Twoofers, but I do believe that belonging to some kind of an organization at least gives a bit of credibility.

Thoughts?
Do you do this kind of thing often? I could kind of see your point if you did it frequently, but I'm guessing this is rare for you.

Can't you just say you're Totovader; Minneapolis resident and conspiracy theory debunker?

I think trying to define yourself as Totovader; JREF forum member, will just make people think: "JREF?" "What's JREF?".

Besides, aren't you active on other debunker forums? Why use JREF?

[uk_dave]

I want to be clear- I'm not whining that we need "organization" or "leaders" ala Twoofers, but I do believe that belonging to some kind of an organization at least gives a bit of credibility.

Thoughts?

Hmmmmm NWO not good enough now, eh?

[Reality Believer]

How about: Human Race - Sanity Division.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

unofficially CSI (formerly CSICOP)?

[Dave Rogers]

I don't see much point to having an organisation, and at least one significant drawback. Let's suppose we were all a member of Debunkers' Online Helpline (or D'oh! for short), and a member goes to a showing of LCFC to hand out seventeen flyers (one for each member of the audience). What's the expected response? Is it, "I see you're representing a properly constituted organisation, therefore I shall take your points seriously"? Or is it, "Dylan Avery told us about D'oh! being a front organisation for the Department of Homeland Security that's funded by the CIA, and the fact that you've got the funds to produce these glossy flyers proves that you've got sources of finance that originate with the Federal Reserve..." Actually I didn't have the patience to listen to my own rant, but you get the general idea. Someone acting as an individual is a lot harder to dismiss by association.

Dave

[JamesB]

Hmm, but if you started an organization, than I would have to split off from it to form my own sect and accuse you of being a government shill. I mean, don't all organizations work that way?

Brian: Excuse me. Are you the Judean People's Front?
Reg: *$#^ off!
Brian: Excuse me?
Reg: Judean People's Front. We're the People's Front of Judea! Judean People's Front. Cawk.
Francis: Wankers.
Brian: Can I... join your group?
Reg: No, piss off.
Brian: I don't want to sell this stuff, it's only a job. I hate the Romans as much as anybody.
Judith: Are you sure?
Brian: Oh, dead sure. I hate the Romans alrighty.
Reg: Listen. If you really wanted to join the P.F.J., you'd have to really hate the Romans.
Brian: I do!
Reg: Oh, yeah? How much?
Brian: A lot!
Reg: Right. You're in. Listen. The only people we hate more than the Romans are the *#&$ing Judean People's Front.
Stan: Yeah, the Judean People's Front.
Reg: Yeah. Splitters.
Stan: And the Popular Front of Judea.
Reg: Yeah. Splitters.
Stan: And the People's Front of Judea.
Reg: Yea... what?
Stan: The People's Front of Judea. Splitters.
Reg: We're the People's Front of Judea!
Stan: Oh. I thought we were the Popular Front.
Reg: People's Front!
Francis: Whatever happened to the Popular Front, Reg?
Reg: He's over there. [points to a lone man]
Reg, Stan, Francis, Judith: SPLITTER!

[T.A.M.]

ah Python...:D

TAM:)

[defaultdotxbe]

"no group, im just a concerned citizen"

[Totovader]

Do you do this kind of thing often? I could kind of see your point if you did it frequently, but I'm guessing this is rare for you.

Can't you just say you're Totovader; Minneapolis resident and conspiracy theory debunker?

I think trying to define yourself as Totovader; JREF forum member, will just make people think: "JREF?" "What's JREF?".

Besides, aren't you active on other debunker forums? Why use JREF?

Depends on how active the local groups start getting- they're passionate... that's for sure. If other debunkers and I have to start going to more of these events to counter the lies- a group name or identification beyond "JREF forums" might be better...

But then again, isn't the "Truth Movement" dying out?

[LastChild]

Thoughts?

Do you need some mascots?

http://www.zipworld.com.au/~josken/monkeys.jpg

[Anti-sophist]

I got a good name:

The Concerned-Onlookers-Investigating-Nefarious-Truther-Embellishments-and-Lies Program

[Disbelief]

Can't you just say you are with the NWO? If not, how about the Masons? Illuminati?

[GreNME]

To have an organization there needs to be a unified purpose. "To debunk twoofers" might seem like a unified purpose, but it's very broad and can be vague. That might be a good sub-goal for an organization, but it's not specific enough to form a basis for organization. In fact, one of the weaknesses of the "truth movement" is an overall general lack of specific goals-- they tend to be so all over the place that there is very little, if any, organization when they are together in groups.

I don't know that I have a full opinion one way or the other for the formation of an organization, but I don't know if there is an overwhelming need for one.

[Reality Believer]

....
But then again, isn't the "Truth Movement" dying out?
Oh man, don't say that or Greenpeace will be all over our case for endangering a species.

[contra]

I would just suggest a name that shortens to NWO... as a joke; however the conspiracy people would take that as evidence we are part of hte NWO and use logical falacies to dismiss us...

I never underestimate the ability of people not to get sarcasm

[Totovader]

I would just suggest a name that shortens to NWO... as a joke; however the conspiracy people would take that as evidence we are part of hte NWO and use logical falacies to dismiss us...

I never underestimate the ability of people not to get sarcasm

Eh- they don't require evidence...

[T.A.M.]

New World Operatives
Nice Wonderful Oddballs
Nifty Witty Omniscients

TAM;)

[Brainache]

Nice With Onions?
New World Odor?
Not Without Opinions?

[PhantomWolf]

Next Order Window?

[defaultdotxbe]

Eh- they don't require evidence...
your right, they dont, but when they have evidence its make it like doubletrue

[OldTigerCub]

I got a good name:

The Concerned-Onlookers-Investigating-Nefarious-Truther-Embellishments-and-Lies Program

Can't you just say you are with the NWO? If not, how about the Masons? Illuminati?

Hehe...."Concerned Onlookers" has a nice ring to it.
I would admit to being a Mason if I thought it was cool enough, but the most sinister thing my lodge has done lately was donate money to an "old folks home".:p

[boloboffin]

I personally recommend you say you're the ambassador from Reality, but I'm a recalcitrant smartypants.

[FactCheck]

There has been a loose knit organization of debunkers for over a year. We have 41 members. Some of them from half way around the world.

I don't know what I would have done without them. We double check our facts and help each other weed out bad logic and evidence. The beauty is we don't get bogged down with twoofers misapplied science and quote mining. Some of the videos created and shown here are in part a result of this cooperation.

While I think a large group of scientists are needed to counter the so called "Scholars" I don't think a group of debunkers with a fancy name will help. "Debunkers for 9/11 sanity" sounds great to me but it only gives a target for twoofers to attack.

I'm sure the con men at prisonplanet and infowars will take even this out of context. I can see it now... "Debunkers admit conspiring to misslead the public on 9/11!!!" It's just what con men do...

[Thunder]

Im sure the JREF Forum, if investigated by Americans, would have much more respect then the Truthers.

[The Doc]

I thought we were the George Bush Appreciation Society ;). Well, that's what the conspiracists tell me anyway.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

I just belong to Crazy insane experiments are us, either I am the only original member or the rest have blown themselves up already!:D
What group would I actually fit into, I have never fit in anywhere before.
I once spent a day under psychiatric observation after telling a police officer in Tenn. what I did for a living and what else I did just for fun.
What good is a name or a tag, we all know JERF will be here, debunker's are debunker's and honest researchers are honest researchers Truthers only formed a group because no one else would believe them.
I personally feel better alone in this with just a little help when I need it I like to argue basically from my own experience and point of reference in my own way.

[JMarshall]

In all honesty being part of a group doesn't give you any extra credibility, but it does have the bonus of organization amongst the members... The first part isn't really a point though since we use facts, and as such the only ones questioning our credibility are twoofers, but the second point would be a great ability...

Some posible names: (Note: some are whimsical, and light-hearted, but I'm just throwing them out there for laughs!)

Debunkers For Hire

Gobment Shills R Us

None Won Over

9-11Fact (Obviously a parody of their 9-11Truth, but I'm sure I didn't have to actually point that out... Now you just have to ask why did I point it out? And for that matter why did I actually type this bracketed comment out?)

Organized Debunkers International (or ODI for short)

Facts First

To tell you the truth I was never any good at making up names...

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Candles In The Dark (nod to Sagan's Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark). Also suggests candle vigils, thus implying the respect we hold of the victims of that day. The name itself is also in-specific enough to be applicable to things beyond 9/11. Imagery suggests "lighting the way". etc

[JMarshall]

Candles In The DarkImagery suggests "lighting the way". etc

I really like it! Hmm, am going to start designing a few draft images....

[Travis]

I like Candles In The Dark too.

It evokes nice imagery.

[Totovader]

Except that as Sagan's metaphor it was appropriate: science fighting against the overwhelming opposition of religion, pseudoscience, crackpottery, etc... In the 9/11 conspiracy theory scenario, "we" are in the majority.

It is nice imagery, though...

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Except that as Sagan's metaphor it was appropriate: science fighting against the overwhelming opposition of religion, pseudoscience, crackpottery, etc... In the 9/11 conspiracy theory scenario, "we" are in the majority.

It is nice imagery, though...
The Floodlights of Common Sense?

[Gravy]

Scum-Away (http://www.instawares.com/scum-away-tub-tile.494pl.0.7.htm)

[Gravy]

The Floodlights of Common Sense?Thermite to the Benighted?

[quixotecoyote]

What happened to the Organized Skeptical Movement? Isn't that still going?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

What happened to the Organized Skeptical Movement? Isn't that still going?
Splitters! The Movement of Organized Skeptics is the true way!

[quixotecoyote]

Nah, you only think you split. Just like the people who don't know they're members.

[chillzero]

I think no matter whether there was a formally organised group, or loosely grouped people like on JREF, opposers will select an individual to vent their anger at anyway. Look at how believers speak against Randi, and we have seen exactly the same here with Gravy. It doesn't matter - they need one person to villify, as if that negates the errors in their reasoning. They find minutae to pick out and shout about... Randi doesn't actually own a million ... Gravy is a tour guide ... etc.. So what? If they had any upholdable arguement they would accept the opposition of a group, and involve themselves willingly in open debate and discussion instead of slagging off individual members.

It's never going to happen.

[Dave Rogers]

I like Candles In The Dark too.

I'd worry about the tune we use for the company song.

Dave

[Hyperviolet]

How about :

The Nu-Wurld Orda Propaganda Unit
AKA
David Rockefeller's Rockin' Fellas

[peteweaver]

meccano experts for true 9/11 truth ?