Creation of Critics corner

[ian neal]

As regular readers will have noticed the site has attracted a number of highly prolific critical voices to the forum of late

Specifically I am thinking of Gravy, Chipmunk Stew, Arkan Wolfshade, Jay Ref, Marky X, milesalpha

and from earlier times Conspiracy Theory Skeptic, State of Grace and Rachel

Now I would genuinely like to encourage respectful, evidence based debate with these critics but I am concerned that

1) The forum retains a space that is for discussion and an on line community for people that accept the campaign's statement on the front page....

"A United Call for a Further Investigation of 9/11

The 9-11 Commission has ‘failed’ in its mandate to provide an independent, impartial, “full and complete accounting” of the attacks of September 11, 2001. We believe the Commission is wrong in crucial respects and the available evidence indicates that US officials authored or facilitated the attacks and their cover-up. We demand full disclosure and accountability through a further independent investigation. We demand answers to the questions."

2) The forum does not become dominated by polarised (and judging by past experience repetative) debate between campaigners and our critics. To allow this will fundamentally change the nature of the forum and will turn away those who have no wish to read polarised and repetative debates

So the solution that I have proposed, that seems to widely supported and which other moderators agree to try is the creation of a 'critics corner'. This will be done in the next 24 hours.

For those who want a bit more background please read my posts here and here and here and here and here and here

That's enough background

Just to be clear our critics will be v welcome to post in the critics corner but not in other sections. They will also be able to cut and paste content from the other forum sections to include in their posts and so on

They are welcome to comment on this decision in this thread

Failure to respect this decision would result in their removal of posting rights, something moderators have never done before (other than to posters of porn) so something we hope to avoid.

This policy will be reviewed in light of experience.

Now the forum moderators encourage respect and discourage ad hominem attacks on all sections of the forum, but this is especially important when campaign supporters engage our critics. It serves no ones interest to allow the debate to descend into pointless name calling pantomime

Now when I look back, certain posters on both 'sides' are responsible for this and equally certain posters on both sides are unfailingly civil to each other. In the critics corner, the NO ad hominem principle will be enforced strongly.

Basically to those people who reckon all of these critics are 'shills' probably in the pay of the PTB. That's fine. I personally believe that the PTB probably do pay people to do such a function. I also believe there are people who are critical of us who are not in the pay of the PTB. I also reckon that some of us who post as supporters will be 'batting for the other side' as well. Smoke and mirrors and influencing both 'sides' of any movement. Isn't that what history teaches us. But none of us can prove this either way so idle speculation and name calling will not be tolerated.

The one exception is if people have concrete evidence that someone is not who they say they are, they can post such 'evidence' although you may wish to PM the moderators with such evidence so we can take an informed position

Feedback welcome

[dodgy]

Very good idea - and I promise that I will not tell anyone to play with their colouring book again It's hard to stay civil when threads are being hijacked and forced off topic, so a separate forum is the way forward imo.

[catfish]

I totally agree Ian.
I think this site is largely used by people who already know that 9/11 was an inside job, and would like to meet others who share their view. I think many people are waking up to the facts.

Someone like Jay Ref who has posted 46 times (and counting) in 5 days looks very suspicious, and seems to deliberately bait and goad to wind people up.

This forum can cope with critics but some discussion about our beliefs should be permitted without the, "you're all crazy conspiraloons who can't spell" junta, butting in on every post.

Thanks
Dave Bright

[Jay Ref]

[kbo234]

[catfish]

Never called you a liar there Jay.
I sincerely believe that one day we'll stand together as brothers and laugh at your indiscretions, until then, peace be with you.
David Bright

[CrazyBlade]

Hi Ian,

Whilst I understand and partially agree with the formation of a Critics Corner, I would offer a word or two of caution.

At the Loose Change forum, many of us have had run-ins and discussions with many of the posters you mentioned, and there is what is known as a Skeptics Forum there.

Unfortunately, its very hard to police members of the 'skeptics' community from posting outside a given area and, as such, are still able to post in other areas, thereby negating the purpose of a created area.

Also, it can be a distraction. Lets be honest, how many of these 'skeptics' are going to come around to what we believe?? True 'skeptics' like these I would number in the ZERO. They do not present themselves with an open mind and are therefore never going to be interested in meaningful discussion.

I would, if I was yourself, err on the side of caution. That would be my suggestion.

Kind Regards,

CrazyBlade

[chipmunk stew]

[Jane]

Catfish said:

[scar]

[chipmunk stew]

May I just remind you all that it's everyone's personal decision whether or not they respond to dissenting voices. You could consider it a distraction if people were coming here posting long lists of links or the same irrelevant posts over and over again, and like any spammer these people would be asking for a banning.

No one is forcing you to argue or debate. I don't see how you can rightly blame critics for wasting your time.

At JREF, there is a feature called Ignore, which you can select if you find someone's posts distracting, annoying, tedious, etc. Then it's up to the individual to decide whether or not to spend their own time with this person. Perhaps some such feature would be more appropriate.

We also have rules against spamming (among other things), and people do get banned from time to time. But the overall atmosphere is one of a free exchange of ideas and a pursuit of truth. Segregation of ideas stifles truth. The truth will always be able to withstand scrutiny and difficult probing. It's the ONLY thing that will withstand such attention.

If you stifle dissent, you run the risk of losing sight of the truth.

[blackcat]

[scar]

As an aside i would also say that i have noticed a particular phenomenon.
Many who play cricket used to play tiddly winks yet once they found cricket, they realised that tiddly winks, as its direct opposite, was rubbish.
Those who play tiddly winks or espouse its virtues 24/7 have yet to understand cricket or learn to play it. Cricket is harder to play and requires more dexterity and dedication to understand it.
Once you try you soon see how frivolous a pastime that old tiddlywinks nonsense was.
[i.e.
HOW MANY ''WAKE UP'' TO THE OFFICIAL STORY EVERY DAY?
none.]
This explains why the tiddlywinkers are so desperately trying to fill their ever decreasing ranks.

[scar]

[catfish]

I used to be a winker, but the winkers are blinkered, the worst winkers know that cricket is an altogether better game, but due to their incompetance they force themselves to carry on playing winks in the belief that the simplicity of winking makes them appear better at sports. If they are trying to get others to wink along with them I think they are winking in the wrong place, and maybe a special place for winkers could be afforded for them in the pavillion. I don't think we should ban the winkers, just let them know that cricket is an entirely more rewarding, harder to understand, and much more skillful game than trying to put the bowler off by standing behind the umpire winking. The winkers know who they are!!

[paul wright]

Winking Blinking and Nod
"Wednesday to Thursday, Friday to Saturday, Winking Blinking and Nod" I think Lou Reed had the first version of Satellite of Love
Ignore em
They're only here to take up time and space
Give them their own space called Mutual Masturbation Corner
That should make them feel reeeeaal good about themselves cos we love it, don't we? we love that toss off stuff
Hi Catfish - lovely to see you back
Hope you can maintain the presence soon

[scar]

I think the analogy between cricket and tiddly-winks is a v good one. Thanks to Jane for that.
In light of the mutual masturbation corner revelation I guess winkers corners could now be thought to mean something else when it was entirely innocent.

http://www.tiddlywinks.org/
Calling all winkers: Bring out your squidgers!

[Abandoned Ego]

Chipmunk Stew said

[paul wright]

[dodgy]

You know, I've had the exact same thoughts when reading the winkers posts! I thought there was some group winking going on... Having a winking session in a little circle, the only good output being creamy winky goodness shooting forth!

Give me a good length delivery of the shiny red balls any day, a full toss onto my bat and get me some openers!

oo-er missus!

[ian neal]

I see critics corner is now live.

Let those with an inclination to do so, proceed to debate the evidence

Obviously this will be a bit of an experiement and it works both ways.

On the side of the critics the request is clear. Please post nicely and respectfully in the critics corner and not elsewhere (except on this thread).

Where content from current or previous threads is relevent to an ongoing debate feel free to link to it or cut and paste the relevent information

On the part of people who support the campaign, please post nicely and respectfully when engaging our critics. Please try and cite the most accurate evidence available. Less is more. Take time responding.

It will probably end in a big bun fight but hey this is an opportunity to engage our critics in a space where 'we' control the moderation.

If you reckon our critics are a bunch of CIA financed shills, that is fair enough but repeating this opinion endlessly will end up where we are now. Lots of noise. So if this is your view I suggest the best policy is ignore 'them'.

This forum is not perfect, but what we have managed to create is more or less a respectful space where campaigners regardless of their differing takes on the details of 9/11 can link up and build a movement.

Given the acrimony that has plagued certain parts of the movement in the US with accusation and counter accusation flying between certain campaigners, the relative harmony and lack of schisms between people of different opinion is heartening.

[IronSnot]

I think there are other ways of derailing the forum, so personally I'm of the view this is not going to work. I post a lot on the Guardian and most of the posters on the 911 threads there support the official theory. I've become quite friendly with most of them and I certainly don't consider them shills. (although one almost certainly is)

And you would surely be aware that shills arn't necessarily going to challenge the Inside Job analysis. They might try a different approach, such as it was an inside job but it was organised from the secret base on the other side of the moon. Or other similar but idiotic nonsense, like the whole thing was done in Pixar's studios.

I havn't made my mind up about this bunch yet, but I think it's better they be allowed to continue posting in all parts of the board. The one very good thing they bring in my view is an awareness of how good our argument is going to need to be. There's a tendency if you're in broad agreement to perceive something to be incriminating which is not necessarily so obvious to others.

[John White]

These ideas are distinctive and I believe will prove effective:

BUT they require vigilant and active moderators: the campaign mght want to consider two to four more

Just to be clear, thats no comment on the current moderators, I'm behind the team here 100%, I'm just communicating that I see a need for a more perky approach

Another suggestion is for mods to dicuss their decisions in the Mods lounge and if required post them publically so the membership (and critics) can see how choices are being made

The important thing is Transparency when asked for, and thats worth its weight in gold to the intergrity of the campaign

In summary: This site is Great!

[ian neal]

[scar]

[kookomula]

Very, very funny....poor winkers.....

[Graham]

LMFAO @ the cricket analogy.

[TimmyG]

its the snakes and ladders tornament that going on in hotel bilderberg that i'm worried about


i'm happy to discuss with critics. if they claim to be independent thinkers i will debate with them until they either change they beliefs, give up or resort to stupid insults (in which case noones going to take them seriously)


part of our battle should be getting the average joe on the street to consider what we are saying. so it can be good practice arguing with these guys. in the past i've voiced my opinions on other forums and i've come up against some militant conservatives. i've had to do harder research to back up my arguement after questions. it turned out my instincts were right on the issues i was talking about and they had to resort to insults. which made their arguement look poor to spectators and more people considered what i was saying

[Jane]

[xmasdale]

[quote="Jane"]