A Plea: Stop Using the Term "Smoking Gun"

Until Rumsfled comes out and says "I did it" there is no "smoking gun"... there is only more circumstantial evidence. If you really have a "smoking gun" you will have IRREFUTABLE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE wiht an IRREFUTABLE CHAIN OF CUSTODY... something that is unfortunatly very difficult to obtain when one entity controls all of the evidence.

We ALL think that the one argument that is the most compelling to OURSELVES is the "smoking gun", HOWEVER, this is OPINION, not FACT.

Any real "smoking gun" will have the president on TV defending his administration... untill then using this term only HURTS the "truth movement".

Thanks,

Slappy McNuts

[edit on 20-10-2006 by Slap Nuts]

Hi SN,

You seem to be getting really wrapped up in the semantics of the whole thing. Your last thread was advocating that the term "CTer" be banned on ATS. I don't see how these language artifacts are hurting the "truth movement" in any real way. At most they are annoying when over-used by obnoxious debunkers or head-in-the-clouds conspiracy theorists, but they only truly have any power or influence if you let them by reacting to them.

Take the term "911 deniers", for instance. The intent of that term is to associate, in the mind of the reader, those who question the official account with holocaust deniers. That is so ridiculous it should simply be ignored for the childish piffle it is, but if you react to it make it known that it affects you and you therefore give it power. Come on, man. This is elementary school psychology here.

As for "smoking gun", does it really hurt anything if it is used as it should be according to your interpretation or not? Does it change any of the facts? Does it weaken or strengthen any case either way? No.

phrase unless it is derogatory to an ethnic group or likely to cause offense? To ban the phrase smoking gun is like saying its incorrect to say "its a conspiracy" without evidence. Lets face it most stories on this web site fail at least some of the tests that would rule them out of order in a court of law. Demanding a change of language is just silly and a waste of space.

I agree with the last two posters. Stop trying to mandate other people's language and just get on with whatever you feel you personally need to be doing on the matter.

Serious.

While I agree that no one should be policing specific wording of most, I kind of sympathise with this specific term.

Smoking Gun means irrefutable proof. I have yet to see any regarding this subject HOWEVER, I have seen the term used quite alot.

It does hurt the 'truth movement because people will, and are, start getting annoyed that they look at this SG proof and its not that.

I would suggest that if you have evidence that you believe to be irrefutable you try everyway you can to disprove it yourself, or get someone else to look over it, someone without bias preferably. Then if you have exhausted that avenue and still believe what you have is flawless evidence, THEN use the term.

I disagree. Smoking Gun does not equate to irrefutable proof in my mind. That's why it's dangerous to start calls to ban certain phrases. They tend to have different connotations to different sets of people.

Smoking Gun, to me, refers to circumstantial evidence very close to the actual set of events.

But then is that not your issue for taking what it actually means and amending it to suit you?
Smoking Gun is meant as conclusive proof or evidence.
Its taken the idea of finding a smoking gun on the person of a suspect wanted for shooting someone, which in that situation would be nearly unshakable proof of having committed the crime.
Those aren't my words, those are the words of the Wikipedia definition.
Granted I've issue with some things from Wikipedia however this isn't one of them as this is where the saying originates, I just couldn't personally have said it better than what is written.

Smoking Gun = Proof - Not Circumstancial evidence

No it's not to me amending it. It's to you and I taking it differently. If I find a person with a smoking gun on them and a dead body nearby I have the closest circumstantial evidence I can find. But not irrefutable evidence that person shot the victim. Irrefutable evidence would be a video tape of that person firing that gun and shooting the victim.

Serious.

I say we ban the term "red herring" too. People need to understand that a red herring is not an irrelevant or misleading piece of information designed to divert attention away from the truth. It is, in fact, a fish. And the sooner people realize this fact and start using the term properly, the sooner we can discover the truth of 911.

Well conspiracy theorists hate the terms "CTer" and "9/11 Deniers"...

I think CT'er and Denier are far more appropriate than Truth Seeker. Once you stop with the bias Alex Jones style research you will become a truth seeker. There are two sides to the story.

I'll stop calling you guys deniers and CT'ers the very second people stop calling me a NeoCon, Sheep, Facist and a Nazi.

Fair call?

As for Smoking Gun... grow up, get used to it.

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
I say we ban the term "red herring" too. People need to understand that a red herring is not an irrelevant or misleading piece of information designed to divert attention away from the truth. It is, in fact, a fish. And the sooner people realize this fact and start using the term properly, the sooner we can discover the truth of 911.

Actually, even more of an obstacle would be the use of "Occam's razor". Unless you're trying to shave "Occam's beard" off, I don't see how it can do anything but confuse the issue. I want to get rid of it too.

I did not ask for the term to be banned so please reread my post.

I am appealing to the rational to use the term in its correct context.

That is all.

Smoking Gun = Irrefutable, damming evidence... so far I have never seen this.

Originally posted by doctorfungi
I think CT'er and Denier are far more appropriate than Truth Seeker.

Left, middle, right.

has it occured to you that some are truly seeking the truth and could change thier mind to the gov't story? Would they be a "denier" or a "truth seeker"?

Dr. Fungi... Feel free to call me a "denier" if I can call you "in denial".

Originally posted by Silk Demanding a change of language is just silly and a waste of space.

Agreed. What's next? We can't mention James Arness? I think the rules for this forum are laid out pretty clearly. Unless it's covered here, or one of the staff request for you to not use a phrase it's fair game.

Originally posted by Silk
Demanding a change of language is just silly and a waste of space.

How is an open plea a demand?

It is exactly this lack of basic comprehension that I am attempting to address here.