Dealing with 9/11 Madness (argumentum ad hominem veritas)

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by ANOK
It just means official story supporter.

All too often "OSer" has been used as a derogatory label applied to people who simply disagree with a conspiracy being discussed.

For example: Just because someone doesn't believe bombs were used in the WTC is no indication they support the official story.

edit on 5-9-2011 by SkepticOverlord because: (no reason given)

i understand that, just like when waypastvne puts at the end of his posts, "Wear It Truther!!" he is actually doing a virtual attack on the "truthers".....

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
No specific opinion is ever being protected... merely that of an environment where participants can anticipate a civil debate.

when shills and debunkers lie and distort the facts, that's not a "civil debate". that's my opinion. lol.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
All too often "OSer" has been used as a derogatory label applied to people who simply disagree with a conspiracy being discussed.

For example: Just because someone doesn't believe bombs were used in the WTC is no indication they support the official story.

When did that happen? If someone is wrongly called an OSer they can defend themselves, no?

OSer is not a derogatory term, unless you choose to take it as such. You OSer you!

Seriously we are discussing an act that resulted in 3000 dead, a never ending war in the ME, and you're concerned about calling OS supporters OSers? Sounds like a lot of whining over nothing to me.

reply to post by ANOK


Really though, ANOK, I find that using the term has caused problems all around. I will correct someone calling me an OS'er, and then another person will turn around and call me an OS'er for trying to debunk the use of explosives (or rather, prove the likelihood for a "natural" collapse).

I can't really get around it, and rather than derail a thread by defending myself every time, I just try to ignore it, and naturally, it leads to people making plenty of assumptions about my beliefs and as such, they treat me in specific ways which can be good or bad.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by backinblack
Obviously the OS believers would like nothing more...

And you have illustrated part of the problem.

It's not inherently evil to believe the "official story," and it's immature and impolite to denigrate people who do.

And yet it does seem somehow wrong to forbid a character attack on the seemingly endless river of mysterious "low count" posters who pop up only to defend the official story.

Am I wrong in assuming that your new rule also applies to posters who mock anyone who denies the official story, as well?

I would think it very hypocritical not to.

I agree that attacking anyone with a vulgar vehemence on your forums should not be allowed, but I don't think you can should sit there idle *if* we claimed that it feels very wrong that these so-called "sock puppet" posters are only strengthened by your decision regarding this matter.

Agree? Disagree?

I'm not asking you to defend your position. But I would like to know if there are any kind of actions being taken against sock puppet spam. Is this even a consideration for your staff? Do you even believe it's possible? Assuming you do think it's possible, what do you plan on doing about it?

You care enough to defend the official story believers, but how much are you doing to defend the official story deniers?

A lack of action in this regard would suggest you simply don't care. Rather it shows a bias, which is why you have some people believing it is "conspirator-y" in nature, as crazy as it sounds.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Where can we get a roadmap as to who is and who is not part of the "Truth Movement," when they claim to be part of the "Truth Movement."

I made a list in a previous post in this very thread here.

There are a few more that can be added, but that list makes up the bulk of the research organizations in the 9/11 truth movement.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Are "Pilots for 9/11 Truth" part of the group? If so, then they need to reevaluate John Lear's involvement.

Rob Balsamo would never take Lear's name off the short list of pilots. Lear has such an impressive resume. And just the name "Lear" alone commands respect in the aviation world. [/sarcasm]

It doesn't matter what nutty and whacky things Lear says (or types), Rob Balsamo feels special to have such a highly distinguished and recognized name in his list of pilots, regardless of what positions Lear holds.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
There is only one 9/11 truth movement.

Where can I join?

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Thirdly, if we desire to be ethical conspiracy theorists with a strong desire to see our conspiracies proven to be fact, we need debunkers to put our theories to the test so that we may reject what fails and focus on what works.

Even if they can't behave here?

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Thirdly, if we desire to be ethical conspiracy theorists with a strong desire to see our conspiracies proven to be fact, we need debunkers to put our theories to the test so that we may reject what fails and focus on what works.

Even if they can't behave here?

If a debunker cannot maintain decorum, then he/she does not belong. This is not a one-sided thing. SO was just pointing out that often-times, the "truther" side of the debate will begin breaking decorum first. Both sides have their issues, and heck, just yesterday I saw a well known debunker have his post marked as "9/11 Madness." That is proof of concept.

The rules apply for everyone, and everyone will be moderated on them.

This is getting really ridiculous, 'Oser's' 'Truther' and the application thereof when applied to anyone, or someone in particular. Why get het up over people making assumptions as to 'someone' being in one camp or another, that is but 'Ad Hominem' rhetoric, and all should understand that rhetoric has to be followed up with some fact.

Worse than that is a direct personal attack on a persons credibilty by calling them a liar without clarifying a proper rationale for saying as much, and/or they already know that someone is a 'liar' it's the same thing, yet it is allowed here at ATS. Having said that, what happened on 9/11 was the work of evil, and a lot of people died, and more will, and already have died in the aftermath, I know that, you know that, and the shills will seek to negate the aftermath, and quite frankly, there are but a few sincere people in the 9/11 posts who really want to be in the 'truther' camp, it is not a popular place to be.This is where we are at this time, and everything should be up for debate, no matter how miniscule it may seem.

reply to post by yourignoranceisbliss


Thanks, YourIggy, you have stated my beliefs quite eloquently.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord

Dealing with 9/11 Madness

I wondered how long before the 10th anniversary kicked up a storm here at ATS. I was really quite surprised that the poll was even run. Most MSM don't have the stones to even approach the subject and allow comments anymore. The distrust of the official story appears to run far deeper into our society than is generally recognized.

I think the same kind of thing would have happened had the internet been around for the assassinations of JFK, MLK and RFK. There was a lot of anger and tension brewing that never vented because there were no vents aside from protesting and letter writing then. Over time, the magma chamber under those events just gradually cooled... though it has never completely gone out.

ATS is in a kind of 'damned if ya do, damned if ya don't' position here with the subject matter and dedicated forums. I don't envy the mods whose task it is to keep it all under some nominal semblance of control. They prolly deserve a form of combat pay just for going in to have a look, lol!

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by backinblack
It's still a FACT that they are the ones that would like to see the forum gone.

No such "FACT" is known to exist.

We (ATS) have actually taken more "heat" from "9/11 truthers" for supporting a balanced discussion than those who favor the official story.

That might be true but it won't be a good enough reason for you to remove the forum. If you want to upgrade the warning then ban them immediately. Have a clear warning written where it says "you are an experienced contributor" (or somewhere) and if they ignore it - immediate ban with no exceptions.

Removing the forum will be reported all over the net as ATS censorship or worse. Surely it is obvious it would permanently harm the credibility of this site? I'm saying this and I don't even post on the 9/11 forum.

Deny ignorance.

reply to post by Pimander


Do you really think banning people won't have a similar effect as closing the forum. We already have people claiming things like ATS is censoring people and are a government front when people get banned. What do you think the response will be when numerous people start getting banned for discussing a topic as controversial as 9/11. As this thread clearly shows the Truthers don't believe they're the cause of the disruptive behavior and those who believe in the official story don't believe they're the cause of the disruptive behavior. So, when someone gets banned they're going to believe that there was no reason for it and claim they were being censored. No matter what ATS does they are going to lose face with the alternative news community. The tact they are taking now is one that will cause the least amount of controversy. However, if people can't be grown ups I see no reason why the forum shouldn't be taken down. No matter what extreme measures are taken to fix the problem there will be a similar level of blow back, so ATS might as well save their staff a lot of trouble and cut out the problem altogether. And in the end it won't be ATS' fault, but those of the users who couldn't have a simple civil discussion.

Much applause to SkepticOverlord.....

I, personally, in the past have been known to use derogatory terms in reference to members of the Truth Movement who have disagreed with me, and on occasion, have been slapped down by the mods...and rightfully so. For those posts that I have posted and caused a personal offense, I do apologize. I will try, in the future, to avoid making those comments in which cause that offense.

Again, kudos to Skeptic and the other mods (even the ones I rarely agree with on subjects) for doing the best job you can in dealing with the rest of us.

Viper

Just so you know i dont believe in the official story, as for what i believe may have happended thats everyones guess.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
It doesn't matter what nutty and whacky things Lear says (or types), Rob Balsamo feels special to have such a highly distinguished and recognized name in his list of pilots, regardless of what positions Lear holds.

That group needs to be aware that, a few years ago, John Lear made public posts that pretty much supported the following:
(1) an inexperienced person could be easily trained to accomplish the flight paths of the attacks
(2) the aircraft can easily tolerate the high speeds in the official report -- but not for an extended period
(3) the Shanksville crash site is consistent with an actual airliner crash

Once he was approached by the Pilots for Truth, he changed his entire story because of the attention he was getting.

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by Pimander

 

Do you really think banning people won't have a similar effect as closing the forum. We already have people claiming things like ATS is censoring people and are a government front when people get banned. What do you think the response will be when numerous people start getting banned for discussing a topic as controversial as 9/11.

They won't have been banned for discussing though will they? If the discussions continue after they are banned for T&C violations then that makes a huge difference to how the move will be perceived.

The kind of move suggested here is like banning the entire population from driving because some people drive like idiots. If someone drives like an idiot then you ban that driver. What I am saying is so obvious I'm losing the will to type here.

reply to post by Pimander


I understand what you're saying. You're saying that people should be banned if they're being disruptive and not contributing to the conversation. However, odds are they won't see it that way. Instead they will claim that they were censored and then bad mouth ATS to no end. Go to GLP or any other conspiracy site and check out threads regarding ATS. They are almost always started by people who have been banned from here, then they are supported by other people who have banned from here. This then leads to people who have never been here thinking poorly of the site. Now imagine what would happen if multiple people are being banned in a short amount of time (which will happen if a banning policy is enforced). I'm not saying closing the forum is an ideal solution, but I can understand where the ATS staff are coming from.

Maybe instead of banning or closing the 9/11 forum permanently it could be a temporary closing. Most of the people in there have been arguing on the same topics daily for years. At this point very little new information is being provided, but it is a subject people are very passionate about so they will keep arguing about it. The only problem is there really isn't anything new to debate about, so the only way one side can discredit the other is by attacking personalities. A temporary closing could give people a chance to let their tempers cool and maybe give people a chance to look at the evidence in a different way without the influence that hundreds of people researching for ten years brings.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord

1 and 2 I can agree with, number 3 is kind of up in the air for me personally.

Have you ever wondered why he changed his position or started taking some of the positions he did? Was it to deliberately discredit PFT? I guess we'll never know unless he comes forward and explains.