the discussion saga from here, there and everywhere.
Light weight on 911, generally speaking of course!
Mon, 2010-07-19 12:54
#1
remind
Light weight on 911, generally speaking of course!
Mon, 2010-07-19 12:56
#2
Is this a continuation of the collapse threads, or is it a continuation of the meta-discussion about babble's concensus?
They are two different topics.
Mon, 2010-07-19 12:58
#3
remind
Given that all the differing titles on 911, they are really still all about the same thing, there is no real topic structure, just fancier ways of trying to deconstruct the opposing sides, so why not just have a continuing 911 thread, to discuss all parameters, just like we do for polling. ;)
Mon, 2010-07-19 13:00
#4
Which goes to the pattern of exaggerating and twisting the position you disagree with rather than dealing with the substance of the post
(snip)
We had postulations that vaccination was genocide, Vitamin C causes cancer, links to really, really questionable sites, accustions of being in the employ of Big Pharma or being "cointelpro trolls"... It was more than "Meh, just a money grab".
Well to be fair I don't think anyone here suggested the vax program was genocide. It was more along the lines of "look what is going around the nets these days...." At least that is all that turned up in my searches. And I think the assertion was that Vitamin C cures cancer, not causes it.
As for links to questionable sites, oh well. We are all capable of making our own decisions, I don't think we need questionable-site-police wrt these threads. Sure, blatant racist or homophobic sites, keep them off of babble. But getting our knickers in a twist because someone somewhere promotes ear candling or colon cleansing or vitamin C or colloidal silver? Really, I think we need to give one another (and the entire thinking public) more credit. I don't need you to make sure I don't accidentally stumble across a natural cures site, I am totally capable of deciding for myself what I will take seriously and what I will roll my eyes at.
And I like to think that everyone else here is fully capable of making their own rational, considered decisions as well.
*As for the cointelpro trolls, I had forgotten about that. For the record, I don't think you are one.
Edited to add - it took me so long to type this that I cross posted with Remind on last thread. So moving this here.
Mon, 2010-07-19 13:00
#5
Given this is light weight, can we switch to 411?
Mon, 2010-07-19 13:01
#6
Given that all the differing titles on 911, they are really still all about the same thing, there is no real topic structure, just fancier ways of trying to deconstruct the opposing sides, so why not just have a continuing 911 thread, to discuss all parameters, just like we do for polling. ;)
Becasue they are two different topics.One is about a pair of buildings that fell down. The other is about how we decide what is commonly accepted knowledge. Please note the lack of discussion concerning H1N1 vaccination in the 9/11 threads.
Mon, 2010-07-19 13:19
#7
remind
No pants I don't see it that way, the meta discussion, as it always is, is really all about trying to discredit those discussing, be it from either side. Point, counter point.
So...IMV, given that the "other" threads are always referenced anyway, in any 911 discussion, and in the "meta" one too, why not just keep one continuing saga going, and discuss all parameters in it. Just as we do in the polling threads, we discuss meta and actual data. But one connects to the other, so all can go back and have boo about polls a year ago...for example,
...or perhaps you all should just have a 911 forum, to keep the collection together, so it does not get tracked about the place.
Mon, 2010-07-19 13:20
#8
Mon, 2010-07-19 13:22
#9
No pants I don't see it that way, the meta discussion is really all about trying to discredit those discussing the fall down, be it from either side. Point, counter point.
I have no idea why you are characterising it that way. I have not made any attempt at discrediting anybody.
So IMV, given that the "other" threads are always referenced anyway, in any 911 discussion, and in the "meta" one, why not just keep one continuing saga, and dicuss all parameters in it. Just as we do in the polling threads, we discuss meta and actual data. But one connects to the other so all can go back and have boo about polls a year ago.......or perhaps you all should just have a 911 forum, to keep the collection together, so it does not get tracked about the place.
I see. It is apparently normal on babble to allow mingling of different topics.
Mon, 2010-07-19 13:27
#10
remind
Not whether it is allowed or not, it just always happens, again the meta thread weigh in on 911, is a fine example of not really differing topics at all.
pretentious perhaps, but not different.
Mon, 2010-07-19 13:31
#11
Catchfire
remind, pants is right, they are two different topics, and he was not trying to discredit anyone. This:
pretentious perhaps, but not different
is a personal attack. You've been warned repeatedly against this. If you can't talk to someone without insulting them, don't engage.
Mon, 2010-07-19 13:38
#12
U2 "40" is starting to come to mind. 
Mon, 2010-07-19 13:58
#13
I like UB40 myself.
Mon, 2010-07-19 14:16
#14
remind
remind, pants is right, they are two different topics, and he was not trying to discredit anyone. This:pretentious perhaps, but not differentis a personal attack. You've been warned repeatedly against this. If you can't talk to someone without insulting them, don't engage.
Please do explain who I personally attacked, as stating an opinion that a meta thread is pretentious, is hardly a personal attack.
And really? After all the real attacks that go on in this place, like for example those 2 above, you now jump in and state my opinion comments on meta threads are personal attacks, eh?!
Good to see the gang is all here....
Mon, 2010-07-19 14:21
#15
It's really not always about you Remind. Post #11 was a message to Catchfire. I can't speak for Al-Q.
Mon, 2010-07-19 14:31
#16
remind
Oh yes, caissa, I see...you just wanted to give catchfire a "message" in this thread, out of coincidence, after catchfire gives me a "warning".
:rolleyes:
Oh and catchfire, please do tell me, just who did I insult by declaring meta threads were pretentious? As you know, I take part in plenty of them myself and am fully aware of how pretentious I am being, while doing so.
Mon, 2010-07-19 14:35
#17
remind
Are you telling me I do not know attack upon me when I experience one?
Mon, 2010-07-19 14:35
#18
Are you calling me a liar, Remind?
ETA: There's the lyrics. There is an inside joke to Catcfire.
Mon, 2010-07-19 14:36
#19
That does seem to be the case in at least this instance.
Mon, 2010-07-19 14:48
#20
remind
Okay, how about you tell me how I should take it, given the lyrics for "40"?
Because, as far as I am concerned, couched in your message to catchfire, was definite disparaging of me, as I feel you were commiserating with catchfire, at MY expense.
Mon, 2010-07-19 15:00
#21
So I googled the lyrics to US "40" to see if they could indeed be filled with a message that bore any relevance to the discussion or to the interplay between Catchfire and Remind.
There is nothing obvious, or even particularly subtle. One would probably have to do a lot of interpreting and reading in, in order to find offense.
I'm not sure what the point of that is. Or of this thread-drift.
Mon, 2010-07-19 15:07
#22
remind
Really?
I have always taken the lyrics to mean, a call asking the powerful to just change things, mainly according to paternal dictates, so I took it as a call to just ban me already and get it over with...
Mon, 2010-07-19 15:09
#23
Catchfire
I don't get the inside joke. Caissa and al-Q, I think remind is right in that your posts in this thread contribute to a "gang-up" type mood, and they also implicate me in this gang up when I was trying to moderate a personal attack. Please consider that the next time you feel compelled to post after another such intervention. Aside from being disrespectful to remind, it makes moderators' jobs very difficult.
remind, the juxtaposition of your criticism of pants-of-dog and then the comment calling behaviour pants engages in "pretentious" was interpreted by me to be a poorly camouflaged personal attack. As you know, intent doesn't matter so much as results and impact. So refrain from making remarks that are so easily interpreted as such. This is not a discussion, incidentally.
So: stop making personal attacks and stop ganging up on babblers censured by moderators. Cool? Now, back to the "thread topic."
Mon, 2010-07-19 15:33
#24
A side question...was the 'weigh in' thread that was closed meant to be stickied?
Mon, 2010-07-19 15:33
#25
remind
All I can say is "fair enough" I will make every effort to be more concise in my meaning, to afford no interpretation other than what I mean, as really I was not criticizing pants, nor making a poorly camourflaged personal attack, as I was speaking with him, not speaking at him. So if pants felt I was telling him he was pretenous, I make full apology, as I was not and would not like him to think that.
Was very serious in my explanation, that I see the 911 threads much the same as polling threads. We talk about data collection and other meta factors about the polls and poll taking, while discussing the results of the polls themselves, in the continuous linked polling threads.
Perhaps was being a little cute with the suggestions of a forum, but that was just a funny to indicate I was being cute about how many 911 threads there still were a decade later. Perhaps that threw my meaning off. But I really do think 911 threads should be linked, as they are referenced and cross referenced continually, even in meta threads, as we can see from the meta thread in question.
And I agree about resulting impact of words and we all would do well to remember that, and I will endeavour to do so myself, and will indicate to you, when I see others caring little about "results" and "impact", as well, in fact I will book mark this thread for future reference sake.
Thank you for your clarification.
Mon, 2010-07-19 15:43
#26
I don't get the inside joke. Caissa and al-Q, I think remind is right in that your posts in this thread contribute to a "gang-up" type mood, and they also implicate me in this gang up when I was trying to moderate a personal attack.
I think we truthers have to learn not to be intimidated by the gang-ups. Thread gangsters usually flee the discussion when encouraged to post something on-topic anyway and tend to steer themselves into the rhubarb and out of sight. I realize I have to learn not to follow them in their offroad journey.
Mon, 2010-07-19 15:43
#27
I did not feel that remind was attacking me at all, if that makes any difference.
Mon, 2010-07-19 15:48
#28
A side question...was the 'weigh in' thread that was closed meant to be stickied?
Another side question....what does "stickied" mean?
Mon, 2010-07-19 15:50
#29
A side question...was the 'weigh in' thread that was closed meant to be stickied?
Another side question....what does "stickied" mean?
Means it stays at the top. Usually reserved for really important topics...I'm assuming it was done by mistake :)
Mon, 2010-07-19 19:05
#30
I don't get the inside joke. Caissa and al-Q, I think remind is right in that your posts in this thread contribute to a "gang-up" type mood, and they also implicate me in this gang up when I was trying to moderate a personal attack.
Sorry Catchfire, but I wasn't even remotely thinking about Remind (whose posts I had scrolled past), but merely noticed that whatever Caissa posted right before my post resembled "UB40." I have no idea what Caissa is referring to.
There is no inside joke.
Mon, 2010-07-19 20:19
#31
remind
I did not feel that remind was attacking me at all, if that makes any difference.
Well, it makes a difference to me, at least, thank you for stating that.
I was quite alarmed that you may have thought so, but was not sure how it could be so, and after catchfire's repeated assurances that indeed I was, even though he seemed to recognize that I had no intent upon doing so, I thought maybe perhaps I was inadvertantly doing so, so really do thank you again, for your kind assurances. It puts my mind to rest.
Mon, 2010-07-19 20:51
#32
I assumed, Remind, because you have a caustic way sometimes. When I reread your post though, I couldn't understand how I could have read it so wrong. I think it's because my reaction to your characterisation of the meta threads being about discrediting others (which I still disagree with, but that's not the point). So that annoyed me, and I read your next post in annoyance, and got annoyed :D
Which suggests to me that reading whilst annoyed is bad for reading comprehension at times.
Mon, 2010-07-19 22:12
#33
Hmm, a new offence under the Information Superhighway Act? Reading While Annoyed? RWA?
I was thinking about making a substantive response to some Fidel and jas posts about fire sizes but I think this thread is about the discussion, Remind wants to mix things up and pants wants to keep them separate. I am going to support pants on this point. Discussions about discussions are definately possible and occaisionally instructive. They can be used as a tactic to derail substantive discussions, but not all meta discussions are designed to do that (pace remind), in fact, in separate threads that is much less likely to occur.
Mon, 2010-07-19 22:42
#34
remind
Hmmm...perhaps discredit, is the wrong word, or too strong of one, Yiwah, however I have found meta threads are usually started to gain advantage over the positioning of others, or by asking for a band wagon, or a appeal to authority, effect, which when you boil it down is actually to discredit, or undercut the other person's positioning, or a position that has been presented of a third party, through the use of a meta discussion. They break out all the time here and I have probably been involved with, or started 100's myself. :D
Perhaps imposing a tone on someone else's words, is not always a good thing, as I have found through personal experience. ;)
etd: as cross posted with jrootham
Well I agree sometimes a meta discussion is useful, but not often. In the case of the 911 threads, given the amount of cross referencing there is, to use in the meta discussion, is there really any point?
because if you have not been following, really you do not know whether someone has presented things correctly, or accurately at least, and then it becomes a hunt to find which thread it was in.
This thread however, is now pointless for what you want to post, I agree,
Mon, 2010-07-19 22:49
#35
"I was thinking about making a substantive response to some Fidel and jas posts about fire sizes but I think this thread is about the discussion,"
Well, I'd like to hear this, and I'd like the original conversation to continue. These so-called meta-threads where everyone just bitches at each other for real or imagined slights are far more destructive to babble than those about topics that may seem flaky to the average lurker.
Mon, 2010-07-19 23:02
#36
Go ahead and start one, kids. I may sit this one out. The only thread I want to participate in now would be one called "Where is the piledriver in the Bazant/NIST hypothesis?" Because, as far as I can tell, without a piledriver, the theory is no longer merely silly, it is toast.
But I don't feel like starting one just yet.
Mon, 2010-07-19 23:24
#37
I don't get the inside joke. Caissa and al-Q, I think remind is right in that your posts in this thread contribute to a "gang-up" type mood, and they also implicate me in this gang up when I was trying to moderate a personal attack.
I think we truthers have to learn not to be intimidated by the gang-ups. Thread gangsters usually flee the discussion when encouraged to post something on-topic anyway and tend to steer themselves into the rhubarb and out of sight. I realize I have to learn not to follow them in their offroad journey.
I'm afraid I can second that - a certain poster who continually interrupts the 911 discussions with nothing substantial to add at all beyond suggesting we all have no right to comment because we haven't proven our expertise in some way acceptable to h** has been manageing to goad me much too easily into getting away from the topic at hand .. 
Tue, 2010-07-20 00:53
#38
remind, pants is right, they are two different topics, and he was not trying to discredit anyone. This:
pretentious perhaps, but not differentis a personal attack. You've been warned repeatedly against this. If you can't talk to someone without insulting them, don't engage.
- good god, if 'pretentious' is going to be banned on babble, we better get somebody working on a 'dictionary of approved adjectives' or something - I suppose Orwell would be a good place to start ..
oooooo!!!!!! doublebadthink citizen!!!! censor yourself immeidately!!
Tue, 2010-07-20 02:36
#39
I'm afraid I can second that - a certain poster who continually interrupts the 911 discussions with nothing substantial to add at all beyond suggesting we all have no right to comment because we haven't proven our expertise in some way acceptable to h** has been manageing to goad me much too easily into getting away from the topic at hand ..
And that's understandable. They will be thinking along the same lines that we do and something like, I've made up my mind, and there are experts to back me up. The problem is that truthers also have experts to appeal to as authoritative opionators. Both sides refer to experts on the matter, and it's because we can't know everything about everything ourselves. And this is essentially how society operates: by people cooperating and collaborating on ideas and delegating tasks, and then people who do the tasks, exchanging information etc. Or at least, this is generally how things are supposed to work in a civilized society. But 9/11 is just one of those things where a line has been drawn in the sand, and it's because? Because why, really? It isn't really Liberal Democrats versus Conservative Republicans or the mirror image parties versus one another here in Canada. Not really. Not when we dig deeper and really look at the heart of the matter. Because truth seekers are from all walks of life and political stripe. We think there has been a colossal coverup by all of the warmongering plutocrats working in unison together. 9/11 is deep state politics(Peter Dale Scott) which just isn't discussed by the MSM as a rule. Not all of the plutocrats understand what went down on 9/11. And they are the ones who have quietly come to understand that 9/11 was another one of those covert black operations and shall be buried and ignored and left alone by them as if the issue is a political equivalent of the black plague. Every one of the plutocrats in power and political opposition realize that 9/11 was just another dirty job done for the sake of an empire ruled by powerful elites. 9/11 is another one of those issues where transparency and accountabiliy would represent a threat to status quo and political power still in the hands of those who have owned it for too long.
Tue, 2010-07-20 07:43
#40
I have noticed that there have been many threads criticising the officially accepted theory of the WTC attacks.
Has there ever been a thread that critically analyses the controlled demolition hypothesis?
Tue, 2010-07-20 08:51
#41
I'm afraid I can second that - a certain poster who continually interrupts the 911 discussions with nothing substantial to add at all beyond suggesting we all have no right to comment because we haven't proven our expertise in some way acceptable to h** has been manageing to goad me much too easily into getting away from the topic at hand ..
I've you are oh so subtly trying to refer to me, please note that the bulk of my comments have been made in threads OUTSIDE of the actual substantive WTC discussions, specifically so as not to derail said substantive discussions.
No one forces you into the meta threads, or makes you mischaracterise and misunderstand the arguments I've made. You do that on your own.
Though you are consistent in that your personal attacks and smears happen in both the substantive discussions and the meta threads.
Please do rant again about the mainstream media and how anyone who disagrees with you is a puppet thereof.
Tue, 2010-07-20 09:21
#42
I'm afraid I can second that - a certain poster who continually interrupts the 911 discussions with nothing substantial to add at all beyond suggesting we all have no right to comment because we haven't proven our expertise in some way acceptable to h** has been manageing to goad me much too easily into getting away from the topic at hand ..
I've you are oh so subtly trying to refer to me, please note that the bulk of my comments have been made in threads OUTSIDE of the actual substantive WTC discussions, specifically so as not to derail said substantive discussions.
No one forces you into the meta threads, or makes you mischaracterise and misunderstand the arguments I've made. You do that on your own.
Though you are consistent in that your personal attacks and smears happen in both the substantive discussions and the meta threads.
Please do rant again about the mainstream media and how anyone who disagrees with you is a puppet thereof.
- I don't know where you came from, but you might as well return thence - my days of getting sucked into wasting time responding to your taunts are finished.
Note to mods - I will be requesting that anyone whose only purpose of posting anywhere is disrupting an ongoing conversation by insulting the other posters be requested to cease and desist.
Tue, 2010-07-20 10:18
#43
HA!
Tue, 2010-07-20 10:29
#44
It seems like there are a lot of people who feel like they are being attacked. Is this normal for babble discourse on WTC?
Tue, 2010-07-20 10:55
#45
Point missed, yet again.
Tue, 2010-07-20 11:07
#46
And that's understandable. They will be thinking along the same lines that we do and something like, I've made up my mind, and there are experts to back me up.
I agree, Fidel. This has been the attitude. I don't understand how it can continue to be however, at least here on Babble, when we have, imo, now shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the working hypothesis has never worked. So many of the Babbler naysayers pride themselves on their understanding of science, and insist on arguments based on science -- except in this one case, where they're willing to believe in child-like explanations, and follow the great inertia of ignorance that exists here in North America (and probably many other places) about it, rather than look with simple, open eyes at it. It's not difficult.
The other interesting thing to have discovered here is that this trust in "science" by so many Babblers seems to be somewhat blind, as many of the Babblers have not actually been able to engage the "science" of the hypothesis they defend. I don't know whether this is because they think they can't, or because they haven't tried, or because, as I suspect, they've never actually examined it, but it was illuminating to see how many here who say the "truther" objections are not based on science have been unable to show this. It suggests, as have other topics here, a faith in an officially endorsed science without examination. This is a very frightening discovery, as it suggests not an educated public, but one that simply takes in whatever is propagated officially.
This is also why a focus on science without a similar focus on humanities can be extremely dangerous.
Tue, 2010-07-20 11:13
#47
Then it must have been a refreshing change when I actually did the math and examined the science behind the 9/11 collapse.
Tue, 2010-07-20 11:25
#48
I agree, Fidel. This has been the attitude. I don't understand how it can continue to be however, at least here on Babble, when we have, imo, now shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the working hypothesis has never worked.
Yes, you keep saying this. As I have been pointing out, others do not agree that you have proven anything beyond a reasonable doubt. If indeed you actually believe you have proven this beyond a reasonable doubt, why do you continue to engage in the debate? If you mind is made up, how can you possibly and honestly engage those who do not agree that you've so conclusively settled the issue?
This is you, declaring victory, yet again. It seems premature, considering that people have been asking you to show how it is you've proven this 'beyond a reasonable doubt', and your answer is to merely make the claim again.
Tue, 2010-07-20 11:26
#49
Then it must have been a refreshing change when I actually did the math and examined the science behind the 9/11 collapse.
Maybe you could explain Garcia's duration of collapse again. Because it went right over my head last time.
Tue, 2010-07-20 11:27
#50
Then it must have been a refreshing change when I actually did the math and examined the science behind the 9/11 collapse.
Ah yes. Perhaps Jas and Fidel are simply walking down memory lane together, and not actually referring to the current substantive (not meta) discussions. Although the troublesome claims of victory seem to be carried over into the present...?
Tue, 2010-07-20 11:28
#51
Then it must have been a refreshing change when I actually did the math and examined the science behind the 9/11 collapse.Maybe you could explain Garcia's duration of collapse again. Because it went right over my head last time.
This particular thread is massively cluttered with discussions about discussions...a substantive thread absent the peanut gallery (myself included) might be the best place to engage this...